“I’m afraid there is no money.” So went the note left by Liam Byrne, the then-Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for David Cameron’s then-incoming Government to find. But if the same note was written today, it could say the same, except to add “…unless you are a member of a trade union.”

Trade unions appear exempt from Labour’s commitment to tough choices. Teachers and nurses are in line for a 5.5% pay boost, while prison service workers and senior NHS managers will see their pay increase by 5.0%. Train drivers have also been offered a bumper pay rise of 14% over three years, and junior doctors have been offered 22% over two years.

Much of the discussion on this topic has focused on whether Labour should have followed the independent pay commission’s recommendations for above-inflation pay rises. There are compelling arguments on both sides. As the Director of the Centre for Policy Studies Robert Colvile points out, public sector pay has risen more slowly than private sector pay in recent years. Many public services have retention problems, and higher pay may help with this. However, the average public sector worker has long earned more than their private sector counterpart, and they often have far greater job security and a larger pension.

Regardless of the arguments on either side of this debate, a focus on the sums and figures involved misses the point. The key thing is not the money, but the lack of conditions attached to these agreements.

When employers accept union demands, they usually do so based on the union accepting an agreement on improving productivity or adjusting working practices. Yet many necessary reforms, such as the increasing use of automation technology, are opposed by unions. Making them a condition of a quid pro quo agreement would be a good way to circumvent this opposition and ensure they are implemented. Insisting on these changes would also mean there is a cost to industrial action, and this may serve as a deterrent to initiating it in the first place. A quid pro quo agreement of this kind is also supported by the sensible idea that, if more money is going in, better results should come out.

Alas, Labour has made no attempt to strike any such deals, arguing that it is cheaper to settle strikes quickly than to carry on enduring the costs of disruption.

However, there is also a big cost to settling on the relatively generous terms that Labour has. Labour have sent a clear message that unions are to be placated and that industrial action pays. If strikes are seen to work, there will be more of them.

This is only compounded by the fact that attaching no conditions to these agreements means already emboldened unions have nothing to lose, knowing they are unlikely to have to make concessions in return. The result is that the public must continue to endure decaying public services – with their inefficiencies becoming ever-more entrenched – whilst the Government misses an opportunity for economic growth through increased productivity and investment in the technologies of the future. The lack of working practice reform also means these deals will be paid for by everyone else, in the form of higher taxes or, in the case of services such as the railways, higher fares.

It really is no surprise that a party born out of and bankrolled by the trade union movement, with MPs often describing themselves as ‘proud trade unionists,’ has been less-than-ruthless when it comes to negotiating with trade unions. However, concern over Labour’s relationship with trade unionism should not be limited to these strikes alone: their deference to union barons could prove to be problematic in other areas too. What will the government do about the TUC’s campaign for pay restoration across the public sector, something that would come at massive cost to the taxpayer? Or the FBU’s proposal to repeal all anti-union laws since 1979, making it significantly easier for unions to organise and strike? Or their own workers’ rights package, which unions want maintained but business leaders want watered down?

The consequences of succumbing to the unions on these issues could be significant. At risk is the cost of doing business becoming increasingly expensive and the UK becoming increasingly uncompetitive. The result would be companies relocating jobs elsewhere to maintain their competitive edge.

A reduction of employment opportunities in the UK is in nobody’s interest; but this outcome is not impossible if Labour allows trade unions to exert excessive influence over their agenda.

Bending to the will of the unions means that businesses and consumers will pay the price, and growth will suffer. The Government must prevent this, but I reckon Labour will not.

Nathan Stone is a Bright Blue member and is studying for a master’s in public policy at King’s College London. He tweets under @NathanStoneYC.