Using strikes to change policy is wrong

***

I had planned to pen a little rant about the iniquities of the assorted teacher trade unions who - as it their Easter wont - are threatening all kinds of dire consequences should the government not do what they say. All the familiar public sector union buzz words are featured - "cuts", "privatisation", "overwork", "under pay" - plus a selection of moans specific to the education industry such as SATs and training.

But instead I want to meander around a rather important issue - the point at which trade unions overstep their proper role of representing members and stray into the running of overtly political campaigns directed at changing policy. Now this latter role is - if members ordain - a proper role for the union. Clearly those who work in a given industry and especially one predominantly government directed have a legitimate (and often informed) voice that trade unions can direct. So the NUT are quite entitled to argue for the abolition of SATs, for a wholly state-managed education system and for the compulsory teaching of Marxism if that is the wish of its members. But they are not entitled - in my judgment - to support such arguments with the threat of industrial action.

Nor is it right for trade unions - whether mandated by their members or not - to seek to prevent others, through private adventure from challenging the current status quo. The stifling of competition has been a theme in trade union activism across time - ironic in the case of the very competitive world of teacher trade unions!

What is clear is that the public sector unions are lining up a series of oppositional positions ahead of a possible Conservative government. And, given the radical nature of Conservative proposals in education, the teaching unions are at the forefront in developing this opposition. However, to propose industrial action because someone else - in line with Government policies - has set up a competing school outside the cuddly local authority sphere should be a matter of concern. And - as an overt political act - such action should not be taken.

There is a big difference between lobbying for policy change - a quite legitimate act - and using industrial power to achieve policy change - which is illegitimate.

....