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 feel for people who can't afford to strike.

I feel contempt for people who vite to strike then scab. It's a secret ballot. Vote "no" and keep your trap shut?

Not a communist. But I do think people should think a bit more about the consequences of their words/actiins

1. I've never encountered a picket line for any union in the various places I've worked where there have been strikes. Maybe they were off demonstrating somewhere else, maybe they were at home looking after kids or on holiday because the strike was straight before or after a non working day?
2. Your manager won't know either way - she doesn't do your payroll, so won't see if you make contributions from your salary (if you're that concerned, make your contributions personally by DD instead) or what your pay is for the month. And she won't be in work herself.
3. If you did get confronted and she already knew you were a union member 'I had to let my membership lapse because I couldn't afford it, so I'm not able to strike'.

FWIW we were all very open and honest who was striking and who wasn’t, it was no problem. No hard feelings or bullying either way!

Were you open and honest about saying "yeah I voted to strike but I'm not going to - make sure you get us a big fat pay rise"

As for bullying: I'm with pp. Work related only contact and no socializing. I wouldn't hinder them doing their job but I also wouldn't be doing them favour's like holiday cover or swapping shifts unless actually ordered to.

In the vain hope OP is still reading: when you do work on strike days don't cover work done by striking colleagues. Management should be picking up that slack (safety issues aside - but then do the minimum required)

Hopefully you have learned something

I'd be careful of using the term "work to rule" if the ballot didn't mention it as an option and it's not the Union's choice of action.

How somebody behaves in the office in the course on a strike day is of course another matter, but they might want to be cautious in how they describe motives for their behaviour, especially if they work for an employer who has the lawyers on speed dial ..(as I did) 🤐

The legislation around this is quite specific and can be unforgiving...

"When you’re balloted, your voting paper must ask whether you want to take part in either (or both):

• strike action
• action short of a strike

The union can only call on members to take action if a majority of members who voted were in favour of that particular action. If both questions are asked on the ballot paper and members vote yes to both, the union can decide what industrial action to take".

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/holding-a-ballot

Working to rule and go slows are a form of industrial action so i just suggested it is a way of supporting colleagues for those who can't afford to strike. By definition if people are willing to lose pay then they can afford to lose the pay.

I'm not saying it wouldn't sting badly and might mean things are extremely tight, but id very confidently bet my own days wage that absolutely no body would strike and lose pay if it would put them at real risk of e.g. not being able to pay rent, eat or support their dependents. I don't think some realise that's the position a lot of people would be in. Thankfully I'm not now, but I was previously, losing pay would have genuinely meant not being able to provide for my children when I lived hand to mouth. id have definitely crossed a picket line with no shame at all rather than see my children go hungry that week, what parent wouldn't?

By working she is not just failing to do her part but actively undermining those who are striking - striking to obtain better conditions for her and her family.

Yet again, somebody coming from a point of relative privilege.

If I said to you "Give me a million pounds today and I will give you two million pounds back in a month's time" - and could give you paperwork and legal proof that I would honour it - would you do it? Would you really turn down the chance of a free million that could do so much for you and your family?

Yes I wouldn't recommend telling your employer you're working to rule 😬 that phrase isn't always connected to union action though. Employees often stop using "discretionary effort" if they are peed off with their employer and while this might be expected in some roles and industries an employer would be on shaky ground if they took action against an employee who simply carries out their contracted role as expected. Was just suggesting to op that it could be a way of supporting colleagues (for herself i guess) if she can't afford to strike

No idea what point you're trying to make

No idea what point you're trying to make

I thought it would be obvious: trying to spell out to those who are clearly unable to understand that not everybody has the luxury of being able to forego their earnings today in pursuit of hopefully earning more in the future, however much more that might be.

Having low cash reserves or needing to be a bit frugal for a while are not the same as having your children sitting at a bare table, screaming with hunger.

@Megifer
Working to rule and go slows are a form of industrial action so i just suggested it is a way of supporting colleagues for those who can't afford to strike. By definition if people are willing to lose pay then they can afford to lose the pay.

That is utter rubbish. You don't get to decide on having a personal form of alternative industrial action.

