Are strikes ever successful ?

[Avantia]

Whatever your thoughts may be on striking - it is a legal right . But does striking ever achieve the outcome that Unions want ?

One of the biggest strikes in our recent history - the Miners - didn't really achieve anything did it ? Mines were still shut down, communities broken and relations between public and police at very much a low point.

So is striking an effective way of industrial action ? Has it ever been sucessful ?

Nope they arent, a load of middle class people walking round London with some homemade placards, demonstrating about their pensions (which their lucky to have, and a job too), David Cameron aint lisitening and neither are most hard grafters or non-grafters.

Yes, they can be very successful (look at the tube drivers). the problem with the miners strike is that they didn't hold many cards (withdrawing labour when the intention of the government was to put them out of work). Bit of a different scenario when essential services are involved.

Depends on the power of the union. BA strikes were very successful, as were Tube strikes, and IIRC the threat of strikes the last time they tried to change pensions resulted in govt backing down on pretty much every single proposal. I think last time they achieved 1% of the intended savings.

This time though I think public sector workers are on a hiding to nothing. In the last decade public sector pay has increased relative to private sector to the extent that these jobs are no longer seen as poorly paid relative to private sector. When you then add in the perception of poorer productivity (eg around 12 days sick leave per public employee versus 9 days for private) and greater benefits (flexi working, pensions), the mood I think is not as supportive as it has been in the past. I imagine the govt has timed this precisely because of this (yes, they could do with saving the momey, but they have been itching to reform pensions for a long long time and I think they are playing to the mood swing of everyone suffering together to finally get what they want through).

I really can't see the govt backing down on this one this time.

Thanks for your replies.

Interesting - these last few weeks have made me think more about strike action I am self employed so doesn't affect me and DH is a police officer so he can't strike !

It could be very successful if it was wide spread and continued.

As a midwife I'd walk out of work on Wednesday but we haven't been ballotted so I can't. I'm pissed off with my union. But if they do ballot us for the next one (and it looks like they will) then if all midwives and nurses stuck togetehr and walked out so there was noone on the wards then the govt would have to do something.

The problem is there will always be a number who won't strike.

TBH I am sure there is something deep in the legal depths of commercial law which enables companies to force people back to work if they are doing vital stuff, which could I think be invoked if all the midwives went on strike. So having a few people work anyway might actually be of benefit to you - it may be the only way in which those who midwives who want to strike are able to have their voices heard.

Some people - eg police - are not allowed to strike by law, but there are others - eg utility companies, and many essential services - where a strike can be deemed against the public interest (It has to be taken to court for the court to decide if the strike can go ahead).

I think it depends on what you define as success.

As I understand it, research suggests that in general strikers would have been better off accepting the offer on the table. The strike may result in an improved offer from the employer but this has to be balanced against the pay and benefits lost during the strike. I can't find the research at the moment but my recollection is that on average it takes over 3 years for the improved offer to cover the strikers' losses.

Most polls apart from the recent BBC poll suggest that support for the public sector strike is limited and likely to fall if it causes serious disruption. If all the midwives and nurses went on strike and patients died as a result I suspect the general public would blame the unions, leading to even less support for the strikers than they currently enjoy.

The public has some awareness that public sector salaries are now around 10% higher than those in the private sector. I can understand why many in the private sector wonder why they should have to pay tax to subsidise public sector pensions that are far more generous than anything they can ever hope to receive. I have some sympathy for the strikers but I agree with StillSquiffy that this strike is unlikely to succeed.

Since the Tube strike has been mentioned a couple of times, I have to say I am unclear whether the men concerned were reinstated as a result of the strike or as a result of one of them succeeding with an unfair dismissal claim at tribunal. I am, however, surprised the union went on strike to support a driver who deliberately disabled a safety critical system, putting lives at risk.

There is nothing in law to say that workers can be forced to work other than in the police service or armed forces. Some sectors may choose to operate a no strike policy such as prison officers.

As for the original question, strike action can undoubtedly be successful. However, it is always the last course of action. No one wants to lose pay on a whim.

Thanks for all your replies .

In a business that can be closed, striking is an extremely risky business. Arguably it hastened the closure of many mines. Likewise, BA could easily have been pushed over the brink if the strikes had continued (and some would argue could still be severely damaged long term due to their now perceived unreliability affecting bookings, and therefore long term people's conditions).

In the public sector, it is more difficult for the employer as, obviously, schools have to continue to operate, etc.

If midwives went on strike I think they would have very little public support - the inconvenience of a closed school is one thing, but an actual risk to women and babies would be absolutely shocking over a financial dispute (as opposed to, say, where it related to working practices specifically believed to put women at risk). One story of a compromised baby and it would be all over. I would hope that midwifery unions would not be that naive.

It is covered in European Law, which trumps UK law. Had to go back to my old study books to find it though

Article 11 (2) of the convention of human rights allows actions to be curtailed when they threaten:-

1. Public security
2. Public health
3. National security

UK has never (to my knowledge) put it into specific UK legislation - probably because 3 years ago no-one ever thought that big strikes would really happen again - I think they thought that actions like yesterdays' were a thing of the past. But it still applies to us within EU law and am sure govt would go straight into court if ever they needed to rely on it.

How about when the petrol tanker drivers blockaded? That got a reduction in petrol prices.

They got a brief reduction in petrol prices. Those prices that were so shocking when they went over £1 are now £1.30 odd and nobody's blockading now. Doesn't that tell you something?

I don't believe strikes ever work. They turn the public against the cause and in the public sector they need the public support otherwise the govt will just go with what the most voters want.