Reading time: three minutes

With the influx of industrial strike action among various sectors, the UK government is set to introduce new anti-strike legislation. The proposed legislation is called the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.

The bill would grant the secretary of state the power to make “minimum service regulations”. This would set the minimum service levels required by workers during strikes within the following six sectors:

• health services;
• fire and rescue services;
• education services;
• transport services;
• nuclear decommissioning sector; and
• border security.

These regulations would allow employers to issue a ‘work notice’ to employees that states the hours that workers would be required to work during a strike or risk forfeiting their employment rights such as legal protection against unfair dismissal. 

Are anti-strike laws effective?

The effectiveness of anti-strike laws can depend on their specification and their implementation. Generally, laws that make it more difficult for workers to strike may decrease the frequency of strikes. However, they can also lead to increased tension between workers and employers and may not address the underlying issues that led to the strikes in the first place.

Equally, anti-strike laws may not be effective in preventing strikes in essential services, as workers in these sectors could be more likely to engage in other forms of industrial action or may decide to strike regardless of the proposed legislation.

Are anti-strike laws compatible with human rights laws?

Anti-strike laws can be seen as a restriction of workers’ rights to organise and take collective action, which is a fundamental right in the UK. 

However, it’s important to note that the right to strike isn’t an absolute right and can be subject to certain limitations. These limitations should be prescribed by law and must be necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others, or for the protection of national security, public safety, or public health.

There must be a consideration of how to balance the right to strike with:

• the right to work;
• public interest; and
• the need to protect essential services.

Anti-strike laws that are overly restrictive or disproportionately limit the right to strike may be considered incompatible with human rights law.

The reaction to the government’s proposed anti-strike legislation

The proposed legislation has already sparked much public debate. While some are likely to view the government’s plans as a way to maintain stability and protect the economy, others will see it as a violation of workers’ rights.

Some have described the proposed legislation as “insulting” and the UK government has been accused of failing to negotiate or engage with strikers’ arguments. It’s been warned that the implementation of the bill could lead to more strikes and staff shortages in certain sectors. It’s also been described as unnecessary for others.

The government has received negative reactions to its proposed anti-strike laws and many agree with the former health secretary, arguing that the government should be trying to resolve the disputes with workers involved in strike action instead of removing their rights. For example, the former Conservative health secretary has warned that the UK government should be focusing on resolving the current dispute with NHS staff, instead of removing their right to withdraw their labour in a future dispute.