Weakening the trade unions, one step at a time: the Thatcher governments' strategy for the reform of trade union law, 1979-1984.

Q2 Arts and Humanities Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2016-09-26 DOI:10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6
P. Dorey
{"title":"Weakening the trade unions, one step at a time: the Thatcher governments' strategy for the reform of trade union law, 1979-1984.","authors":"P. Dorey","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the significance of the three industrial relations and trade union laws passed by the Thatcher Governments’ between 1979 and 1984, and the discourse which was invoked to define the ‘problem, and thereby legitimise the legislation enacted. In so doing, it makes use of government papers only recently released by the National Archives, which reveal the thinking and the debates which occurred between ministers over the trade union ‘problem. The article notes that while James Prior favoured a minimalist approach, this was unacceptable to Thatcher and her closest colleagues, including Sir John Hoskyns. Once Prior had been replaced by Norman Tebbit, an incremental approach was maintained, but the content of the laws had profound implications for the unions and their ability to engage in industrial action. In particular, the 1982 Employment Act significantly narrowed the definition of a trade dispute, and exposed trade-union funds to tort action (damages) for industrial action which was deemed to exceed this new definition. In so doing, reference was routinely made to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, which was deemed to have placed the unions above the law, by granting them immunity from civil action for damages incurred during an industrial dispute. Hence the discourse of union ‘privileges’, and the need to place them back under the rule of law, just like any other individual or corporate body.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

This article examines the significance of the three industrial relations and trade union laws passed by the Thatcher Governments’ between 1979 and 1984, and the discourse which was invoked to define the ‘problem, and thereby legitimise the legislation enacted. In so doing, it makes use of government papers only recently released by the National Archives, which reveal the thinking and the debates which occurred between ministers over the trade union ‘problem. The article notes that while James Prior favoured a minimalist approach, this was unacceptable to Thatcher and her closest colleagues, including Sir John Hoskyns. Once Prior had been replaced by Norman Tebbit, an incremental approach was maintained, but the content of the laws had profound implications for the unions and their ability to engage in industrial action. In particular, the 1982 Employment Act significantly narrowed the definition of a trade dispute, and exposed trade-union funds to tort action (damages) for industrial action which was deemed to exceed this new definition. In so doing, reference was routinely made to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, which was deemed to have placed the unions above the law, by granting them immunity from civil action for damages incurred during an industrial dispute. Hence the discourse of union ‘privileges’, and the need to place them back under the rule of law, just like any other individual or corporate body.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
削弱工会,一步一个脚印:1979-1984年,撒切尔政府改革工会法的策略。
本文考察了撒切尔政府在1979年至1984年间通过的三项劳资关系和工会法的意义,以及用来定义“问题”的话语,从而使所颁布的立法合法化。在此过程中,它利用了国家档案馆最近才公布的政府文件,这些文件揭示了部长们对工会问题的思考和辩论。文章指出,虽然詹姆斯•普赖尔(James Prior)赞成极简主义,但撒切尔及其最亲密的同事(包括约翰•霍斯金斯爵士)无法接受这种做法。在Norman Tebbit取代Prior之后,一种渐进式的方法得以维持,但法律的内容对工会及其参与工业行动的能力有着深远的影响。特别是,1982年的《就业法》大大缩小了贸易争端的定义,并使工会资金暴露于侵权诉讼(损害赔偿)的工业行动,这被认为超出了这一新定义。在这样做时,经常提到1906年的《贸易争端法》,该法案被认为将工会置于法律之上,给予工会在工业争端期间遭受损害的民事诉讼豁免权。因此就有了工会“特权”的说法,并有必要将工会置于法治之下,就像任何其他个人或法人团体一样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
George Bain and Memories of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy The British Printers’ 40-Hour-Week Strike of 1959: Background, Dispute, and Aftermath Canteen Workers’ Wages and Collective-Bargaining Arrangements in British Coal Undermining the ‘Polder Model’: Workers’ Militancy and Trade-Union Leadership in Four Dutch Wildcat Strikes, 1963–1970 Reflections on the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy, 1975–1977, Chaired by Alan Bullock
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1