To strike is a right – stop trying to deter the low-paid from exercising it

This tough talk on strike action misses an opportunity to help low-paid workers in a meaningless attempt to please the right

'To suggest that benefits encourage people to go on strike is ridiculous' … teachers and lecturers march against cuts to their pensions in London on 28 March 2012. Photograph: Paul Davey/Demotix/Corbis

Here we go again. The government is talking tough and this time it wants to punish low-paid workers for exercising the basic right to take strike action.

Voting to go on strike is not a decision working people take lightly and is always accompanied by a strong sense of injustice at work. The impact of losing a day's pay is significant, not least for those in the lowest paid jobs who are already on the tightest budgets.

To suggest that benefits encourage people to go on strike is ridiculous. The amount that any worker on strike will lose in pay will be far more than the top-up they get from the tax credit system. And it is also offensive to hard-pressed workers to imply that taking strike action is intrinsically a bad choice – this fundamental right, which can only be exercised after a democratic ballot, is a rarely used yet important way to rebalance power between the employer and employed.

The government's intention to limit benefits for strikers, however, is more about rhetoric than real impact. Under the present system, workers on strike are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance anyway, and while they can continue to receive working tax credit (WTC) their award is not increased to take account of the reduced income they experience while on strike. In addition, after 10 days of consecutive action they can lose their entire WTC award.

Under universal credit, a real-time system will automatically take account of reductions in claimants' incomes and factor in small increases in monthly payments accordingly. The government's proposal therefore appears to be that claimants will continue to receive universal credit but will not have their payments adjusted for any reduction in income that arises if they are on strike. This is therefore exactly the same as the current situation, other than for those workers who are on strike for more than 10 days, who will be somewhat better off. So it transpires that this announcement is not the red meat for the right that the government's spin doctors would have them believe.

But the decision to pass up the opportunity to address this universal credit anomaly, and help low-paid workers who suffer income fluctuations as a result of taking strike action, is mean-spirited. The way it has been presented takes sides by clearly aiming to discourage some of the most vulnerable workers from exercising their right to strike.

The system also seems likely to increase administrative burdens on employers – not only will they be faced with reporting every income fluctuation to the new universal credit computer system, but now they will also have to provide separate information to HMRC on whether any income reductions are the result of industrial action. It may not be intended, but this adds up to a state record of anyone striking. This has serious civil liberties implications.

And it will create more bureaucracy. A proper process will need to be set up for employees to appeal their employers' assessments, as without proper enforcement, use of this code could simply provide a convenient way for unscrupulous employers to deny their workers the benefits to which they are entitled.

So what's the upshot? The main impact of this policy is that low-paid workers on strike will continue to lose out under benefit rules, making difficult times that bit harder for themselves and their families. And although the government has oversold the initiative in a desperate attempt to please its right flank, its decision to do so speaks volumes about its high-handed disregard for the real lives, fears and grievances of hard-pressed low-income families.