My manager has denounced non-strikers but I truly can’t afford it

[Strik]

In the office today the topic of upcoming strikes came up (public sector). My manager is as left-wing as they come and was not shy in sharing her contempt for people who don’t choose to strike. I’m really worried because I can’t afford to go on strike and she’s (obviously) going to find out that I’m not striking. I’m worried it’s going to damage our relationship. Has anyone been in this situation before?

She can’t book leave once the strike date has been announced.

This. Your actions are underhanded. Expecting others to take the pain whilst you share the benefit.

but would you a) join a union and then b) vote to strike?

And there is a clear argument that long term, collective action might help you feed your family for longer and maybe with more resources. But you have the right to choose. I rather suspect that your answers to a and b above are both no?

People are talking as if union membership is free it’s not. The unions do have to take some responsibility for the fact that people don’t understand all this stuff about collective action etc. I have literally sat in halls over the last decade where union reps were aggressively campaigning for people to join so they get the membership fees , the local reps are always very keen to say ‘don’t worry about striking that’s not going to happen and you don’t have to join in ‘ quickly move onto new topic about the fact that you get discounts in sports stores and on car insurance etc . The fact that there are so many of these threads on here shows that people honestly don’t understand and all this comrade stuff and ostracising people etc does not help. My ds works in the public sector, he was going to join after being heavily pressurised and promised cut price this if that , I encouraged him but he’s scared because of this type of behaviour and he might ‘do something wrong’

Like the current RMT dispute ( 13months) or UCU ( several years)

@42wordsfordrizzle

Can you take leave instead, it avoids the resentment from striking colleagues.

As others have said, most companies freeze leave/rosters etc the minute the dates of any Industrial Action is announced.

Tell your manager it's your way of supporting the strike despite not being able to afford to lose a day's pay.

That really is genuinely seriously bad advice ....the OP is better off saying absolutely nothing to management about the motives for requesting any time off over strike days (the Union should issue advice about what to do in the event of sickness.

if people join unions without researching what they are, or reading the T&C when they join i can't have any sympathy. Do they read the T&C when they sign up for Sky or a phone contract? or when they sign a job contract?

Everyone wants to be spoon fed these days. Including, apparently, other people taking a hit to get a pay rise (or whatever the industrial action is about).

the local reps are always very keen to say ‘don’t worry about striking that’s not going to happen and you don’t have to join in ‘

where is the lie in that? you literally don't have to strike.

you are morally dubious if you join a union for the benefits it offers, vote to strike then don't.

Can you go off sick?

If you are in the union, have you approached one of the reps about your circumstances? I know that some unions will provide strike pay to individuals experience hardship (our union assess this on an individual basis). This could be an option.

Was your manager acting in their capacity as your manager at the time they made this statement or was this at a union meeting? There are rules about union bullying in the workplace so you could approach HR. Though I do hesitate to mention this because I actually agree with your manager.

If you can’t afford to strike then you can’t afford not to strike in my opinion. There are probably others striking who ‘can’t afford to strike’ but are still making the sacrifice. If you aren’t partaking in the strikes then unfortunately you are working against them/making things harder for them and easier for you employer. But then, I’m from a mining area so to me, strike breaking is unthinkable - I’m well aware of the sacrifices that our parents, grandparents and grandparents had to make so we could live in a world where employers are forced to treat us with a tiny amount of respect for our health, safety and wellbeing!

My husband lost 18 days pay through striking (CWU/Royal Mail). I took on extra shifts to cover the shortfall. I've been on strike a few times over the last year but have been able to make it up later. Sometimes we were extremely short of cash to the point we were down to the essentials and not going out or doing anything at all. It's just what you have to do.

Bob Crow, the late general secretary of the RMT, said once, "If you fight, you don't always win. But if you don't fight, you will always lose".

As your union if there's a hardship fund. CWU and RMT both had one. It might not cover a whole day's pay but it might help a little.

Ignore your manager. If you want to strike (even if you can't afford it) then do. If you choose not to, you might be called names but you can always raise a complaint. However, I'd say it's better to go on strike because the collective bargaining and mass withdrawal of labour sends a message to the employer that you mean business.

Champagne socialists really annoy me. Ignore her you can't afford it.

Employers usually cotton on to this quickly and in my job it's not tolerated.

it's not a nice word - but it is the jargon word that is used to describe something that would otherwise take several sentences.

Strike-breaker? Non-striker? Anti-striker? Even traitor, if you want. All of those are short terms (certainly no need for several sentences) that clearly convey your opinion of those people, without comparing a human being with different beliefs or politics from you to a gross, pustulant wound.

*pustulent

Nobody has responded to my earlier point that, going on this thread, unions are apparently there for underpaid and/or exploited workers, but that the poorest people of all are wilfully excluded.

The clear advice to those on the bones of their arses, with no ability to manage without the lack of pay from striking, is to leave the union entirely. Solidarity of the poor, eh?

they've been called scabs since forever. You're not going to get people to change that. That is also a bit #BeKind. Where they are actually damaging a collective action.

Everyone has to decide for themselves how they behave and which words they use, when and where.

The clear advice to those on the bones of their arses, with no ability to manage without the lack of pay from striking, is to leave the union entirely. Solidarity of the poor, eh?

I thought the clear advice several posters offered was that the OP contacts the Union and asked about hardship funds or similar - lots of Unions do have them.

Nobody has responded to my earlier point that, going on this thread, unions are apparently there for underpaid and/or exploited workers, but that the poorest people of all are wilfully excluded.

how are they willfully excluded? unions are there for everyone. I pay a % of my net salary to mine, and the unemployed, students and apprentices pay a few euros a month.

And there are hardship funds. And they can advise about budgeting and i get discounts on home, life and car insurance etc. There are hardship funds and so on and so forth.

So what's the crack with say a female who isn't in a union doing the same job as a male who is in a union so benefits from a collective agreement re:pay increase? Wouldn't the female then be able to put in an equal pay claim?

Must admit this is an area of HR im not familiar with but surely that would get some union members riled up?

@Megifer

So what's the crack with say a female who isn't in a union doing the same job as a male who is in a union so benefits from a collective agreement re:pay increase?

AFAIK and certainly where I worked everybody in the cohort gets the payrise, regardless of whether they are in the union or not...to do otherwise AFAIK is illegal.

It used to be a subject of debate at times when I was working but that was the law....We were also very aware of employers and "divide and conquer"....nothing some employers would like more than a non-unionised cohort on a lower rate of pay doing the same job as the Union members...

Seen that, didn't end well.

I think it largely depends on your upbringing/area that you're from. Where I live has been massively fucked over by the tories historically and the unions were there for people. I would never cross a picket or do anything to undermine a strike. I believe everybody should have the right to withdraw their Labour if they are unhappy with their working conditions and I think working people achieve more when they work collectively.

I do think unfavourably of people who are willing to take the benefits and protection of union membership but aren't willing to give support when it's needed. The only reason a union works is because it can take collective action when needed if people aren't willing to make that sacrifice then they shouldn't be in one. I also know personally of people who have accessed their union's hardship fund so while I understand that the lowest paid are most impacted by strike action I also think unions are trying to combat this.

they've been called scabs since forever. You're not going to get people to change that. That is also a bit #BeKind. Where they are actually damaging a collective action.

Everyone has to decide for themselves how they behave and which words they use, when and where.

Do you believe that for all words in longstanding use that are now understood/accepted to be offensive to those being referred to? I can think of a dozen nasty words right now - ones that have been used for many years - that would get this post deleted instantly; of course, I wouldn't dream of using them, precisely because I know that they are hurtful to those being described by them.

I thought the clear advice several posters offered was that the OP contacts the Union and asked about hardship funds or similar - lots of Unions do have them.

Followed swiftly by others saying that the hardship payments are low and will not replace the lost earnings.

But even if they did, going on this thread, if word got out that somebody had joined the strike but then got the union to reimburse them their lost earnings (so that they can pay their rent and feed their kids), I can only assume the sheer hatred with which they would be condemned as traitors who were happy for others to suffer for their benefit.

how are they willfully excluded? unions are there for everyone. I pay a % of my net salary to mine, and the unemployed, students and apprentices pay a few euros a month.

What this whole thread is about: people who are condemned as 'scabs' because losing the earnings would not just leave them having to be careful for a while, like others who are fortunate enough to have some reserves, but would indeed leave them and their families in dire straits. Those who are smugly told that they 'can't afford not to strike'.

Somebody upthread even suggested asking your mortgage lender for a break because you had chosen not to work for however many days (however great the intentions and reasoning, it's still a free choice you've made)!

My granddad would literally have rather starved. Literally.

I think that principles are great, but when you are faced with your kids starving, or being made homeless due to lack of money, it's harder.

(I'm currently on strike now, but can afford to lose a few days pay, but have been in poverty in the past, and know how awful that is, so I'm not judging anyone who doesn't wish to strike).

But even if they did, going on this thread, if word got out that somebody had joined the strike but then got the union to reimburse them their lost earnings (so that they can pay their rent and feed their kids), I can only assume the sheer hatred with which they would be condemned as traitors who were happy for others to suffer for their benefit.

The hardship fund is there to support people who genuinely experienced hardship by going on strike - by definition usually those who are low paid. No resentment at all, we don’t all have spouses who can pick up the slack, or savings or family who would help out. Collective action is the underpinning principle of union membership, I have no issue with unions helping people financially to join collective action. I’d rather that happen than people (who genuinely need a pay increase) break the strike.