trade unions
‘A Keir Starmer Government Will Trigger a Revival of the Labour Left’
Owen Jones’ resignation from the Labour party and his proposal for a form of tactical voting to support Greens has brought the subject of the left’s relationship to the Labour Party to a very wide audience. A debate that is usually reserved for the pages of left journals, or among the left on social media, has received much wider attention.
Questions of whether the left should be in or out of Labour have been building for some time. From Jeremy Corbyn's suspension from the party, right through to Labour’s appalling position on Gaza, anger and disaffection has deepened. In some quarters there are arguments against any kind of Labour vote at all, although this is not what Jones himself has said.
Yet while the debate is real, the other side of the discussion is the unarguable fact that Labour is ahead in the polls and will likely form the next Government.
There is no groundswell of warmth and support for the Labour leader. Rejection of the Conservatives, rather than untrammelled enthusiasm for Labour, is driving Labour’s huge poll leads. Straightforward class instinct leads millions of people to reject the Conservatives, who are now widely and deeply disliked. For many, Labour is the only available mechanism to remove the Conservative party from government.
Even if there proves to be a degree of fragmentation in sections of the Labour vote, leading to some independents and Greens winning seats, the overall line of march is towards a Starmer Government. But until that happens, politics in Britain is in a long intermission in which everyone knows the Conservatives are going to lose and the only question is when and by how much.
This impasse in British society is also reflected in the politics of the labour movement.
One principal exception to the impasse is the dynamic pro-Palestine mobilisation against Israel’s killing in Gaza, which has reshaped the politics of protest on a sustained basis.
For now though, with the election in abeyance, we are at peak Starmer. The Labour leadership dominates the party’s central apparatus, which it has used to clamp down on debate, block candidates for selection and withdraw the whip from left-wing MPs. Policy formation has excluded major spending commitments, and thereby debate about the economy outside Rachel Reeves’ 'Securonomics' framework. Even on that narrow basis Labour voluntarily reined itself in further, gutting its own Green Prosperity Plan. But as long as Labour is in opposition there is a tendency to give the party the benefit of the doubt. Some of the more breathless responses to Reeves’ Mais lecture are an example of that.
Labour’s proposed supply-side reforms as a precursor to growth are not a sufficient platform to cope with either the immediate spending pressures built up over years of austerity, nor with the major challenge of the climate crisis. Labour’s plans are reliant on increased private investment whereas public investment is woefully low. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the average OECD country invests nearly 50% more than the UK. Stagnant wages and the attack on disposable household income amount to a massive bottle neck of pressure for higher living standards and improved pay. Many local councils are in crisis. Once in power a Labour Government will face a tension between tight spending, self-imposed rejection of a variety of higher tax options, and the pent-up problems of immediate living standards. What Labour proposes is not equal to the scale of the task it will inherit.
But while there is a mismatch between the needs of the population and the solutions on offer, the real argument about that is not going to move beyond its current terms in any fundamental manner until the blockage of the general election is out of the way. Thus however contradictory it may seem, the formation of a Labour government under the politics of the Starmer leadership is now an essential step in breaking down the dominance of those politics within the labour movement and wider population.
Since Starmer is a leader pursuing a right-wing Labour course it is necessary for that course to first be exposed to the reality of its limitations in office, so his programme and its weaknesses can seen by the largest number of people for what they are.
Until Labour is in office Starmer will continue to be the beneficiary of anti-Conservative sentiment and will receive benefit of the doubt, including within Labour’s own base. Testing the Labour right’s agenda against the realities of power will move the political discourse on from the impasse and the question of getting a Labour government, and onto concrete questions of what the Government should do over living standards, public services and inequality.
Of course this being a Labour Government in waiting, there will still be differences with the Conservatives even under self-imposed constraints. Measures such as the New Deal for Working People, the extension of public ownership for the railways, and some of the remaining green agenda are bound to be opposed within and without the next Government. Figures such as Peter Mandelson, who have sought to water down elements of Labour’s programme, will continue to do so.
