How has the government responded?
Until now, the British government had adopted a firm tone, rejecting demands for higher wages and turning to the army to make up for the absence of strikers.
On Thursday, January 5, the British government announced that it will “rapidly” introduce a bill to establish minimum services in sectors such as health, firefighters, ambulance personnel and railway workers.
Sunak invoked “the right of workers to go on with their lives” without having to suffer the “important disturbances” caused for months by the multiplication of strikes.
“That’s why we introduce new laws, in line with countries like France, Italy, Spain, to make sure that we have a minimum of security in critical areas like the fire service, the ambulance service, so that even in the event of a strike they know that their health is protected,” he said.
The government has accused unemployed health workers of endangering patients.
“It is not the unions that are failing to meet minimum service standards: it is this government’s disastrous management of the NHS that has brought it to breaking point,” said the general secretary of Unite – one of the unions for workers in ambulances— Sharon Graham, in a statement.
The Minister of Health, Steve Barclay, considered the mobilization on Monday “very disappointing” and vindicated the measures promoted to guarantee the safety of patients, in a statement issued on Sunday night.
“There was not the slightest proposal in the last five weeks,” Secretary General Graham replied.
The union organizations ask that the British prime minister, the conservative Rishi Sunak, assume the reins of the negotiations, considering that the minister Barclay does not have “the authority” to reach an agreement.
Although the head of Health spoke of “constructive discussions” with the unions, they warned that they will maintain the strikes until the executive listens to their proposals.
With information from Reuters and AFP