And nowhere in the world is the defintion of a strikers someone who can afford to lose pay.

You clearly haven't got a clue what a union or industrial action is.

Yes I wouldn't recommend telling your employer you're working to rule 😬 that phrase isn't always connected to union action though.

And industrial action by its very nature is action against the employer that the employer knows about. Secret industrial action is not industrial action - it is cowardice.

If someone votes against a specific indistrial action then that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. You don't (a) get to vote for it then expect others to do it for you; (b) get to decide that your own personal form of industrial action is legitimate provided nobody knows about it; or (c) think you are entitled to the fruits of industrial action that others take because you need it. Fair enough if you are happy with your lot, or if you aren't prepared to take industrial action. Complaining about your low pay not being enough to live on, voting for industrial action you expect others to take when you won't, or whining about your employer/pay/ conditions when you are prepared to do nothing about them - that is hypocrisy.

I am all in favour of people having the right to not be in a union, or to not take industrial action. I am also in favour of those people not having any of the benefits that the union negotiates for its members.

This!

I get so cross with this attitude. If you want things to change, you need to take action.

If the rest of us lose pay by striking, but achieve what we set out to, will you accept the benefits/increased pay? Of course you will.

*That is utter rubbish. You don't get to decide on having a personal form of alternative industrial action.

And nowhere in the world is the defintion of a strikers someone who can afford to lose pay.

You clearly haven't got a clue what a union or industrial action is.*

So someone can't decide to stop using discretionary effort/work to rule themselves? It will happen every day in pretty much all workplaces by at least one employee . I offered it as a way of op supporting it in her own way

Note I didn't say the definition of a striker - i said by definition if someone is willing to lose the pay, then they can afford to. As I say I'm not suggesting it wouldnt be be gruelling or taking anything away from the strikers, I genuinely hope it gets the outcome they want. But id be genuinely surprised if someone would endanger their families wellbeing and financial position by striking. In fact id probably judge them a bit if they did (though in fairness I am basing that on my own past financial position - any parent doing something deliberate that puts their children's basic needs at risk deserves to be judged!)

I know enough about unions and strike action to get by. Unless only people who are experts can offer views (which would discount a huge portion of the population who support the strikes). Tbh though yes I'd probably shy away from actual unions after this thread because frankly it all seems really unpleasant.

I guess I'm struggling with the juxtaposition of strikers on the one hand really coming across as being selfless, doing it for the greater good, caring about each other....but then be pretty horrible about their colleagues who can't afford to strike 😔

@DisquietintheRanks exactly. At my work if someone crossed the picket line they would literally get the bare minimum off people.

We swap shifts to help each other out, we swap annual leave, we cover the ends of each others shifts etc - they'd be none of that.

Not saying I agree with it but when I started in 2004 they still were not talking to someone who crossed the picket line in 1981 🤦‍♀️ literally I said hello to him and was told "don't talk to him, he's a scab"

We are 100% union membered where I am, so it would be very noticeable.

I think people who went on strike in previous decades and centuries were often very severely poverty-stricken as a result.

They also faced far worse working conditions and lower pay, so the stakes were higher either way and the choices bleak. We have them to thank for our relatively better position today, but the importance of strikes as a means of maintaining our rights and freedoms remains.

We lack a unified working class or employees' movement, really.

The actual issue here is not whether the OP will strike but how her colleagues behave afterwards. Which is awful.

Think - in your head - whatever you like about the people you work with.

But coercion/bullying/social isolation is a terrible thing to deal with at work and those people who subscribe to it need to take a hard look at themselves. There is no excuse.

I didn't grow up in the Uk and have never had the opportunity to join a union, so it's not a surprise that I know very little about how unions work, how strike action works, and what happens if you don't strike when everyone else does. However, it's abundantly clear from this thread that many people who are familiar with unions, indeed, even union members, are equally unsure how the whole process works. From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the union in this case has not been at all clear about expectations. The union really has to step up and start communicating with their members.

How much do you think people get paid a day?

Times that by 20 and what do you get?

Even minimum wage it equals, what, £70 a day, £1400.

My wage is okay to be honest but losing a month of pay is substantial.

Totally agree.

But coercion/bullying/social isolation is a terrible thing to deal with at work and those people who subscribe to it need to take a hard look at themselves. There is no excuse.

Nobody has advocated coercion or bullying. But if I do not wish to have anything other than a professional relationship limited to work matters only with a scab, that is my right, just as I would limit my relationship with a misogynist or a racist. This is my workplace and I am not required to like the people that I work with, nor am I required to like their attitudes or opinions. I am required to attend work and to act in a professional manner whilst there. Their right to break my strike does not trump my right to dislike them for it; and I will not be coerced or bullied into pretending that I like them for it. What makes you think that forcing me to pretend that their actions are ok, or that I like them for it, is not coercion or bullying? If they do not like that, tough luck; and I have no intention of taking a long hard look at anything other than them. If they want to turn down the pay and conditions that we have negotiated and fought for, then we can be pals. Until that time they are hypocrites.

I do think the bullying I witnessed around striking was very unpleasant. I saw people joining unions just to strike because they were worried about other staff members being unpleasant to them.

But I do think if you join a union and vote to strike you absolutely have to strike. In fact I think that if you join a union you have to strike if the collective vote for it.

The union I could have joined had no interest in my profession and case loads etc weren't considered at all. So I never joined as I had minimal interest in paying dues for the senior union officials in local government and the bin men weren't interested in any of the same issues as I was.

Not saying I agree with it but when I started in 2004 they still were not talking to someone who crossed the picket line in 1981 🤦‍♀️ literally I said hello to him and was told "don't talk to him, he's a scab"

It's interesting how some unions seek to band together to fight bullying from 'the man' but then quite happily become the new bullies themselves. Not even just deciding to blank somebody themselves, but demanding that others do the same as well.

Referring to another human being as a 'scab' is truly nasty and extremely loaded language. I'd understand it if it were, say, a serial killer or a child abuser, but just somebody who didn't want to go on strike from their job? Really?

Just out of interest, do those who are strongly obedient to their unions believe that they must throw their full support behind everything that the union proclaims - whether the stewards unilaterally or anything that 51% or more of the members agree on?

How about if your union proclaimed firm support for and agreement with all that TRAs insist and say (except for the actual threats of violence)? Would you then cheerfully refuse to stand up for women's rights when they demand that some of those women's rights be yielded up to the trans cause and obediently keep your mouth shut? Especially considering that a great many men simply don't 'get it' and could very likely constitute 51% of any workforce who could vote for the perceived '#bekind' option that won't really affect them adversely?

I dunno, calling someone a scab, possibly changing your attitude towards someone who you were previously sociable with and employees suddenly stopping swapping shifts/hols/cover as a pp mentioned because they didn't strike is pretty questionable conduct and bordering on bullying. I don't think it elevates those doing it to the higher moral status they mistakingly believe they hold by striking anyway.

Agreed

@FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper

It's interesting how some unions seek to band together to fight bullying from 'the man' but then quite happily become the new bullies themselves. Not even just deciding to blank somebody themselves, but demanding that others do the same as well.....I'd understand it if it were, say, a serial killer or a child abuser, but just somebody who didn't want to go on strike from their job? Really?

It really depends on the dispute...if you're into a real battle, not just over the percentages on pay but over something structural,, the result of which can define your career for the next couple of decades or more, then there's much more at stake and people find it very hard to be forgiving.

I saw some interesting behaviour in another workgroup/another Union in my industry a while back and the after effects were obvious for many years.

We're talking private sector with an aggressive management who were absolutely determined to split that portion of the workforce with a view to driving all that groups T&Cs down dramatically, dismantling all agreements, limit their careers and no doubt ultimately break the Union.

Despite the company's obvious intentions quite a few union members did go to work through several bouts of industrial action...reasons given were various..

After it had all finished I honestly didn't witness anything that I would call bullying and in the workplace everybody continued to be professional but it was often obvious outside the office that there wasn't much love lost between those that had worked and those that had actually taken IA....

Took a long time for the wounds to heal.