In a couple of threads on this site people have expressed very disdainful opinions of those who strike to defend their rights/pay/conditions as workers. Most notably people expressed these opinions in the Royal Mail thread and the Tube strike thread....
I was shocked and somewhat saddened at how people seem to object to the principle of workers standing up to management. Do people object in absolute principle to the concept of striking or is it a merely selfish reaction when they, as an induvidual, are inconvenienced by a strike?
What is wrong with using tools at one's disposal (i.e. industrial action) to ensure a fair deal and to defend one's pay and conditions? After all, in todays climate isn't it all the more important to fight for your jobs and your pay? Especially when some at the top might be raking it in......
I know I'd be very cheesed off if my annual cost of living pay rise or pension was threatened and I'd join with colleagues to do anything lawful to defend it. Is that not reasonable? Shouldn't we support people who have reasonable demands in the workplace?
Strikes....
The reason why people get the hump is probably because most of us don't have a union to back us up, so if we want to make a stand, we're normally on our own.
Also, I think most people reckon train drivers and, by extension, other rail workers, earn a fair screw, by comparison to the rest of us; that may not be true, but it's what people think.
The last time I looked, I could apply for a train driver's job that would earn me £35K and above; that's quite a lot of money to most people, so I can understand why folk who are prevented from making their normal commute to their £20K (or less) job, might be a bit agrieved.
Also, I think most people reckon train drivers and, by extension, other rail workers, earn a fair screw, by comparison to the rest of us; that may not be true, but it's what people think.
The last time I looked, I could apply for a train driver's job that would earn me £35K and above; that's quite a lot of money to most people, so I can understand why folk who are prevented from making their normal commute to their £20K (or less) job, might be a bit agrieved.
I think it depends on the reason for the strikes and the union.
Tube strikes are unpopular and (in my opinion) they are mostly by a union too powerful who's leader seems to be more interested in getting his face in the paper than living in the real world. I doubt that there are many people in the general public who think tube drivers are underpaid or think that sacking staff for drinking on duty and paying cards is unreasonable, or endangering lives by opening the doors on the wrong side of the tube trains wasn't a sackable offence.
On the flip side, many of the Unions for the utility companies privatised by Thatcher did nothing to stop pay being reduced, stopping people to working more hours, people losing their jobs and their pensions being frozen.
I'm all for workers going on strike when their life and lively hood is genuinely threatened (and the company is doing well and has other options) but not when (as in some of the tube strikes) it feels more like a power play by a union leader who fancies himself as the new Red Robbo).
Tube strikes are unpopular and (in my opinion) they are mostly by a union too powerful who's leader seems to be more interested in getting his face in the paper than living in the real world. I doubt that there are many people in the general public who think tube drivers are underpaid or think that sacking staff for drinking on duty and paying cards is unreasonable, or endangering lives by opening the doors on the wrong side of the tube trains wasn't a sackable offence.
On the flip side, many of the Unions for the utility companies privatised by Thatcher did nothing to stop pay being reduced, stopping people to working more hours, people losing their jobs and their pensions being frozen.
I'm all for workers going on strike when their life and lively hood is genuinely threatened (and the company is doing well and has other options) but not when (as in some of the tube strikes) it feels more like a power play by a union leader who fancies himself as the new Red Robbo).
I'm a member of a large union however my job is viewed by some within and outside the profession as a 'vocation', it isn't in my opinion. But this view has meant that strike action has never, in my working life been pursued.
This frustrates me as i think we have had a raw deal in the past few years.
What frustrates me even more are tube strikes, these appear to happen at the drop of a hat. A friend of a friend whom is a tube driver used the last strike to go for a long weekend in Spain.
I believe every one should have the right to strike and make a stand for their rights. However when this right is abused by some the legitimacy of strike action for all is then called into question.
This frustrates me as i think we have had a raw deal in the past few years.
What frustrates me even more are tube strikes, these appear to happen at the drop of a hat. A friend of a friend whom is a tube driver used the last strike to go for a long weekend in Spain.
