Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Plans to restrict trade union work 'risk serious consequences' for staff

  • 4 Comments

Government proposed rules that are expected to restrict and reduce trade union duties in the workplace could have “serious consequences” for staff productivity and morale in the NHS, unions have warned.

They said the Trade Union Bill could result in more unresolved disputes in the NHS over issues such as pay and pensions and would damage employment relations if it were to go ahead.

The bill introduces a raft of changes, including those which will make it harder to strike  - due to a proposed 50% turnout, plus a requirement for at least a 40% majority of those in favour of going on strike. 

“When the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing the positive impact of union representation risks having a significant impact on patient safety”

Janet Davies

In addition, it proposes rules for capping the amount of time employees can spend carrying out trade union work, known as “facility time”.

The Royal College of Nursing said this proposal was based on an incorrect assumption that there were too many union representatives in the public sector and could have “serious consequences” for staff.

Janet Davies, chief executive and general secretary of the RCN, said: “Aside from the financial cost of high staff turnover, when the NHS is already struggling to recruit and retain enough staff, removing the positive impact of union representation risks having a significant impact on patient safety.”

“The health service can ill-afford further damage to staff morale, or to squander even more money on recruitment costs. The trade union bill is bad for staff, employers and most importantly it is bad for patients,” she added.

The rules would not save public money as the government intended, added the union, but could instead cost the NHS more due to potentially higher rates of staff turnover.

Independent research commissioned by the RCN found staff turnover in organisations without union representatives was three times higher than in those with union representatives.

Janet Davies

Janet Davies

The analysis found that work carried out by trade union representatives in NHS organisations was estimated to be saving the health service at least £100 million a year – which equates to an annual £1 million saving for a  large teaching hospital.

The research – carried out by City University’s Cass Business School in London and the University of Warwick –  also found that in public sector healthcare organisations trade union officials covered more staff than those in the private sector. This suggested there work was more cost effective.

Meanwhile, the Royal College of Midwives said the bill would “fundamentally damage employment relations” and called for it to be rethought.

In its response to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ consultation on the bill it criticised the proposal to remove the ban on employing agency workers to cover the duties of striking workers.

“We believe the Trade Union Bill will fundamentally damage employment relations and make it more difficult to resolve disputes”

Jon Skewes

It said this could create bad working relations between agency staff and NHS employees and could impact on safety due to agency staff being less familiar with local procedures.

The union also noted the government’s “extreme” new rules on picket lines, which it said would force trade unions to report protest plans to employers two weeks in advance.

RCM director of policy Jon Skewes, said: “We believe the Trade Union Bill will fundamentally damage employment relations and make it more difficult to resolve disputes.  Industrial action is a symptom of poor employment relations not the cause.”

He added: “By imposing unnecessary and disproportionate rules the government is attempting to paint striking workers as the villains.

“Politicians should be working to improve employment relations and helping both sides resolve the dispute before it gets to the stage of taking industrial action, rather than shifting the power balance and allowing one side to steamroller across the other.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, said: “Trade unions can play a constructive role in maintaining positive industrial relations.

“The changes we are proposing will improve transparency and increase taxpayers’ awareness of spending on facility time in the public sector, and will ensure that spending on facility time is transparent and proportionate.”

  • 4 Comments

Readers' comments (4)

  • The unions need to get savvy and use the internet similar to 38 degrees, use E petitions and get members involved, it may help if new union members were informed right at the start of their membership that they WILL be expected to play an active part and that the union cannot do everything!
    A mass action is needed to get governments to sit up and take notice.
    A vote should be given to all NHS employees to air their views re our service and employment and their confidence in the 'leaders' along the lines of that achieved by 38 degrees recently in gaining via the internet and E petitions a debate on Jeremy Hunt's capability in running the NHS!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This just is another part of the government's plan to draft healthcare workers into working for negligible amounts in a privatised NHS. Curtail the amount we can earn as agency workers because the free market should be rigged for bankers but interfered with when nurses are taking advantage of poor workforce planning despite a 14% loss in salary on average. Cut funding for key areas of the NHS and social care to make the system fail. Attack doctors pay to make it a '7 day NHS'. Tell public sector workers that they are unlikely to even get a 1% increase in pay this year. Oh and then take away their ability to strike so that they have no way out. Top it off with the 6 Cs and you've got MPs decrying us for failing to be committed if we ever do strike.

    You've got to admit it's a great way to ensure that Bupa/CareUK can keep their staffing costs down when the end finally comes. Privatised gains + socialised losses and a sprinkle of well placed lies = Conservative economic policy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the unions want more folk they can pay for it, NOT the taxpayers.
    Public Sector unions then kick the poor and vulnerable in the teeth by striking

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anthony Johnson

    Yeah what did the Unions ever do for us?! They just gave the poor and the vulnerable, which they represented, minimum notices, redundancy payments, the equal pay act, race relations act, sex discrimination act... what evil people!!!

    Striking is supposed to hit all parts of society, it is the deprivation of labour which is supposed to hit their employers and force them to the negotiating table. It is a last resort.

    And lets get real, we're not America. Their politics and society have been destroyed by corporations and billionaires rigging the system. Deregulation and lower taxes are what allow them to make massive profits whilst also wrecking the world economy. Britain is heading towards a similar system.

    If John Smith is really saying that he's against Unions and political parties being funded by the tax payer then he's saying he's for special interests rigging the system for their own benefit. Having an investment in trade unions makes them accountable. And giving that the unions represent the people, how can you say that they are a bad thing?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.