Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be stressed out about pressure to strike

432 replies

peppapighastakenovermylife · 11/03/2011 11:15

Without saying too much, my 'organisation' has announced strike action.

I really do not want to do it but feel awful at not. I wouldnt actually have to cross a picket line or anything (can simply work at home) but feel like I 'should' strike.

The strike is over our pensions. I understand the impact but feel that I can't worry about something now that will happen in probably 35 - 40 years time. I feel pretty lucky to even be able to afford to pay anything into a pension, let alone a company one. The returns are still better than other private pensions. However I understand why some are striking.

It is potentially two days strike. I cannot afford to lose that money. I am the main wage earner and just come off SMP. If I strike food will either be going on the credit card with no clear means of paying it off soon. There are more pressing issues such as redundancy, fuel costs, reductions in tax credits and so on looming. I feel like I need to worry about now rather than way in the future and do not have the 'luxury' that many well paid members of staff might have of not really noticing the loss of a days pay.

Would you strike? Have you gone on strike in the past? I am too 'young' (I wish Grin) to have really been in this situation before Sad

OP posts:
byrel · 13/03/2011 23:39

Any strike by a union is pointless and the unions need to take a far more reasonable position relative to the situation the country is in. If they choose to take the Government on through waves of strike they will lose, just as they did in the 1980s.

Penthesileia · 13/03/2011 23:45

The union to which peppa belongs is not taking on the government, at least on the issue of pensions. The pension scheme is privately, not publicly, funded, so peppa & others are taking on their employers, who are seeking to make changes to the scheme.

BuzzLiteBeer · 13/03/2011 23:50

rubbish. I've personally been on a picket line when we won our case. Last year actually.

seadog · 13/03/2011 23:58

I think unions are positive even if their leadership do tend to belong to the hard left. There are those in unions who tend to become aggressive and nasty towards those who do cross picket lines, I remember being on strike and seeing someone who wasn't actually in the union being verbally abused for being a scab so a union can have its fair share of thugs and bullies. The problem is these people do tend to be the most vocal.

I wouldn't cross the picket line but I certainly wouldn't feel betrayed by someone who did and people who would become hostile or passive aggressive to someone who did would demonstrate a shocking level of unprofessionalism.

Original poster
peppapighastakenovermylife · 14/03/2011 07:47

Ivykaty I am in the union, where did I say I wasn't? Apologies if it came across that way.

OP posts:
OfflineFor30Seconds · 14/03/2011 07:48

Peppa, I hope you slept ok last night.

It seems that the union didn't explain what they expected of you when you joined up; perhaps they only outlined the benefits and not sacrifices that you might have to make. Perhaps they were worried that laid out bare, you would choose not join and therefore not pay the annual subscription fee.

I think that the onus should be on the union to be honest upfront about what your responsibilities as a member would be. If not, it's a bit like mis-selling and if I were you, I would do what is best for you and your family.

Xenia · 14/03/2011 08:01

(My fault, I had remembered the thread wongly and thought you weren't in the union - must have been someone else).

If 10% are in it then any strike is giong to be much good except as a symbol. If 99% are in them then they work better obviously.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 14/03/2011 09:20

Not sure the union should be accused of 'mis selling' and am fairly sure that Peppa would have received a new members pack.

But lots of people join the union for the benefits and because they feel that the union is able to negotiate on their behalf for better terms and conditions, and sometimes because a member needs an advocate.

It's quite rare that members are asked to go on strike and believe me, it would have been the very last option. It would have been an approved ballot which has very strict procedures and an independent body that counts the ballot forms.

The OP mentions though the immediate issue of redundancy and would like point out that the union will negotiate the terms of such, and in most instances will get members more than statutory redundancy.

onlion · 14/03/2011 09:31

WE wont. I am part time and on a temporary contract so will get stuff all anyway

tyler80 · 14/03/2011 09:32

I'd have a lot more respect for unions if strike ballots had a minimum turnout

solo · 14/03/2011 09:51

I worked (visibly) during strike action nearly 20 years ago. I too had the choice of eating or not. I had several people completely blank me from then on (for years until I left) and life was pretty uncomfortable at work for a while.
If I was faced with it again in my current employment (not working at the moment as I'm on a career break), I probably would strike, but that's because I have to rely on my colleagues for my safety and I'm not convinced that everyone is as professional as they should be. If I could work from home and no one would know...Hmmmaybe I would.

ivykaty44 · 14/03/2011 10:04

sorry pepper - I seem to have got confused

ivykaty44 · 14/03/2011 10:06

tyler80 - would you dictate who was to be in the minimum turnout to vote?