I believe every one should have the right to strike and make a stand for their rights. However when this right is abused by some the legitimacy of strike action for all is then called into question.
Re: Strikes....
Look guys, bensonby has said "reasonable". I think he would agree us that some of the tube strikes are for unreasonable reasons.bensonby wrote: Shouldn't we support people who have reasonable demands in the workplace?
Re: Strikes....
Of course we should.bensonby wrote:Shouldn't we support people who have reasonable demands in the workplace?
My problem with the ongoing strikes by transport and mail workers is that their demands are not reasonable. They have rejected above-inflation pay rises while many private sector workers have had their pay frozen or cut, or even lost their jobs.
So, your main reason is jealousy? You begrudge other people something that should be a basic right to people? If you are so desperate for union representation then why don't you join one/organise one or move to an industry where there is a decent amount of union representation..... I know that one (of the many) reasons I chose my particular career is because there was support for workers in my organisation...Rebelmc wrote:The reason why people get the hump is probably because most of us don't have a union to back us up, so if we want to make a stand, we're normally on our own.
£35K is hardly a fortune though is it? And if cost of living increases were being threatened then that amounts to a pay cut... And train drivers only really represent a small proportion of railway staff - many of who earn much less than them.Also, I think most people reckon train drivers and, by extension, other rail workers, earn a fair screw, by comparison to the rest of us; that may not be true, but it's what people think.
The last time I looked, I could apply for a train driver's job that would earn me £35K and above; that's quite a lot of money to most people, so I can understand why folk who are prevented from making their normal commute to their £20K (or less) job, might be a bit agrieved.
Re: Strikes....
Chazza wrote:Of course we should.bensonby wrote:Shouldn't we support people who have reasonable demands in the workplace?
My problem with the ongoing strikes by transport and mail workers is that their demands are not reasonable. They have rejected above-inflation pay rises while many private sector workers have had their pay frozen or cut, or even lost their jobs.
I must admit, I'm not an expert on all the ins and outs of the politics that lead up to the most recent strikes by the tube workers and RM workers.
But as far as I understand it it's not just about pay-rises in the RM case - its about wholesale cost-cutting across the organisation.
I fail to see how "just because others are being screwed over, they should be too" is a logical argument for against striking...
You're putting words in my mouth, which is rather presumptuous of you.bensonby wrote:So, your main reason is jealousy? You begrudge other people something that should be a basic right to people? If you are so desperate for union representation then why don't you join one/organise one or move to an industry where there is a decent amount of union representation..... I know that one (of the many) reasons I chose my particular career is because there was support for workers in my organisation...Rebelmc wrote:The reason why people get the hump is probably because most of us don't have a union to back us up, so if we want to make a stand, we're normally on our own.
£35K is hardly a fortune though is it? And if cost of living increases were being threatened then that amounts to a pay cut... And train drivers only really represent a small proportion of railway staff - many of who earn much less than them.Also, I think most people reckon train drivers and, by extension, other rail workers, earn a fair screw, by comparison to the rest of us; that may not be true, but it's what people think.
The last time I looked, I could apply for a train driver's job that would earn me £35K and above; that's quite a lot of money to most people, so I can understand why folk who are prevented from making their normal commute to their £20K (or less) job, might be a bit agrieved.
I never said any of what I posted was relevent to me, I was only posting the opinion that I have heard, time and again, from others.
For what it's worth, I couldn't really care less if postal workers or train drivers go on strike; I can't remember the last time I got on a train and I receive so little mail, waiting another day or so for the latest bit of junk is an irrelevancy.
As for unions, my view (and that of many others) is that their actions throughout the 70s and 80s lead directly to the end of this country's ambitions to remain a successful manufacturing economy; for example, if it weren't for the greed and unreasonable behaviour of the unions, we might still have a car industry.
I do actually work in an industry that has union representation but, in my part of that industry, they are known to be so ineffective, I don't know anyone who is, or ever has been, a member of it.
I'm all for worker's rights, but I'm also aware that, in these straightened times, downing tools for the sake of 0.5%, isn't likely to endear you to the populace; what I hear a lot is "these people should be grateful they've got a job", or words to that effect.