But it would be wrong for the left to draw the conclusion that these policies in themselves are sufficient justification for Labour’s otherwise limited package. In its totality the Labour leadership’s trajectory is wholly inadequate to the scale of the problems faced by a majority of the population, and will place the Labour Government in deep contradiction with the needs of working class people. At the same time, a renewed Labour Atlanticism, on display most obviously over Gaza, is bound to draw continued opposition.
We do not have to wait to see what opposition to Labour’s foreign policy means. Mass mobilisation over Gaza and the pro-Palestine movement has completely shaken up a sense that the Labour leadership is impervious to any opposition. The new politics under a Labour Government will not only be fought through the institutions of the labour movement, but also on the streets. A new left politics under a Labour Government will also raise questions about the degree to which the left and the unions are able to work more closely with each other. An inability to do so would give the Labour right more room to manoeuvre than it would otherwise enjoy.
The right of the party knows full well that once in office it will face pressure to go further, or alter course altogether, which is one of the principal reasons for its efforts to immunise the parliamentary party from the left. As the limits of the Labour Government’s programme are tested so there is every likelihood of a radicalisation among at least some sections of society on both domestic and international agendas.
For all the efforts of the leadership of the Labour party to protect itself from this, some elements of that political radicalisation will work their way through Labour and the unions, including those affiliated with the Labour Party. Other movements will be entirely distinct or new.
As the formation of a Labour Government under Starmer brings the present impasse to an end, the tensions at the heart of its project will be laid bare. When that happens, the conditions for the left to rise again will be formed.
The Funding Crisis in Schools is Reaching Catastrophic Levels
The heads of a school in the East Midlands have written to parents to explain they don't have enough money to give their children the education they expect.
Leicestershire School Heads detailed the challenges 14 years of inadequate Government funding and sustained high inflation on increasing costs was having, telling parents "none of these changes have the interests of our children at the heart of them and all are detrimental to their educational experience".
"Sadly there is no way our school, like many others, can continue as it is," the letter continued.
The Heads also voiced their concerns that quality of education will not be maintained in the medium term due to the chronic shortage of qualified teachers. The Head of Brookvale Groby Learning Campus (BGLC) included a second, more detailed, letter detailing the challenges school leaders face.
It states that for the first time, BGLC is facing an in-year deficit of nearly £500,000 with the most significant factor being unfunded and partially funded pay rises amounting to almost £400,000. Other issues include inflationary pressures on goods, spiking utility costs with the electricity bill being over £32,000 a month, daily cover rates for supply teachers rising with fewer qualified teachers in the system, and a significant increase in unqualified instructors.
This follows years without any significant additional pupil funding; even Covid pandemic catch up grants have ended.
The Head sets out the very tough decisions he has discussed with other leaders locally and nationally, saying “the outlook is bleak financially for education…the following outcomes are very likely.”
The letter pleads with parents to raise concerns with local political candidates about the “relentless recruitment and retention crisis for teachers and support staff”, the lack of funding for SEND (special educational needs and disability) and the budget deficits they face as they try to manage students with more complex needs. It also urges them to raise the need to address the reduction and underfunding of external agencies to support the most vulnerable students and the mental health crisis in young people with long waiting lists for help.
“Students only get one chance at education, we owe it to them to make sure that their chance is top of everyone's agenda," the letter concludes.
Robin Bevan, Headteacher of Southend High School for Boys, a grammar school, and former president of the National Education Union (NEU) broke down the financial crises state schools are facing in 2025 to Byline Times, explaining: “You can analyse it in three ways.
“(1) individual school case studies, with examples where to 'balance the books' during next year and 25/26, schools will need to make 30+ redundancies (i.e. cease to operate)
(2) looking at funding rates (such as the School Cuts website) which illuminate the 10%+ decline in real terms
(3) examining the rate at which reserves are being 'burned through' to support revenue expenditure: which would suggest 1/3 of schools will run out of cash in the next 18 months
He added: “The shortfall on-premises maintenance is shocking too: I now have a backlog of capital repairs in excess of £750k.”
