The Sylvan strikes debate considered the following motion:
This house supports legal minimum service levels for critical services.
The debate took place on Monday, 5th December. Adam Smith proposed the motion and David Kerry opposed it.
The proposition arguing for legal minimum service levels during strikes
The proposer pointed out that this debate could represent life and death, considering strikes in healthcare, fire, police etc. Can doctors save lives during strikes? Even during the pandemic, busses, the underground and trains ran. The cost of living has gone up, including for instance petrol to commute to work. Dock workers have a critical job for the economy, to handle all those Christmas presents. Immigration staff may strike, affecting refugees. If a worker doesn’t turn up, can you sack them? Nursery care workers could affect a much broader set of employees. Fire service response time could increase.
We should have minimum service levels, because strikes have knock-on effects. They take many people out of the economy. There were 2.1 million A&E visits last month. As of 2021, 23.1% of workers belong to a union. They gain benefits such as collective bargaining, healthcare and fair and equitable pay. I agree with all of that. Yet this minority, through strikes, negatively affect the rest of the workers. If we let the minority wreck the majority, it will risk people’s lives during industrial disputes.
The opposition against the strikes debate motion
The opposer framed the proposer’s argument in terms of taking away the right of workers to strike. Which services are critical – it is difficult to determine, for instance front line versus back office. Legal minimum service levels mainly apply to the rail industry. The media claim that train drivers already have high pay. Nursing and midwifery face higher turnover than last year due to covid, and received a 4.75% raise, well below inflation. Ambulance drivers have had a tough time. Rail strikes continue – drivers offered a 4% raise, but with changes to working conditions, including weekends and overtime. ‘There is no money’ for cost of living increases. Yet train companies have made significant profits, for example First Group a £227 million profit with the CEO making £840k.
The government’s has responded to this winder of discontent by proposing minimum service levels. This sounds okay at face value. In the NHS, not all staff can strike. Firefighters will turn out in case of a fire, and they have backup plans. Local authorities have business continuity plans. On the rails, strike days represent the only certainty about train timings. The government is attempting to reduce the right to strike, with rail the first target. ‘You can just leave and work somewhere else’. Yes, but that leads to staffing shortages.
Floor speeches from the audience of the strikes debate
Floor speakers considered the topic from a number of perspectives. The doctors’ strike came from love for the profession, anger and general desperation at conditions that had gone too far. Strikes are extreme, and can’t be ignored, so they work. Retraining can provide a better path for higher income, particularly when we treat front-line workers so poorly. Strikes usually provide minimum service levels anyway. This would erode the right to strike of people at the centre of society. Who would set the minimum service levels, and who would fulfill them? Politics play a role, with union bosses jockeying with the party currently in power. Funding comes from general tax – we should have the right to withhold taxes. The pressures of inflation lead to battles of economic power between labour and capital or political power. Improving working conditions implies significant costs beyond the direct cost of wages.
We care about people, and need to keep them healthy and happy. Instead of withholding taxes, we can vote MPs in and out. Tram drivers make £50-60,000 per year, have a tedious job and safeguard thousands of lives. People strike only if desperate. Unfair to remove the right to strike, workers run the country, and they should be rewarded highly. Nurses have debt from their degrees and low pay, putting them between a rock and a hard place, we should pay more. The police cannot strike contractually, though tacitly they know they will have relatively high pay. If we put in place minimum service levels, strikes could descend into riots such as in Europe. Strike organisers and opponents ramp up public emotions, and relative marketing power matters. The government turns one worker against another – doctors travelling to work by train. We drive up NHS queues by not taking care of ourselves, we are the fattest and drink the most. We should be less selfish and look after ourselves.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer reiterated workers care for their professions and the focus of many strikes on conditions, not pay. The government needs to sort this out, not play political games. Critical services represent too broad of a swathe of the economy. We should pay nurses appropriately, cut vanity projects and tax bankers. We need to re-evaluate what we are willing to pay for and reduce bad management. Some services are critical and we need minimum standards, but we don’t need this defined industry by industry. We need fewer strikes by paying workers properly.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer clearly supported workers’ right to strike, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. There needs to be a balance of power with between labour and management. Striking is not the nuclear option – leaving is nuclear. If you plan your spending and save carefully, you can make your income go farther. Nurses should have free training, and everyone should get fair pay. The Trade Union Congress funds Labour, and agreed coordinated strikes across sectors. Critical life saving sectors should run during strikes. Doctors and nurses need to conduct critical operations. Will all of this lead to a slippery slope? No, we have the ECHR. Agency workers can take the place of strikers. We can raise taxes to pay for salaries. If you want to have your life saved, vote yes, and if you want to get to work.
Result: in close final vote, the strikes debate motion did not carry
The Sylvans concluded through the strikes debate that we should not have minimum service levels for critical services during strikes.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.