That doesn't give employers carte blanche to treat their workers like doormats, but I think the unions need to keep a sense of proportion, or they may find some of their members joining their comrades down the dole office.
As for your assertion that £35K isn't a fortune, it may not be to you, but I know a heck of a lot of people who would be more than happy to earn that, some of whom do quite skilled jobs, and do them well; which is why I added (and, presumably, why you ignored) the bit where I said that there is a perception that these people aren't too badly off, whether that's true or not, doesn't really matter.
I agree with the right to strike for the right reasons. Far more often than not - and especially in the case of the RMT and Bob Crow - the wrong reasons are pursued giving the impression that these strikes are led by irresponsible militant unionists.
A union strike should work because they have the public sympathies - asking the public not to cross picket lines or boycott a product or service. However, in the recent strikes there has been very little public sympathy to the tube strikers who seemingly want to strike at any opportunity (and usually against the public's perception of 'fair play') and recently the rail workers who are striking because they want above average salary increases. Because of the sheer numbers of strikes undertaken, it seems the majority of the rail/tube-using public are just utterly fed-up -- especially when it is about above average pay-rises or pension protection which most of the private sector do not receive.
Someone also mentioned to me that the strike action is not widely supported by their colleagues. Apparently, although a majority of voters opted for strike action, the turn-out was only around 35%.
I think it has got to the point now where further legislation should be brought in: if you want to go on strike a majority of the entire union need to vote for it and it then needs to be ratified by an independent Tribunal (payment of this process charged to the Union of course). The Tribunal can also help to mediate and can recommend the timing, locations etc of the strike action. If the Tribunal thinks the strike is unjust, then strikers should be summarily be sacked if they proceed to strike.
A union strike should work because they have the public sympathies - asking the public not to cross picket lines or boycott a product or service. However, in the recent strikes there has been very little public sympathy to the tube strikers who seemingly want to strike at any opportunity (and usually against the public's perception of 'fair play') and recently the rail workers who are striking because they want above average salary increases. Because of the sheer numbers of strikes undertaken, it seems the majority of the rail/tube-using public are just utterly fed-up -- especially when it is about above average pay-rises or pension protection which most of the private sector do not receive.
Someone also mentioned to me that the strike action is not widely supported by their colleagues. Apparently, although a majority of voters opted for strike action, the turn-out was only around 35%.
I think it has got to the point now where further legislation should be brought in: if you want to go on strike a majority of the entire union need to vote for it and it then needs to be ratified by an independent Tribunal (payment of this process charged to the Union of course). The Tribunal can also help to mediate and can recommend the timing, locations etc of the strike action. If the Tribunal thinks the strike is unjust, then strikers should be summarily be sacked if they proceed to strike.
You have to remember that if you are called out on strike, the union cannot force you to go out, and in fact they can't impose any sort of sanction or detriment upon you if you were to do so. And for a strike to be called, this has to be voted for by members in a secret ballot - Bob Crow can't force a strike on his members. So if there was a strike ballot in favour of action but with a low turnout, it is likely that relatively few workers would go out (and hence lose pay), and the union's future bargaining power in threatening a strike would weaken. RMT don't win every strike ballot that they call.
Unions and their members don't take action at the drop of a hat - there are a number of hoops they have to jump through so in order to do this, and the law does impose various restrictions that most unions would like to do away with. For example the strike has to be about pay and conditions, and not be for political reasons, or be in solidarity with another dispute. Given this, I think the current system where it is up to the members to decide, given certain constraints, is about right, and I can't see what an independent tribunal, however formed, could add. The mediation referred to above is already carried out by Acas.
