mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Union Strikes Threaten London 2012 Olympics

England’s public sector trade unions, some of the hardest line defenders of the blue social model anywhere on earth, are taking a no holds barred approach to PM David Cameron’s public sector reforms, promising “long and hard and dirty” resistance which could threaten the 2012 London Olympics. The Economist reports:

The casus belli is the government’s bid to reform public-sector pensions, which will see workers pay more in contributions and retire later…

The angry unions could…inflict enormous disruption at a vulnerable time for the economy, ranging from mass walkouts to “smart” strikes aimed at specific services at particular times. Next summer’s Olympic games could be targeted. Besides those who have already signalled their intent to make trouble, other unions could join in. The Fire Brigades Union has said it will ballot, too.

Ministers are confident that the public will side with them in any showdown. Most voters work in the private sector, where employer-sponsored, defined-benefit pensions are becoming a luxury. Retiring at 60, as many state workers currently do, is also unusual outside the state sector (the government wants to raise the age to 66).

Many observers credit Britain’s recovery from its long postwar decline to Margaret Thatcher’s defiance of the labor unions.  The Cameron government has bet the ranch on a series of education reforms and budget cuts that are more sweeping than anything the Iron Lady ever put through; it must now hope that history will repeat itself.

Features Icon
show comments
  • WigWag

    If I were in a British labor union I might have a lot to worry about, but one thing I wouldn’d spend too much time worrying about is Prime Minister Cameron. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher.

  • David Barnes

    Don’t believe the hype.

    Quote: “England’s public sector trade unions, some of the hardest line defenders of the blue social model anywhere on earth”

    Not really. The militant tendancy has been so thoroughly broken since the 1980s that the current leader of the labour party (who’s party is almost entirely funded by these very unions) last week told them in no uncertain terms to reject strikes as a method of protest. He knew he could do this and still receive his subscriptions because he knows that the unions know that they have marginal and declining public support. More so, there are growing arguments for ‘pre-emptive’ legislation to outlaw strikes against critical infrastructure.

    Nobody, but nobody, takes talk of strikes against the 2012 Olympics as anything but false overblown bluster. There is simply nothing in it for them. The Economist is guilty of a rare piece of lazy ‘journalism’.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service