In which I disagree with Boris

I'm a big fan of Boris Johnson - one of the few bits of genuine colour and individuality in our entire political scene. But I have to disagree with him over his latest pronouncement.

Writing in the Telegraph, Boris condemns the latest round of Tube strikes, and says:

It simply cannot be right that a little over 3,000 people should be able to disrupt – or to attempt to disrupt – the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. The Government should consider a law insisting on a minimum 50 per cent participation in a strike ballot.

The Government should have no role in regulating the affairs of a private organisation. I would say that about a club, or a society, or a private business, and I say the same about a Trade Union. The law should not prescribe the proportion of members, nor the percentage of votes, that are necessary to make a strike valid. A Union can be as silly as it likes, saying that 5% of votes in favour of a strike, and at least 5% of members voting, is enough to trigger industrial action, as far as I am concerned. As long as the members are happy with that, the law has no place in changing it to anything different.

There is a change in the law that I would support, however, which would ensure that coercive, destructive and politically-motivated strikes are a thing of the past. Simply remove the special protection that Unions have when they choose to break the law of contract. If a worker chooses to break the terms of his or her employment contract in an attempt to coerce the employer, then the employer should be able to consider that contract void, and look for someone else to do the work.

I fully support the right to strike - in the sense of the right to withdraw one's labour. No-one should be forced to work against his or her will: that would be slavery. But no-one should be able to walk out of a job on a whim and expect it to be waiting for them when they decide to go back. That might make union members think a little harder before deciding to make the lives of thousands of others a misery or put costs on the business that the business cannot afford. The current arrangement puts the employer in an invidious position, and is a perfect example of a right without a corresponding responsibility.

If Governments tinker with the details - 60% here, 40% there - they are simply legitimising an arrangement that is fundamentally wrong.

English speakers not required

There is a huge fuss (mainly in the Daily Mail, for whom 'huge fuss' is the default setting) about the decision of a firm in East Anglia to employ only Polish speakers:

British workers have been turned away from jobs in a local factory – for not speaking Polish.

Cooked meat manufacturer Forza AW effectively barred anyone but Poles for applying for jobs on its production line in East Anglia by insisting all staff speak the language fluently.

This is manna from heaven for the 'forriners taking all our jobs' brigade. It certainly does look, from a social point of view, that a tipping-point has been reached, where it is more efficient for an employer to conduct all of his workplace business in a foreign language because he has so few native-born workers.

It's only a problem if you assume that everyone has the right to work wherever they like, regardless of the needs of employers to run profitable businesses. If it suits Forza AW to employ only Polish speakers, why shouldn't they have the right to do so?

I would go further. If they want to employ only women, or only men, or only people under the age of 30, or only people with blue eyes, why shouldn't they? It's their business, and it should be no concern of anyone else who they choose to employ. If you don't like it, set up your own business and employ your favoured group yourself.

No-one has the 'right' to a job where they please. You must have a skill-set that someone wants to exchange for a wage, and if the employers local to you want a skill-set you haven't got, then either acquire the skills, or move somewhere else.

If I lived in East Anglia and I wanted a job packing sausages, I would be learning Polish fast.

Footnote: a spokesman for the Government's Equalities Office said "Under the 1976 Race Relations Act, unless there is a genuine need for a worker to speak a particular language it is against the law to require that they should do so as a condition of employing them." The company seem to have the British mindset pretty well sussed, as they respond with a trump card: "you have to be fluent because the health and safety training is all done in Polish.’

One-nil.