The number of days lost to industrial action is very low compared to previous decades, and is also extremely low compared to days lost due to sickness, or workers generally lazing around at work doing nothing. Due to various circumstances, the few strikes that do take place are largely in the mail and rail sectors, but I don't think that this is a sufficiently serious problem to need more legislation. I travel into central London on the southeastern service from Sydenham Hill every day, and have done so for three years, and I don't think I've ever been affected by industrial action by rail workers on this line. If there ever was action, what would happen? If I wanted to go to the office I'd either get a bus, get a train on another service, walk, borrow a bike, or get a lift in someone's car. Alternatively I could work from home - something that more and more people are able to do these days, and which can only increase - something that I think the rail workers will eventually recognise. As for the mail strikes, how much real harm do they actually cause, given the way that e-mail and the internet eat away at their business?
Unions and their members don't take action at the drop of a hat - there are a number of hoops they have to jump through so in order to do this, and the law does impose various restrictions that most unions would like to do away with. For example the strike has to be about pay and conditions, and not be for political reasons, or be in solidarity with another dispute. Given this, I think the current system where it is up to the members to decide, given certain constraints, is about right, and I can't see what an independent tribunal, however formed, could add. The mediation referred to above is already carried out by Acas.
The number of days lost to industrial action is very low compared to previous decades, and is also extremely low compared to days lost due to sickness, or workers generally lazing around at work doing nothing. Due to various circumstances, the few strikes that do take place are largely in the mail and rail sectors, but I don't think that this is a sufficiently serious problem to need more legislation. I travel into central London on the southeastern service from Sydenham Hill every day, and have done so for three years, and I don't think I've ever been affected by industrial action by rail workers on this line. If there ever was action, what would happen? If I wanted to go to the office I'd either get a bus, get a train on another service, walk, borrow a bike, or get a lift in someone's car. Alternatively I could work from home - something that more and more people are able to do these days, and which can only increase - something that I think the rail workers will eventually recognise. As for the mail strikes, how much real harm do they actually cause, given the way that e-mail and the internet eat away at their business?
-
Nickerbockers
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 31 Oct 2007 13:04
- Location: Sydenham
Is that serious!??? How many people in your average office type job do you think earn 35k?? I have to tell you neither myself or anyone I know earn even NEAR that amount, so yes it is a fortune, to a LOT of people!!£35K is hardly a fortune though is it? And if cost of living increases were being threatened then that amounts to a pay cut... And train drivers only really represent a small proportion of railway staff - many of who earn much less than them.
There also is not the option of striking for most blue-collar workers out there, we have to take what's offered and get on with it. You don't see Secretaries in a company all deciding to strike coz their pay rise wasn't enough. These people striking are also the people who affect the public the most; trains and tubes mean things grind to a halt for the majority of commuters, and postal strikes affect everyone too, and we don't even know when they're due until we just don't receive post one day... such as today!!!!
The average (taking into account those earning massive city salaries) full time wage, as of the end of last year, in London is £46k. The average full-time salary across the country is £31k...taking into account London weightings &c. and discounting those at the very top the average is going to fall in the low to mid thirties...therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to say that £35k is "not a fortune." A teacher or police officer's wage (pretty unglamorous and standard jobs) start around the £30 mark in London...Nickerbockers wrote: Is that serious!??? How many people in your average office type job do you think earn 35k?? I have to tell you neither myself or anyone I know earn even NEAR that amount, so yes it is a fortune, to a LOT of people!!
feel free to disagree though.
Source here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7802792.stm
why? Perhaps if you unionised then you'd protect your interests a lot more. And that simply isn't that true....most of the car manufacturers seem to be unionised.There also is not the option of striking for most blue-collar workers out there, we have to take what's offered and get on with it.
well maybe they should. If their annual rise is below inflation then it amounts to a pay cut......why should people accept pay cuts if their workload remains the same?You don't see Secretaries in a company all deciding to strike coz their pay rise wasn't enough.
so? That just means that they have more leverage.... if their claim or grievance is reasonable then why shouldn't they strike?These people striking are also the people who affect the public the most; trains and tubes mean things grind to a halt for the majority of commuters, and postal strikes affect everyone too,
Chazza wrote:Remember that the average, i.e. mean wage, is pretty meaningless as it will get distorted by those on very high salaries. Much better to take a look at median earnings instead.
true true.....that's why I posted the rough starting salaries of teachers and police officers too. I can also tell you that a police officer who has not been promoted but who is 10 years into the job earns in excess of 40k and an army sergeant earns up to about 36k. I'd argue neither are that high status and are attainable to those who have no formal qualifications from school/uni &c.