The staffing crisis in education is set to worsen over the next few years with the Department for Education's 2023 data release showing that 39,930 teachers left teaching for reasons other than retirement in the previous academic year representing 8.8% of the workforce. It was the highest number since records began in 2010.
The latest Initial Teacher Training (ITT) census statistics show the Government has missed its target for secondary teacher recruitment by 50% this year and also missed the primary target by 4%. The secondary school target has been missed in ten out of the last eleven years.
The target for recruitment to teacher training for both primary and secondary was missed by 38%. This continues a sustained downward trend in applications over several years, with 26,955 new entrants to ITT in 2023-24 compared to 40,377 in 2020-21.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the ASCL school leaders’ union, has said the “catastrophic shortfall in postgraduate trainee teacher recruitment has plumbed new depths”, and “is simply not sufficient to meet the needs of the education system, and we then lose far too many early in their careers.”
Physics is the worst-affected subject, with just 17% of the target reached this year. In mathematics, 63% of the required teachers were recruited, down from 88% last year, which calls into question the viability of Rishi Sunak's proposals to make mathematics compulsory up to the age of 18.
The English target was missed by 74%, and the proportion of the chemistry target met fell from 83% to 65%. Drama dropped from 111% to 79%, art and design halved from 88% to 44%, religious education went from 75% to 44%, and music fell from 62% to 27%.
Only three subjects were recruited above the target number of trainee teachers, classics 196%, PE 181% and history 119%.
Per-pupil funding is due to rise by 1.9% next year and according to Education Secretary Gillian Keegan, the School Teachers Review Body tasked with making pay recommendations has been instructed to consider the “impact of pay rises on schools’ budgets.”
Based on these indicators, the education unions believe the pay award will be between 1% and 2% leading the NEU and NASUWT to begin consulting members for potential industrial action.
Cost of Living Charity Fired its Staff After They Tried to Unionise
A debt advice charity helping people survive the cost of living crisis has laid off its frontline staff after a fight over their attempts to unionise in protest at poor pay and conditions.
Byline Times understands the dismissals went through on Friday 8 March, meaning the affected employees, including several female staff, lost their jobs on International Women’s Day.
Those spoken to were now concerned about how they were going to make ends meet themselves after suddenly losing their jobs.
Rooted Finance is an East London debt support charity – supported by the Mayor of London and national food bank charity The Trussell Trust – which claims it offers “respect, choice and agency” to those dealing with debt and financial hardship.
In December last year, all of its frontline advisors, dealing with alleged low pay, a lack of training and poor working conditions, chose to join the IWGB trade union and submit a request for union recognition. They also submitted a letter of grievance outlining their concerns to management.
After a period of no response, eventually the frontline team was invited into a group meeting with Rooted Finance’s chief executive Muna Yassin.
Multiple union organisers told Byline Times that during the meeting Yassin began shouting at staff over their decision to try and form a union.
After the meeting and their refusal to retract their request for union recognition, staff claim they were then scheduled into 1-to-1 meetings with management “every day for four days in a row”.
“We made it clear we saw it as intimidation,” as one member explained it. "We saw it as a situation where individual union members would be interrogated about that choice to join the union by multiple members of management.”
The group chose not to attend the 1-to-1 meetings and spent a day working from home in protest at the alleged “intimidation” they were facing at the office.
As a result, afterwards they were called into formal disciplinaries, and eventually fired.
That same day an interview with Yassin was posted by the Mayor's Fund for London, in which she talks about the women that inspire her and expresses her dedication to "financial equality" and the ideal that "financial freedom is a social justice issue".
“One of the reasons why I initially wanted to work for Rooted Finance was I thought they were one of the good guys and I’d be able to help people and make a change,” says Joseph Larkin, one of the main organisers who lost their job in the firings.
“It’s really upsetting that they claim to be an economic justice charity, and then they treat union members in this disgusting way.”
