THERE’S a very long list of actions the UK Government is taking which are hostile to the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens.

Its attempt to cast itself as a government for working people, while at the same time slashing the incomes of those same working people, adds insult to injury.

But the assault they are pursuing against people’s right to organise collectively at work goes even further.

Not content with the immediate attack against people’s living standards and working conditions, the Trade Union Bill currently proposed at Westminster will strip the last defences away from many of the people most at risk of exploitation at work.

For the first time, employers will be given a legal right to use strike-breaking techniques like using agency workers to replace strikers.

The organising of pickets and protests will be micromanaged, with restrictions on people’s freedom to communicate and campaign.

Some in government even want criminal sanctions used against peaceful protesters who fall foul of these rules.

There will be measures to make it cumbersome and bureaucratic for unions to undertake their basis duties such as representing their members, collective bargaining, and administering membership dues.

Perhaps most controversially, in many public services the Bill would introduce new artificially high thresholds when a union ballots its members for industrial action.

A government which gained barely a third of the votes at the General Election, and the support of less than a quarter of the whole electorate, is effectively demanding that a union must gain the support of 80% of the members who cast a vote, before they can go on strike.

Taken together these proposals represent a fundamental attack on the right to strike.

This attack will be felt throughout our society, but most particularly in the public sector at a time when further dramatic cuts to vital public services are planned.

Most people faced with losing a service they rely on due to industrial action don’t like it. Strikes are generally inconvenient for the public.

But the alternative, a world in which we don’t have the ultimate option of withdrawing our labour, would be a thousand times worse for everyone.

And let’s remember that this country has a relatively low level of strike action; it’s not something people do often, and it’s not something people do without good reason.

It tends to be a last resort.

The case for opposing this legislation is urgent.

But if it is passed there is also a clear case for a determined programme of non-compliance by all public sector employers.

This would test the resolve of the Scottish Government, but if they believe in the importance of our rights at work, nothing less will do.