Women's legal position in industrial action and workplace dispute resolution

Women Strike

Women on Strike in the UK: Legal Implications

Labor issues continue to be a major source of controversy and upset for millions of British citizens and for policy makers in London, not simply due to the practical problems that persist as part of the financial turmoil but also because labor laws and priorities in the legal system are not clearly defined or consistently enforced. While many laws are clearly defined for rights employees have on an individual basis and duties employers have to employees as a whole, when it comes to the coordinated efforts of groups of employees engaged in "industrial actions" such as organized labor strikes or walkouts the law I not entirely clear. It seems as though such actions are not actually illegal, but neither are such actions or workers that engage in them explicitly protected by any existing laws of the land.

For women especially, the decision to take a stand as part of an organized labor movement can be quite difficult without knowing what legal standing is available in such circumstances. As sexism still exists in the workplace regardless of laws put in place meant to curtail such prejudice, fears of retaliation and other negative consequences for taking concerted action with other employees in response to workplace problems can prevent many women from helping to instigate, organize, or even simply participate in strikes and other industrial actions. Understanding the legal position women employed in the United Kingdom are in, as well as how the law views and treats industrial actions such as strikes and other work stoppages, is essential in promoting a more fair and equal workplace.

Strikes in the UK

A strike amongst public workers occurred only a few short months ago without any significant legal retaliation or the imposition of any legislatively imposed fines or restraints, making it clear that workers who wish to strike -- even those employed by the government n certain key public service positions -- are not barred from striking by any laws currently in existence (Ambrogi, 2011). Indeed the government's response to these strikes makes it clear that, undesirable and unwarranted as such actions might seem to be by some, there isn't much the government can do to force people to work or to stop industrial actions in and of themselves, unless they actually create damage to property or other threats to the rule of law (Ambrogi, 2011). At the same time, the government's views on strikes and the labor force in general is not exactly encouraging, and smacks of the same paternalistic and patriarchal attitudes that create many problems for women workers especially.

Prime minister David Cameron referred to the strike, which unions claimed was carried out by two million workers, as a "damp squib," trying to downplay the importance of the event (Ambrogi, 2011). The government already had a plan in place for dealing with this strike, and rather than addressing any of the concerns of the unions or the striking workers government representatives simply dismissed the actions and the workers themselves (Ambrogi, 2011). Though this has no direct legal implications, it suggests the detached attitude of the government towards workers and industrial actions, and this leaves things very uncertain.

Women are already dismissed or discounted in the workforce to a much greater degree than men, and it stands to reason that if the government has such a dismissive attitude towards workers in general then it would also have a generally dismissive attitude, and perhaps an even more dismissive attitude, towards women workers and their complaints and actions. The current push by the conservative party, including its leader David Cameron, have actually been pushing for anti-striking legislation in recent months, a move that would significantly limit the bargaining power of workers and curtail many of their rights in a direct manner (Zirin, 2012). It would also indirectly curtail many other basic rights currently assumed to be natural and inherent to workers in a free society, according to some, and could lead to substantial problems for society at large in the reduction of human rights and increasing pressure on those in the middle class (Zirin, 2012).

This legislation would not only make it for workers in general to strike, but it would make it far more difficult for any specific faction or demographic group -- say, women -- within a labor union or at a place of employment to have their voice heard. As even the most permissive proposed legislation would only allow strikes and other similar industrial actions would require unions to obtain majority votes from all members on the union rolls, this would make it next to impossible for minority demographics to call for any meaningful action (Zirin, 2012). Workers at large will be placed at an extreme disadvantage if any such legislation passes, but women will be placed at a bigger disadvantage than most.

Current Legal Consideration