Crossing the Rubicon: The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 as an Authoritarian Crucible

Abstract

Abstract In the 1980s and 1990s, Conservative Governments contemplated but ultimately refused direct interventions in strikes in essential services as unenforceable and ineffective. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 crosses this Rubicon. It does so not by a participatory framework but by granting Ministers and employers virtually unrestrained powers to restrict (and effectively prohibit by neutralising the impact of) industrial action by imposing minimum service levels. This article offers a critical account of the Act based on three main claims. First, it argues that the Act is shaped by what is termed ‘coercive dual unilateralism’, an authoritarian crucible of three elements: (i) executive unilateralism, (ii) employer unilateralism and (iii) coercion (severe sanctions compounded by chilling legal uncertainty of ill-defined duties). Secondly, it challenges the Government’s claim of the Act’s compliance with ILO standards and Article 11 ECHR as a misconstruction. Thirdly, it finds that the Act satisfies all three authoritarian markers (stifling of dissent, direct state coercion, elevation of social order as an external justification for restrictions) identified in Bogg’s seminal account of the TUA 2016 as a shift away from neo-liberalism to authoritarianism. But it resists a ‘beyond neo-liberalism’ conclusion. Instead, it argues that the Act should be seen as the product of a ‘strong-weak' state (strong in power, weak in securing consent) that seeks to fortify neo-liberalism against a sharpened contestation reflected in the current strike wave.