“Lots of us have rent to pay, lots of us have families and relatives we need to support,” he added. “We're devastated by this.”
“Muna [Yassin] is putting us in this position just for asking for more money for our work during the cost of living crisis, better training so we can support our clients better and more work from home days.”
Those Byline Times spoke to also expressed serious concerns about the impact the sudden dismissals would have on the vulnerable clients they were supporting.
One affected staffer said the move went through so suddenly that he lost access to his laptop midway through working on support for a client.
In a statement sent to Byline Times, Yassin claimed that client services at the charity were “unaffected” by the move, and disputed parts of the testimonies put forward by former employees but could not comment further as it was “an ongoing legal situation”.
Yassin claimed that the charity had been “bullied by aggressive and unlawful tactics” employed by the IWGB union and that they “respect all members of our team and take their treatment and wellbeing very seriously”.
"Any action Rooted Finance has taken is in relation to the employees’ conduct under their individual employment contracts, not union activity, and they have the right to appeal the action, as is the option open to them in employment legislation", she added.
E.P. Thompson and why class remains an important organising framework
I have been travelling for most of today so I have to keep this post short. Well shorter than usual. Edward Palmer Thompson – who died at the age of 69 in 1993, was a British writer who wrote the exceptional book – The Making of the English Working Class – which was a very…
Strikes by Ambulance and Border Force Staff now ‘Effectively Banned’ After Minimum Service Levels Pass By Government Diktat
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Legislation which came into force today has essentially banned strike action by ambulance staff and those working on border enforcement, according to a new briefing.
Ahead of the TUC’s Special Congress this Saturday, the Institute of Employment Rights (IER), alongside the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom (CTUF), Professor Keith Ewing and Lord John Hendy KC have analysed the worrying implications of the new anti-strikes Minimum Service Levels legislation.
Professor Ewing and Lord Hendy, President and Chair of the IER respectively, are long-standing and well-respected experts in the field of employment rights and labour law and have written extensively on the new anti-trade union legislation.
When workers now vote to strike in the health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning sectors, they could be forced to attend work by order of a ‘work notice’ - and potentially be sacked if they don’t comply. The legislation allows for unions who do not comply to be sued, up to a maximum of £1 million.
Don't miss a story
Sign up to the Behind the Headlines newsletter (and get a free copy of Byline Times in the post)
Hardest hit so far are ambulance and border force staff. The briefing states that in health, the minimum service level demands that emergency calls are answered , ‘triaged’, and responded to “in respect of conditions which are life-threatening or require clinical assistance at the scene or transport to a healthcare facility” - at a level they “would be if the strike were not taking place on that day”.
The authors note: “It is not possible to read this as anything other than requiring normal service on strike days. Hence these ambulance and patient-transport workers are effectively banned from taking strike action.”
And in border security (which includes passport services), the examination of people and goods coming in or going out of the UK, the patrol of ports and coastal waters, as well as the collection and dissemination of intelligence, are required on a strike day to be “no less effective than they would be if the strike were not taking place on that day”.
“Again, this can only be seen as a virtually total ban on these workers’ right to strike,” the IER report states.
EXCLUSIVE
The change means parties will now be allowed to spend over £30m in order to win a General Election
Josiah Mortimer
The government estimates that only 70-75% of Border Force would be required to provide this service, although the figure is higher for smaller ports and airports where staffing levels are lower. “Depriving 70% of the workforce of the right to strike appears to be serious enough to us,” the authors write.
The minimum service levels both for passenger rail services demands “the equivalent of 40% of the timetabled services during the strike” should be able to run.
“The effect will be that those required to work the 40% service will lose their right to strike,” according to the IER. The total staffing numbers are “likely to be well in excess of 40% of normal staffing” due to the need for additional staff to cope with the danger of overcrowding on platforms under a reduced service, and “because it will often be the case that the complement of staff required for a 40% service may, in any event, not be much short of that required for a 100% service.”
