Letter: Seeking ways to end Tube strike

David Blunkett,Mp
Friday 19 July 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: In reference to your news story (19 July), I would like to make it clear that the Labour Party has no plans to introduce compulsory binding arbitration for all public service disputes.

On Wednesday, I answered a question about the Tube strike in London and the very specific issues of hours and holidays at the centre of that dispute. Labour's call for arbitration is not "backing the bosses" but recognising that in this instance, there is a better way of resolving a dispute which is making it near impossible for hundreds of thousands of Londoners to get to work - not least those who do not have cars or cannot afford taxis.

The days have long gone when simplistic knee-jerk reactions are either appropriate or acceptable. But there should be no mistake in anyone's mind that the Labour Party will support, as it always has, those who are seeking fair redress for unfair treatment.

The Independent would be the first to criticise Labour if we assumed that on every occasion support for strike action was appropriate, or that there was only one way of resolving a dispute - especially where the central point of the dispute is about interpretations over whether a particular agreement has been reneged on.

DAVID BLUNKETT MP

(Sheffield Brightside, Lab)

House of Commons

London SW1

The writer is Shadow Secretary for Education and Employment

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in