Govt does have a strategy for strikes
IT would be delusional for us to think that the Government does not already have a strategy to deal with strikes by public service workers.
As a minimum the Conservative Government would have searched through their annals to find the Ridley Report – (Economic Reconstruction Group), highlighted briefly in the TV series Sherwood, to see how the government of the day set out to deal with those opposed to the privatisation of the nationalised industries and in particular the unions in 1977.
The report on the nationalised industries set out a strategy to overcome inefficient and uncompetitive industries that either did not know what their individual unit costs of operation were or would not divulge those details to Parliament.
The solution was to place the industries into the private sector, fragmentise the sectors e.g. NHS and rail to name two so that the loss makers could be determined and shut down and the others sold off. Not only were the industries firmly institutionalised as part of a way of life but there were very large union and political lobbies wanting to keep the industries as they were. The Ridley Report set out for the Conservative Government the means to defeat those that oppose privatisation.
The first step to privatisation was to introduce the “nasty little Bill” to destroy union monopolies in the public sector.
Opposition to privatisation was also high in the civil service and the report highlights those industries where the public vulnerability to strike was high for example: Category II – included rail where the public were vulnerable if strikes lasted four weeks, dustmen – ten.
The strategy in countering the threat of action was to pay higher wage rate than the going rate for an increase in productivity which would not be apparent to unions, provoke a battle where the Government could win for example the railways, and stock pile resources to counter long-term strikes such as coal.
The greater deterrent to any strike was to cut off the supply of money to strikers including welfare payments; prepare to deal with the problem of violent pickets and recruit non-union personnel to cross picket lines.
Some strategies we are currently hearing about in the media today.
It will come as no surprise having read the report that the Government will use some of these tactics as were used in I977 and it is unlikely that in the rail strike the Government is not in some way involved in a dispute be it in rail or other the public sectors.
Richard Cox, Derby