For those in ‘infrastructure’ rail roles, such as signalling, “staff on the relevant routes can only strike after ten o’clock at night and before six the next day.”
Strike-hit employers are not obliged to serve a work notice (outlining which staff must come to work during a strike).
Many unions are seeking agreement with employers that they will not do so, something the Scottish government has committed to.
However, these public bodies potentially face being pursued in the courts by service users who demand that minimum service levels set out in law are met,
The legislation only applies to strikes, not ‘action short of a strike’ – such as overtime-bans.
This means unions may choose to engage in disruptive ‘action short of a strike’, which could be more disruptive in the long run than one or two day strikes.
Westminster Attacks on Workers’ Rights Sees UK’s Global Rating Tumble
Thousands of workers face being sacked for not crossing their own picket lines if new Westminster legislation passes
Josiah Mortimer
The government’s own Impact Assessment on the new law points out that ‘the issuing of work notices would be challenging and time-consuming’ due to the need for consultation with unions. Union officials are not immune from work orders, meaning reps will be forced to cross the very picket lines they organised.
And individual employees named in a work notice must - unless sick or on leave - work during the strike. If they do not work, the Act removes their automatic protection from unfair dismissal. In other words, they can be summarily fired.
The briefing continues: “From the union’s perspective, once served with a work notice the Act requires it ‘to take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union who are identified in the work notice comply with the notice.’ This is a heavy administrative burden, which is potentially incapable of fulfilment…
“The union will receive a list of names of the workers who are required to work, a list which will include both members and non-members, as well as workers who are members of other unions. In the case of a big strike the list may include thousands of workers. Sifting these lists for members will be a formidable administrative task to be performed in a very short time.”
There is also new guidance on picketing with major ramifications for union freedoms. “In a national rail strike involving tens of thousands of workers and hundreds of picket lines, a single picket supervisor who can be shown to have failed to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that picketers avoid, so far as reasonably practicable, trying to persuade members who are identified on the work notice not to cross the picket line may cause the membership nationally to be deprived of the right to strike.”
Failure to take the reasonable steps outlined in the Code of Practice to ensure that its members comply with a work notice means the whole strike becomes unlawful. In other words, one picketer could collapse a national dispute.
Union may be sued for an injunction to stop the strike and damages (up to £1,000,000 for the biggest unions) for any ensuing loss if the strike is deemed unlawful.
“Failure to comply with an injunction may result in proceedings by the employer for contempt of court with sanctions including fines (and theoretically, imprisonment) and, ultimately, sequestration (seizure) of the union’s assets.
“And if the strike becomes unlawful because the union fails to take these reasonable steps, all strikers (not just those specified in a work notice) will then cease to have automatic unfair-dismissal protection,” the briefing adds.
EXCLUSIVE
Workers ‘Will Find a Way’ Around New Conservative Anti-Strike Laws – Including by Pulling ‘Sickies’
Former TUC General Secretary says the “ingenuity of working people” will prevail over anti-union legislation.
Josiah Mortimer
The authors conclude: “Never before have our unions been obliged to act as enforcers on behalf of employers and the State, as is now required by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023…
“[Unions will] be considering other ways of exerting industrial pressure, for example by taking forms of industrial action other than strikes. Industrial action is unlikely to decline, but its form may radically change as a result of this Act.”
Commenting on the new rail strike limits, transport minister Lord Davies told the Lords this week: “Tackling strikes in transport was a 2019 manifesto commitment. As we are seeing now, when the rail trade unions choose to strike, people, including doctors, nurses and teachers, experience disruption in accessing their places of work, schools and vital medical appointments. In some cases, they are unable to travel at all.”
Kevin Hollinrake, Minister for Enterprise, Markets, and Small Business, added in the new Code of Conduct: “The Government is focused on making the hard but necessary long-term decisions to deliver the change that the country needs to put the UK on the right path for the future. That is why earlier this year, Parliament passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The Act seeks to balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public to go about their daily lives, including getting to work and accessing key services.”
It is rare for the TUC to convene the whole trade union movement for a special Congress outside of the TUC’s annual Congress event, which takes place in September.
A special Congress last took place over 40 years ago in 1982, to fight Margaret Thatcher’s anti-union legislation. The TUC have talked about the fact that these are exceptional circumstances given the “unprecedented attack on the right to strike”.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Workers Face the Sack if They Don’t Cross Their Own Picket Lines. What Kind of Country is This?
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
The title makes it seem deeply boring and minor: “Minimum Service Levels: Code of Practice on reasonable steps”. But the document released by the Government today represents the biggest state imposition on independent trade unions in decades.
Six sectors of public services in Britain - some of them privatised - will in the next month or so be subject to Minimum Service Levels. The list covers health services, fire and rescue services, education, transport, nuclear decommissioning, and border security.
What this means in practice is that when workers vote to strike in these sectors from now on, a significant proportion of them will be forced to come in - even if they voted to strike - or face the sack.
For most sectors so far - including transport and education - that figure is 40%. The Trades Union Congress estimates that five million workers are now affected by the workers’ rights clampdown, with many told to cross their own picket lines even if they vote to strike. They've branded the law a 'dog's dinner' that will drag out disputes, and tie unions up in more red tape.
What makes the legislation particularly offensive is that unions will be forced to tell their members to come in to work if their employer demands it, during strike action, to meet the new minimum staffing levels. Bearing in mind that strikes often concern the dire understaffing of many public services today, it is viewed by many as a slap in the face. Or rather, being made to slap their own faces.
Don't miss a story
The new Code of Practice is a convoluted mess which requires unions to instruct their members to defy strike actions they democratically voted for - making a drastic shift in the government's approach to industrial relations.
Unions must now navigate a complex web of requirements, pushing them to act against their members' interests and their own principles. Members will be told to break their own strikes, or face the sack. Unions will be told to break their own strikes, or face hefty fines.
Imagine the scenario: NHS workers, having voted to strike, are then told by their union to turn up for work. Many stand firm in their convictions and refuse to cross the picket line. Others might simply call in sick.
In this very likely scenario, they risk termination of employment without any legal protection.
In this environment, the likelihood of resolving disputes quickly and amicably dwindles rapidly.
Unions face another burden - being told to appoint supervisors at every picket line: another layer of bureaucracy to an already strained system. These supervisors are expected to enforce the crossing of picket lines by workers who’ve been told to come in.
BREAKING
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Sunak’s appointment of the disgraced former Prime Minister gives the lie to his claims to be restoring accountability to Government, writes Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Union officials will have to be condemned by their own unions, or face legal action, for encouraging strike participation by those workers who face orders to come in.
This directive - deliberately, not doubt - will sow division within unions. But it also erodes the very purpose of picketing, to present a united front against perceived injustices, to counterbalance bosses’ power with workers’ voices.
The past decade has seen a raft of anti-union measures passed. The Lobbying (or Gagging) Act restricted their influence in politics. Anti-protest laws have clamped down on their ability to protest. And ministers tried to allow agency workers to break strikes - a move that was recently overturned by the courts, having been rushed through with little consultation.
Minimum service levels will not lead to better public services. Instead, they’ll toxify already strained industrial relations.
The new Code provides a ‘helpful’ draft letter - written by Government - for unions to send to their members, instructing them to break their strikes.
Where are the so-called Conservative libertarians? As usual when it comes to issues of dissent, the protection of a free civil society, they are silent. They prefer to talk about privatisation instead.
Unions will resist this to the fullest extent possible, and rightly so. The TUC has announced a dedicated Congress to discuss the next stage of campaigning against the anti-strike laws, on December 9.
Labour, for its part, has pledged to scrap Minimum Service Levels, a commitment unions will hold Sir Keir Starmer to. In the meantime, the Act will no doubt be hauled through the courts to face the question: when does a right become so eroded, it simply ceases to exist in practice?
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com