A question about strikes(14 Posts)
hi, I'm 28 so have no memory of industrial action apart from the BA strikes recently. I just want to get some info as I think I may have the wrong end of the stick as I don't see how they work.
The thing I don't understand is why if ppl choose to strike they want to seem to bully others to join them (picket lines etc) ? Does everyone have to strike? Why do they get angry at ppl for wanting to keep their jobs etc what if some ppl can't afford to strike? Have any strikes worked? Do they just delay the inevitable or is this action rewarded? If it is rewarded what's to stop strikes over anything?
I am old enough to remember the strikes of the 70s - before union reform and where there might have been a place for accusations of bullying (balloting in the open, unrestricted picketing, wildcats, secondary action permitted).
Those excesses are no longer lawful, I think the balance is about right and it's not about bullying, it's about collective action. Clue in the name "Union".
A vote for industrial action by a union will bind all its members to supporting that action, unless the union has a specific "conscience clause" allowing personal opt out (eg ATL). This is a strength - all union members must be balloted, it must be a secret ballot, there are time limits for validity of the ballot and about notice for action. I think it is a disappointment that so few voted in the teaching unions who have balloted, and PCS (none getting a turn out above 36%). This may because people do join unions for other benefits (eg insurance, legal aid etc) but it's not a "pick and mix"
Unions may provide strike pay. It is up to the union membership to work out the cost/effectiveness benefit of their choices.
It's more of a moot point whether strikes work. In the early days they certainly did (go back to the very origin of the word and phossy jaw). I'm not sure of any clearcut examples in recent times. Even bringing down the Govt in the 1970s did not bring the expected outcomes in the long term.
The bullying has softened to 'peer pressure' and it is at the heart of how unions work. Together workers are stronger than individuals on their own - but if too many individuals fail to support the union, it has no power. So your fellow union members are going to lean on you, pricking your conscience and making you feel guilty if you don't want to participate. In the 70's (which I also remember very well) it really was bullying. If you've ever seen the film 'Billy Elliot', that portrays the misery inflicted upon anyone that broke the strike - ranging from physical assault and threats to social exclusion. Aggressive groups of flying pickets would arrive at totally unrelated businesses, making them down tools under threat of damaging equipment, for example.
Strikes have worked in the past. A good example can be seen in the film 'Made In Dagenham' - a true story set in the 1970s when female Ford factory workers successfully downed tools in protest against being regraded as 'unskilled' and also against unequal pay for women.
In the subsequent 40+ years employment law has improved considerably in the areas of equal pay, working conditions, sick pay, leave entitlement... so there are fewer serious matters for workers to strike about. The main complaints now are usually around pay and pensions & job losses. What's to stop them striking over everything? Better inclusion of workers' representatives in top-line decision-making, commonsense and a degree of pragmatism mostly. Union leaders far better at taking the long view than they used to be.
Lots of professions have limits to what you can strike over. Eh you can strike over terms & conditions but not over the job itself( eh teachers can't strike over new schemes of work)
thanks for the info- it's really interesting. I feel much more informed now grin
I work in a unionised sector, and there will be strikes next week. I'm not a member of the union at our place, as I disagree with the stance of the union's leadership on too many things. I have never felt any pressure from colleagues to join, or to strike. I could never be in a union which has voted to strike and not strike though - it's at the heart of what a union is.
Union membership is important. I can understand why it is discredited to an extent in the UK but it is a fundamental human right, recognised by the UN, and union action has lead to huge steps forward in the history of the UK, and now in developing nations.
Mercifully there will be now pickets at work on Thursday. I hate hte idea of crossing a picket line.
If you are a member of the union you should strike. Thats the whole point, that you are united.
Meditrina*I think it is a disappointment that so few voted in the teaching unions who have balloted, and PCS (none getting a turn out above 36%).*
The NUT turnout was 40% (still not wonderful).
The turnout (when voting for action, not representation IYSWIM) is very low. The BBC, when news of the strikes broke, headlined their news as "92% of teachers voted for strike action" - not the more accurate 92% of the 35% who voted - so around 32% of teachers in that union voted for strike action.
When as many as two thirds do not even vote, it becomes much harder to make your case that this a vital interest to the group.
I think calls for a quorum on a strike vote will get louder.
"92% of teachers voted for strike action" - not the more accurate 92% of the 35% who voted - so around 32% of teachers in that union voted for strike action.
Meditrina, that's not right. 92% backed the strike action with a turn-out of 40% from the NUT (that's 37% voting for industrial action). I take your point completely, but your figures are wrong.
Sorry - I conflated with ATL, where it was 83% of 35% turnout in favour (or 29% in favour of action).
There is a shortage of teachers in some subjects - so they do not care. Loads of jobs for Maths teachers
If it is rewarded what's to stop strikes over anything?
Do you really think strikers are going to strike over the fact that there isn't a coke machine where they work? People who strike take striking very seriously. Most workers aren't paid when they are on strike, and are losing pay for every day they strike.
Sometimes strikes are necessary because of an inflexible, exploitative employer and to, quite simply, defend the rights of employees.
Complete nonsense. In fact, many of the rights we enjoy today are the result of people and unions striking and fighting for rights at work.
and the Government is likely therefore to crack down on strikes through new legislation eg insisting that a 50% turnout has to be achieved to make the strike legal and valid. At the moment far less than 50% of members have been voting overall and some of those voted no.
This would be a mistake on their part, causing widespread industrial unrest. It would not go down well with the public, either, who are largely sympathetic to people suffering from public sector cuts (because they are, in fact, suffering themselves).
The UK already has some of the toughest anti-union and anti-strike laws in europe. It is already very difficult to strike.
Furthermore, requiring 50% of members to vote for strike action wouldn't go down well coming from a coalition government which received a minority of the vote - with the Tories receiving a small minority of the votes out of the eligible population.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.