4 ms·

>>Barristers have been operating a ‘no returns’ policy since April in protest at their pay and conditions. This means that they are refusing to pick up cases if

>>Barristers have been operating a ‘no returns’ policy since April in protest at their pay and conditions. This means that they are refusing to pick up cases if other barristers are unable to represent a client – for example, if another case has overrun. >>On Monday, barristers are due to start wholesale strike action over funding concerns. Four in five criminal barristers voted for the walkout. The ability of public sector unions to hold the government and society at large hostage with strike action like this is why public sector compensation has grown so much over the last 60 years. In the US, federal government and private sector compensation were comparable in 1950. Today there is a massive gap between the two. In the 1950s, very few public sector workers had the privilege to force their employer, i.e. the government, into collective bargaining, while today, most do.

rayiner 4y ago
FDR on public sector unions: https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/government-unions/what-was-fdrs-stance-on-government-unions/ https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/government-unions/what-was-...
- shadowfox 4y ago
  Interesting, but what is the relevance of a mid, last century American president's thoughts on unions to the UK of now with a pretty different political structure and beliefs around collective bargaining?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    He's making a point about public sector versus private sector employment that remains true today, and applies equally to the UK.
ivvve 4y ago
I kind of agree with your assessment, but here's what I know about the UK situation: Public sector workers in the UK have fought hard for good pay and conditions, but many face worsening conditions and pay today. In the past 60 years, many formerly public sector industries and sectors have been slowly privatised, such as rail, mail, and telecom, to name the largest examples. These workers have taken real-terms pay cuts during working as "essential workers" during the pandemic, only to face "fire-and-rehire" tactics from employers as we get back to normal -- employers terminating their contracts and then hiring for the same role months later, only with worse conditions and pay. Those workers who have remained in the public sector also face terrible pay and conditions. Over the past 40 years the public sector has had its funding gradually stripped away, to the extent that teachers, nurses, as well as local government workers have far higher caseloads than ever before. In the specific instance of these barristers, many are totally overworked, as legal aid -- the funding for public defence barristers -- is once again being cut. Many barristers are surviving on a shoestring, being paid effectively far below minimum wage, all due to their selfless choice to give the right to a fair trial to those too poor to afford their own lawyer. Stories like these are so depressing because the barristers -- many extremely dedicated and highly qualified professionals -- have been left no choice but to protect their ability to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads. Furthermore, collective bargaining is not a "privilege" in the UK, it is a right enshrined by law here -- and all workers have this right, wherever they choose to form a union branch. But what has changed in the past 60 years is laws limiting worker's ability to strike. Things like secondary picketing, mass picketing and the like -- tactics where smaller groups of workers can band together and support each other -- means that whilst it's somewhat true that larger public sector unions are more powerful by comparison these days, 60 years ago all unions in all sectors were MORE powerful. This was brought in by several successive governments in the 70s and 80s, but they haven't entirely succeeded in legislating out one of the most fundamental rights that British workers have. Union density stands lower than it ever has, but we're seeing the return of industrial action due to the terrible conditions that many of these workers have. It's interesting because a lot of the old trade union acts were in response to a similar situation in the 70s and 80s -- public sector workers faced stagnating wages and high inflation. But even when the laws have changed, the workers generally respond only when their livelihood is threatened. It's why I think the analogy of "holding the country to ransom" is wrong, because the shoe is very much on the other foot for these workers, as it was back then -- a few days of inconvenience (or even some rare legal judgements) are nothing compared to what these workers face collectively at the hand of unscrupulous employers and a chaotic economy.
pea 4y ago
That isn't what is happening here. Criminal barristers are not employed by the government for defence and the Criminal Bar Association is not a public sector union. For legal-aid defence, they are mostly self-employed and have the freedom to pick up cases as they choose. The barristers in this case are stating that legal-aid cases (i.e. acting as a public defender) don't pay enough so are refusing to take the jobs. Much as how you could choose to not take a consulting job in your own profession, if you pleased.
vdqtp3 4y ago
> public sector compensation has grown so much > In the US, federal government and private sector compensation were comparable in 1950. Today there is a massive gap between the two. Are you saying that public sector pays better than private? Not my experience in any arena.

rayiner 4y ago

FDR on public sector unions: https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/government-unions/what-was-fdrs-stance-on-government-unions/ https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/government-unions/what-was-...

shadowfox 4y ago
Interesting, but what is the relevance of a mid, last century American president's thoughts on unions to the UK of now with a pretty different political structure and beliefs around collective bargaining?
- rayiner 4y ago
  He's making a point about public sector versus private sector employment that remains true today, and applies equally to the UK.

ivvve 4y ago

I kind of agree with your assessment, but here's what I know about the UK situation: Public sector workers in the UK have fought hard for good pay and conditions, but many face worsening conditions and pay today. In the past 60 years, many formerly public sector industries and sectors have been slowly privatised, such as rail, mail, and telecom, to name the largest examples. These workers have taken real-terms pay cuts during working as "essential workers" during the pandemic, only to face "fire-and-rehire" tactics from employers as we get back to normal -- employers terminating their contracts and then hiring for the same role months later, only with worse conditions and pay. Those workers who have remained in the public sector also face terrible pay and conditions. Over the past 40 years the public sector has had its funding gradually stripped away, to the extent that teachers, nurses, as well as local government workers have far higher caseloads than ever before. In the specific instance of these barristers, many are totally overworked, as legal aid -- the funding for public defence barristers -- is once again being cut. Many barristers are surviving on a shoestring, being paid effectively far below minimum wage, all due to their selfless choice to give the right to a fair trial to those too poor to afford their own lawyer. Stories like these are so depressing because the barristers -- many extremely dedicated and highly qualified professionals -- have been left no choice but to protect their ability to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads. Furthermore, collective bargaining is not a "privilege" in the UK, it is a right enshrined by law here -- and all workers have this right, wherever they choose to form a union branch. But what has changed in the past 60 years is laws limiting worker's ability to strike. Things like secondary picketing, mass picketing and the like -- tactics where smaller groups of workers can band together and support each other -- means that whilst it's somewhat true that larger public sector unions are more powerful by comparison these days, 60 years ago all unions in all sectors were MORE powerful. This was brought in by several successive governments in the 70s and 80s, but they haven't entirely succeeded in legislating out one of the most fundamental rights that British workers have. Union density stands lower than it ever has, but we're seeing the return of industrial action due to the terrible conditions that many of these workers have. It's interesting because a lot of the old trade union acts were in response to a similar situation in the 70s and 80s -- public sector workers faced stagnating wages and high inflation. But even when the laws have changed, the workers generally respond only when their livelihood is threatened. It's why I think the analogy of "holding the country to ransom" is wrong, because the shoe is very much on the other foot for these workers, as it was back then -- a few days of inconvenience (or even some rare legal judgements) are nothing compared to what these workers face collectively at the hand of unscrupulous employers and a chaotic economy.

pea 4y ago

That isn't what is happening here. Criminal barristers are not employed by the government for defence and the Criminal Bar Association is not a public sector union. For legal-aid defence, they are mostly self-employed and have the freedom to pick up cases as they choose. The barristers in this case are stating that legal-aid cases (i.e. acting as a public defender) don't pay enough so are refusing to take the jobs. Much as how you could choose to not take a consulting job in your own profession, if you pleased.

vdqtp3 4y ago

> public sector compensation has grown so much > In the US, federal government and private sector compensation were comparable in 1950. Today there is a massive gap between the two. Are you saying that public sector pays better than private? Not my experience in any arena.