BuzzLiteBeer · 14/03/2011 10:24

minimum turnout? Its the unions fault that people are too lazt and half-arsed to even vote? Hmm

tyler80 · 14/03/2011 10:27

No, i just think that a vote for strike action should require a minimum percentage of yes votes from union members.

BuzzLiteBeer · 14/03/2011 10:28

ours does.

tyler80 · 14/03/2011 10:35

It's not the unions fault if people are too lazy to vote but it does suggest they don't care enough about the issue to bother. If this group is 60% of your union members than I don't think it can be enough of an issue to be worth striking over.

reratio · 14/03/2011 10:41

Boris Johnson proposed a minimum turnout for a strike to be legal. I think it would have some merit as it would make unions make greater effort to engage with their membership and explain their position and objectives. Ballots that only have turnouts in the 10s or 20s of % don't have full legitimacy IMO. On the other hand it does seem unfair as the union cannot force people to vote one way or the other

Original poster
peppapighastakenovermylife · 14/03/2011 11:47

Well I am quite proud of the level of debate this has caused if nothing else Grin

Thank you offline. I can't recall a new members pack. I just joined because that is what people told me to do and I didn't consider strike action because it has not been something the university has ever done since I have been in an employed position. I do realise how daft this is in hindsight! Lesson learned!

I have just received a rebate from gas / electric that I had forgotten I was due so perhaps the patron saint of universities / unions is smiling on me Grin. Union also just sent a mail detailing why the strike is important and I understand a little more now. It doesn't remove the fear that if we win there will just be more job losses though Sad

OP posts:
BuzzLiteBeer · 14/03/2011 11:52

its tough balls though isn't it Tyler, if you can't be arsed to vote you don't get any say after that. Its the people that show up that make the decisions, and if you don't like that, you've only yourself to blame.

It's like people who whine about the government when they didn't vote in the election. You missed your chance to be involved in the process, why should anyone care what you have to say about it now?

aliceliddell · 14/03/2011 11:59

tyler80 - an interesting idea. do you propose doing this for eg the current Govt? Nobody voted coalition, that option and ensuing cuts were not advertised pre-election. Neither party got more than about a third of votes. How about the CEO managers of your workplace. Who voted for them or the policy they're in dispute over? Why is it only unions who are meant to have 100% support of all those affected?

tyler80 · 14/03/2011 12:00

As a non-member I don't get a chance to vote, I don't get the option to accept terms/conditions/payrises against what the union wants. I don't understand why less than 10% of the workforce should make the decisions for the whole.

Ensuring that decisions had a minimum number of yes votes would improve this situation a little.

tyler80 · 14/03/2011 12:05

Where have I said 100% support? 55% support with 85% turnout seems fair, as does 100% with 50% turnout.

55% support with 25% turnout is not a great position to go into a strike from.

Politixmum · 14/03/2011 12:53

Peppapig what a great thread.

I am really sorry you are so over-worked and stressed about the finances and potential redundancy. I know a bit about how you feel. I work on short-term contracts (in Higher Ed too) so I am always anxious about where the next bit of work is coming from, I earn hardly any money sometimes for doing more work than my full-time permanent colleagues. I am a union member, when I have to go on strike the loss of my day's salary means much more to me than colleagues. I am almost always striking for things which are important to colleagues on full-time posts and which are irrelevant to my part-time, short-term contract working situation. I don't even get to vote as the Union can't work out how to send me a ballot paper. I go on strike anyway, because a union means all for one and one for all.

I have often had to turn to the union for advice about being made redundant in circumstances where being a woman (and from an ethnic minority background) means I am unfairly treated and there has always been someone there to advise me properly.

So like you I have to lose money and strike, and make up the work unpaid because silly me, I don't want the students to suffer (yes I know that defeats the object of striking, yet at the same time if you were to make the students suffer the management would give you personally Hell, none of the other union members will withold lecture notes even if they don't deliver the lecture so you can't do it alone). However I think you are right to strike and that you should be very careful about considering leaving the union ESPECIALLY if you think you might be made redundant soon.

Ask about the hardship fund. Also I am sure all of us hardline union members would pitch in and send you a tin of food if we had to. Post and ask us to do so, and we will. (I will send M&S spagetti bolognese sauce for you and the kids, nothing yucky - I will make DP in same line of business but on full-time salary pay for it.)

Original poster
peppapighastakenovermylife · 14/03/2011 13:27

Grin I think I will just invite myself round to each of the profs houses for dinner each night. That should sort it. I mean if they can afford to own planes and boats (yes really) they can feed me can't they Grin

It will be ok - we will manage, I just resent the loss of earnings on top of everything at the moment but do realise the importance of doing it now. I just wish it had been in a few months when I could have righted myself after mat leave again.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread