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?

I think op's manager is the least of her worries, frankly.

I hope for her sake she hasn't told anyone she voted for strike action because when they find out she worked, I would expect her to be ostracized by her colleagues. I'd keep very quiet about that.

People know not everyone will strike, that's expected, but to vote for it then not strike, OMG

I've never worked in a unionised job, so I don't know. What do the ballots actually say? Do they say something like 'Are you in favour of an agreement for strike action?' or is it more explicit, like 'Will you join us in striking if the majority agree?' ?

I get that OP might well have been misguided in her vote, but I think the way it's framed is important. On the one hand, people are angrily criticising those who don't strike yet don't refuse any pay increases or concessions (is this even possible?) won as a result of the strike action; but on the other hand, are those who vote not to strike - whether because they don't believe in it/don't want to/can't afford to - also angrily criticised for not showing solidarity with those who do want/feel the need to strike?

Would you endorse that @ArcticSkewer ? Ostracising someone at work? Isolating them?

What’s quite shocking on this thread is how righteous people can be, when they are basically being nasty.

Do not bully your colleagues, however they vote, whether they strike or not. Do not go along with ‘having an opinion’ and airing that with the intention of making people uncomfortable at work. Just don’t be unpleasant - leave people to their own lawful decisions. You are not entitled to dictate or spite their behaviour and work environment.

If you voted to strike then you ought to strike with them. Otherwise you're benefiting from them striking, while you don't. That's not really how it works. Next time only vote for the action you're prepared to take. Imagine if everyone did the same as you, threatened strike then carried on going into work?! Bit stupid really. Yes I come from miners.

I think a lack of support and help for those who could lose their homes if they go on strike is the problem. In the past people starved on strike, but at least the community did what they could to feed them.

but on the other hand, are those who vote not to strike - whether because they don't believe in it/don't want to/can't afford to - also angrily criticised for not showing solidarity with those who do want/feel the need to strike?

I don’t criticise anyone for how they vote in a strike ballot. However if a strike ballot is won and you belong to the union I would be critical of members who didn’t strike. Unions exist on the basis of collective action so, in my view, if you’re in a union and enjoy the protections and benefits afforded by union membership you have a duty to support collective action when voted for by the members of that union.

I thought if you voted to strike you have to strike and if you didn’t then you can’t? That’s what I’ve always been told, but maybe that’s wrong!

This.

I'm not from a mining family, and I'm not even from this country, yet I know that if you're in, you're in. Not just for some of the benefits. Then again, you'll still benefit from the payrise even if you don't strike, right?

I couldn't afford to strike whether, but I did. And we got out payrise. And people like you got to eat their cake and have it too.

This. Its just getting other people to take the hit on your behalf.

I think you should leave the thread now. You’re just berating the OP for a situation she can no longer change and actually for something she did not actually do. She did not deliberately act in a way that would cause financial hardship to her colleagues in order to benefit herself. She voted wrong, and people on this thread have clearly explained to her that she misunderstood the purpose of voting. You can call her ignorant and disgusting, or you can accept that this is actually not universal common knowledge and tell your union that you’ve recently realised many people, even those in unions, don’t understand how these votes are meant to work and perhaps some changes need to be made to communication. Like they could write on the ballot papers that strike votes are meant to be a real indication of who will actually go on strike if one is called, not just a vague representation of support for the concept of a hypothetical strike, or support for others’ right to strike. Put it in capital letters on the ballot paper ! ´Please vote for a strike only if you are willing and able to strike for at least X days if a strike is called’.

If there's one thing that has become clear throughout this post, it's that the unions need to get a lot better at communicating.

If you receive a pay rise as a result of the strike I hope you donate it to your colleagues who made it happen while you undermined them by continuing to work.

Contact your union and ask if there is a hardship fund.

Would I endorse it?
Difficult.

Honestly, on the back of months of lack of pay, I couldn't be more than 'work civil' with someone who had voted for strike action then not done it themselves. So I wouldn't do anything beyond minimal work communication.

Other people where I work would be really vicious about it. As I said, I am more sympathetic when people either leave the union or choose not to strike because they can't afford it, and voted against it.

I don't know though, in a case like this. I wouldn't want anything to do with them in a non work context for sure. I suppose that is a type of social ostracism but can you really expect anything else when your actions cost someone else thousands? Certainly I don't support violence.

I certainly wouldn't advise her to tell anyone she voted for the strikes. I really think her manager is the least of her problems. Her manager is more bound by duty to be impartial. Her colleagues could be a lot nastier. If people don't know she's in the union, or assume she voted against, they might not be too bothered. Depends where she works.

It's just a bit of a dick move though isn't it, voting for other people to strike on your behalf?

They probably don't want to lose a day's pay either but they understand that being in the union carries an obligation to strike if the majority of the union wants to strike.

If you don't want to take part in strike action when the union votes for it then you shouldn't be in the union, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't vote for the strike.

The OP clearly knows that now, but I don't think it's reasonable to refer to posters who have pointed that out as "fucking communists", "militant" etc.

I can see some parallels here with when people harshly criticised the very elderly people who voted in favour of Brexit, on the grounds that they were forcing their opinions and suffering on younger people who would have to live with it, whilst they themselves would soon have passed on.

Interestingly, I don't recall seeing criticism of very elderly people who used their vote and voted to remain - even though somebody in their mid/late 90s was clearly not likely to end up affected either way, by the time any changes would be seen, so could arguably have figured that the 'fairest' course of action was to abstain and leave it for those who would be affected to decide.

I thought if you voted to strike you have to strike and if you didn’t then you can’t? That’s what I’ve always been told, but maybe that’s wrong!

That is wrong. If you’re a union member and the membership vote for strike action, you should go on strike regardless of how you individually voted. Unions exist to organise workers to take collective action to protect workers rights - members sign up to gain the protections afforded by that collective action and so should be part of collective action when called for.

I would keep quiet about that, bullying is gross misconduct and even if you do it to a work colleague outside of the work space that’s still applicable. Only the very privileged few can afford to give up ‘thousands’ and if you are one of those then you are very lucky . Are you prepared to put a roof over someone’s head, buy their food shop or maybe you could offer to pay someone’s rent. A little compassion for people less fortunate might be a better recruiting tool than name calling and sending people to Coventry .

If you can’t afford it, don’t do it. There is absolutely no point putting yourself in financial difficulty. Ignore anyone who has a go for you voting to strike but not striking. Maybe circumstances have changed. Maybe an unexpected bill came about. Whatever. These people and your manager are not living your life with your specific set of circumstances and with the stretch on finances everywhere right now, you absolutely should not put yourself in a position where you then struggle financially.

I voted in two or three ballots over the years and TBH I can't remember what they all said..

OTOH I do remember our Union Reps being very very clear in associated comms on the issue that if you were not prepared to actually withdraw your labour you should not vote "yes" to IA.

Do you think most strikers are "very privileged "? Really?

No one is owed more than common courtesy at work. Certainly not friendship.

Obviously, your manager should not be harassing or intimidating you, but the whole point of a Union is strength is numbers. If you’re a member of the union & you voted to strike I do think you have a moral obligation to strike alongside your coworkers - you’ll benefit from the pay rise if your union wins one. Speak to your Union about hardship funds.

And what a bully you sound

@Clutchy
OP explained that she supports it ethically. But she has to prioritise her family situation. 3 days of vastly reduced income would be enough to break many people atm.
Let the others like her wealthy manager take the strain right now.

Let the others like her wealthy manager take the strain right now.

Except it won’t be her manager, it’ll be her peers and colleagues taking the strain while she reaps the benefit of them taking that strain. If you don’t agree with collective action, don’t join a union.