Additionally, the figures will also be distorted by those on very very low salaries.
I do not usually agree with strikes to public services (such as trains, tubes etc). However, I do have a lot of sympathy for the posties. We must not forget that when they return to work, they have double the amount to do on the same pay! When tube drivers return to work, it is business as usual.
The point is that I think that posties are less likely to strike for frivolous reasons given that strikes seem to negatively impact them.
The point is that I think that posties are less likely to strike for frivolous reasons given that strikes seem to negatively impact them.
I think that, for a lot of people in the private sector, who seem by and large to be the ones more threatened by redundancy, pay cuts, short-term working and the like in the current economic climate, that is very much true. Especially in those cases where what's being demanded is a pay rise which is well above inflation. A lot of people who don't work in the private sector seem to think that life for those who do is really cushy, with high salaries, but that's frequently far from true: for example, one person I know hasn't had a pay rise in over 10 years, I think it was. (And yes, I have to admit that I have a bit of an axe to grind here, speaking as someone whose employers have made around 25% of the workforce redundant and frozen the pay of the rest, who will undoubtedly have to work longer hours to make up for the shortage of staff).Rebelmc wrote: I'm all for worker's rights, but I'm also aware that, in these straightened times, downing tools for the sake of 0.5%, isn't likely to endear you to the populace; what I hear a lot is "these people should be grateful they've got a job", or words to that effect.
Me included. A lot of the jobs advertised in my field barely pay £20K - and this would be for someone qualified to masters level and with 2 decades of experience. If I could find a job paying £35k I'd be over the moon, I think.As for your assertion that £35K isn't a fortune, it may not be to you, but I know a heck of a lot of people who would be more than happy to earn that, some of whom do quite skilled jobs, and do them well.
-
Nickerbockers
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 31 Oct 2007 13:04
- Location: Sydenham
Bensonby: I do disagree about the 35k not being 'a fortune'. Myself and everyone I know would give our right arms to be bringing in that sort of money and earn absolutely nowhere near it, though all of us do very different types of jobs in different areas of Londonand just have to scrimp and save and put up with what we get! I just have to say I find it quite insulting and belittling to say 35k isn't much and a salary worth going on strike over! I mean, fine, good for those earning that sort of money - but I have trouble believing that is the average, I heard the average was about £24k which is much more in keeping with mine and my friends/family's experience!
As for striking, I wouldn't strike... and I'm an NHS Secretary protected by Unison. The place would fall apart without the Secretaries and I guess we just care too much about the people we provide a service for to ever think about striking, and believe me we would have very good reason to. My job is on the list of one of the most stressful jobs you can have.
And in my opinion people in the position of having an impact on the general public are the ones who strike the most - BECAUSE they know eventually their bosses will have to cave in rather than keep the public without that service. And very often there isn't a 'reasonable' purpose for going on strike.
Anyway, that's my opinion on it all...
As for striking, I wouldn't strike... and I'm an NHS Secretary protected by Unison. The place would fall apart without the Secretaries and I guess we just care too much about the people we provide a service for to ever think about striking, and believe me we would have very good reason to. My job is on the list of one of the most stressful jobs you can have.
And in my opinion people in the position of having an impact on the general public are the ones who strike the most - BECAUSE they know eventually their bosses will have to cave in rather than keep the public without that service. And very often there isn't a 'reasonable' purpose for going on strike.
Anyway, that's my opinion on it all...
Eagle wrote:The right to withdraws ones labour thereby hurt your employer is perverse as they will have less money to pay out.
If people do not like their job I suggest they look for another one rather than hold everyone to ransom
I find it perverse that very hard one labour rights are seeminlgy being eroded by ambivolance and cynicism. Withdrawing one's labour is a fundamental right; we're not slaves after all.