To Strike or Not to Strike: Workers in the United Kingdom Must Decide

By Ashton Holland

The ability for workers to strike has been an important right in the United Kingdom for decades.[1] Recently, this mechanism has been utilized to advocate for increased wages in the industrial sector as the United Kingdom battles double-digit inflation.[2] Despite this, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has pushed for preventing mass strikes by requiring a certain number of employees to work during a strike.[3] Sunak stated that it is important to “balance the freedom to strike with ‘the right of ordinary working people to go about their lives free from significant disruption.’”[4] This new law would command “minimum safety levels for fire, ambulance[,] [] rail services . . . health services, education[,] and border security.”[5] Those against the legislation believe that the United Kingdom is cracking down on workers’ right to strike and are violating democratic rights given to workers.[6] Moreover, it is believed that “[e]mployers would be able to sue union[s], and union members who were told to work under the minimum service requirement but refused to do so could be dismissed.”[7] Currently, it is unclear what exactly will unfold with the new legislation as it goes through Parliament, but there will likely be major ramifications regardless of the outcome surrounding the passage of the legislation. 

In response to the increased prevalence of strikes in the United Kingdom, the current Conservative Party leadership introduced legislation to amend the current legislation governing worker strikes.[8] The Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill aims to “[m]ake [a] provision about minimum service levels in connection with the taking by trade unions of strike action relating to transport services.”[9] The legislation’s main purpose is to “ensure that striking workers don’t put the public’s lives at risk and prevent people getting to work, accessing healthcare, and safely going about their day.”[10] United Kingdom officials have stated that they will communicate with the respective leadership for ambulance, fire, rail, and respective services to further understand the appropriate level to prevent disruption to these public departments.[11] Moreover, United Kingdom leadership believes that the legislation should have a major impact if required but expects the legislation to only be used in extreme situations.[12]

As the legislation gains traction in the United Kingdom’s Parliament, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill faces obstacles before it can be signed into law. Courtesy Unsplash.

Despite government officials’ positive assurances, many individuals involved in unions and the right to strike ideology are not sold on the new legislation. Opponents to the Transportation Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill believe that the legislation is against unions and that the legislation violates international law.[13] These individuals believe that the passage of the legislation may make strikes illegal, and that workers may be fired due to exercising their right to strike. This is not the only controversial point. The new legislation also contains provisions surrounding damages for failure to comply.[14] Moreover, the new legislation allows employers “to bring an injunction to prevent strike action or seek damages afterwards if trade unions do not comply.”[15]

Furthermore, the new legislation may violate international law that the United Kingdom has adopted. At present, the United Kingdom has signed treaties with several international organizations to show support for workers and their ability to organize.[16] These organizations, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, have authored legislation that is binding in United Kingdom law, which pose issues domestically and internationally.[17] Certain provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights legislation state that individuals “ha[ve] the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of [their] interests.”[18] Despite this, proponents of the legislation have stated that the new legislation allows for union rights to “be interfered with where necessary and where such interference can be justified.”[19] As the legislation gains traction in the United Kingdom’s Parliament, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill faces obstacles before it can be signed into law.

The Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will likely continue to see support from business leaders but will also face legal and public scrutiny from trade unions and employees. The proponents of this legislation argue that it will allow public services to continue functioning for all non-striking individuals and will allow them to continue their daily routine without interruption. The United Kingdom believes the legislation will only be implemented as necessary, rather than the measures impacting everyday life. Union leaders, however, see the new legislation as a mechanism to stifle negotiations.[20] To opponents, penalizing unions and workers for striking may lead to preventing or lowering the likelihood of worker strikes. Thus, unions in the United Kingdom will likely react negatively to this new legislation and will seek legal recourse. Altogether, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill poses multiple advantages and disadvantages concerning workers’ right to strike.

[1] Louis Holbrook, Challenging the Right to Strike: The UK Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, Oxford Hum. Rts. Hub (Jan. 9, 2023), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/challenging-the-right-to-strike-the-uk-transport-strikes-minimum-service-levels-bill/.

[2] Kylie MacLellan, UK Laws to Blunt Strikes Begin Journey Through Parliament, Reuters (Jan. 10, 2023, 9:59pm), https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/new-british-law-blunt-strikes-be-introduced-parliament-2023-01-10/.

[3] Thomas Scripps, UK Government Announces New Anti-Strike Laws for Education, Health, Transport, and Other Workers, World Socialist Web Site (Jan. 5, 2023), https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/01/05/gcuh-j05.html.

[4] Joshua Nevett, Lawyers Expect Court Challenge to Anti-Strike Laws, BBC (Jan. 6, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-64187224.

[5] Id.

[6] Scripps, supra note 3.

[7] Id.

[8] Phil McDuff, The Purpose of Rishi Sunak’s new Anti-Strike Laws is Obvious, Independent (Jan. 8, 2023, 7:25pm), https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rishi-sunak-anti-strike-laws-legislation-b2258074.html.

[9] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0168/220168.pdf

[10] Government Introduces Laws to Mitigate the Disruption of Strikes on the Public, Gov’t of the United Kingdom (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-introduces-laws-to-mitigate-the-disruption-of-strikes-on-the-public.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] We’ll be Scrutinising Government Plans as we Call for Safe Staffing Levels Year Round, Royal Coll. of Nursing (Jan. 5, 2023), https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-rcn-says-uk-government-plans-for-anti-strike-legislation-is-undemocratic-050123.; Holbrook, supra note 1.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Holbrook, supra note 1.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Nevett, supra note 4.

[20] Royal Coll. of Nursing, supra note 13.