I don't have a good and generous feeling towards strike action, I have generally agreed with politicians like Cable that have suggested the action of striking needs reform. I'm staunchly pro-worker rights, I think it's disgusting that there have been moves to remove the ability for people to claim unfair dismissal until after 2 years of employment, I don't understand why anonymous applications for jobs haven't become law, and on the issue of pay I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the minimum wage in an organisation being no worse than a set fraction of the top paid position (for example, a CEO wishing to pay themselves £100k a year would have to ensure the lowest paid workers got no less than £15k).
But strike action just feels to me to be an archaic and blunt weapon used by workers to get/keep their rights, almost exclusively used in an inappropriate manner these days, that fills a void that better legislation towards resolution of conflict could achieve so much better.
Those that strike on Wednesday will be doing so off the back of an endorsement carried by a small percentage of their population. I know..I know...I've heard the arguments about a Tory government being elected on the same percentage, and of the "overwhelming" support by those that turned out. I also think those arguments are disingenuous.
It may well be the case that the vast majority of workers that had the right to vote in the strike ballot, but didn't, do indeed support going on strike. It may also be that they don't. The lower the turn out, the lower the chance of the verdict being 'correct'. Combine this with the fact that those that wish to turn out to these kinds of events are those that are predisposed to striking at the drop of a hat, or feel for the first time that they need to go out and support strike action, as well as the varying shades in between...the "sample" of voters is unweighted and completely biased.
The taking of a strike ballot is akin to YouGov going out with a loaded question such as "The Tories want to give you lots of free money, while Labour are trying to take away your hard earned cash...who will you vote for in the next election", and asking only those in the heart of Witney.
We don't take abstentions during General Elections to mean support for any one party, indeed abstention is a mark of "don't care", or of actually voting against the process in general. Yet the union leaders will put a completely different spin on abstention during strike ballots, I saw one article or blog in passing (didn't keep the link, sorry) that suggested that not voting wasn't a vote for the status quo. How they worked that out I will never know.
And so people will strike, assuming that no deal is reached between the government and unions...in reality there is little reason for either to give much way outside of trying to build a narrative of "being reasonable" with their respective friendly media outlets. The Unions want to show the Government up as not being in control, of the people being more powerful than the government is (quite rightly so in that respect alone). Meanwhile the Government wants to show the opposite, and that the unions themselves are unreasonable and selfish. With a single strike on the cards both parties can play this card effortlessly, and nothing will change. The die will have been cast before the day's strike action starts, with only a violent clash or two likely to sway public opinion (and then only towards to the government, in net effect).
Strike action is neither effective, nor reasonable...it hits this middle ground of posturing for the sake of it. If the proposed strike action was to go on for days...weeks...as it has done in the past with the firefighter strikes (which I have always, and will always, be morally against) and postal strikes...maybe it would be a different story. The government wouldn't be able to just "write off" a day's worth of economic productivity as they would do with a special bank holiday, and the unions wouldn't be able to meander in to the action without a much stronger and publicly acknowledged stance.
But then, as said above, I don't like strike action. I believe it needs to be a final option for workers, you can't take away their ability to simply protest...but if there are avenues of actual prosecution/fine by tribunal for unfair employment practice the chances of anything getting to that stage would be greatly reduced. Right now we'd be seeing the government having to seriously justify the option they have taken, to have gone through much greater consultation with all of the workers that are affected rather than just putting some sums together and deciding "here's where we save the cash".
In the end I find the prospect of Wednesday's strikes a little "meh", I strongly believe that the workers have a case, Labour already mucked with their pensions and there are significant amounts of public sector workers, especially those who have given service to this country for decades, that are going to be significantly out of pocket. That said, the government has been fair in negotiation to ring-fence those very workers that are set to lose out the most. To me it seems like the two sides could negotiate for much longer before having to break out in to an all out fight, but the environment of how we deal with these disputes in this country aren't conducive to taking this more mature and less disruptive/futile path.
To address a few of the issues you raise:
ReplyDeleteYou say that you are "staunchly pro-worker rights", and that the unions have a strong case with regard to pensions, so you seem to agree that the *aim* of the strike is fully justified.
Your main point appears to be that strikes are a "blunt weapon" and that strike action is ineffective - but you offer little evidence for this. Of course many strikes are defeated but there are also many examples of strikes in the past that have been successful in achieving the workers' demands, such as the strike for equal pay by women workers at Ford Dagenham and the numerous strikes for higher pay in the 1970s.
You suggest that strike action should be "a final option" for workers - but when do we reach the final moment? The Government are quite clearly set on attacking pension rights, and have only slightly reduced the proposed level of attack after the strike ballot results were attained.
You suggest that the strike ballot was not democratic, due to the low turnout. But of course a majority of those that voted opted for a yes vote. As you say "We don't take abstentions during General Elections to mean support for any one party" and neither is that the case with the strike ballot, whatever union leaders might claim. Your comparison with a YouGov poll that asked a loaded question and polled "only those in the heart of Witney" is clearly not valid. The legal requirements on polling are very strict with regards to both the wording of any questions and the polling of the full membership of the relevant union.
You don't propose any realistic alternative to strike action. You mention tribunals and legislation - but if strikes are a blunt weapon then legislation is hardly a sharpened sword that can be wielded in defence of workers' rights, and much of the legislation that does benefit workers is only in place as a result of workers' struggles, including strikes, that have taken place in the past.
I agree with you to some extent that a strike of just one day can only have a limited impact - but then you don't say that you would support a longer-term strike either.
I am in full support of the strike on Wednesday. The cause is clearly justified. Workers should not have to accept cuts to their pensions when top directors' pay rises are running at an average of around 46%. The ballot has been conducted legally (not easy these days) and returned a yes vote despite the usual onslaught from the press and false promises from politicians. The strike will act as a check to the Government aiming to make workers to pay for the economic crisis whilst as usual allowing their rich donors to continue to profit from it, and it will raise the confidence of workers who do not see cuts in their living standards as inevitable.
First, cheers for the comment.
ReplyDelete"You say that you are "staunchly pro-worker rights", and that the unions have a strong case with regard to pensions, so you seem to agree that the *aim* of the strike is fully justified."
Absolutely, it's not a problem for me, per se, to see pensions reformed if that's what the employer wants to do (in this case the government). But the foist it on those that have been working under a previous scheme, have made life plans based on a likely pension outcome and have been loyal to the country...it's clearly not a "just" decision to act in this way.
"but you offer little evidence for this."
Evidence on strike action effectiveness is really sparse, and I doubt you could realistically provide me with evidence that it is actually effective.
Take your examples though; The Ford strikes were successful because they were small in scope and determined. The women of 1968 decided that they simply would not back down, was supported by "the enemy", i.e. the fellow male workers, to a good degree, took place during a Labour government (a PROPER Labour government). The employers that would at first refuse this change were being pushed from all sides and could only rely on the women themselves backing down to "win".
I don't know much about the 70s strikes, but I'm interested to know which were proper victories. I know of the early 70s postal strike which was a largely Pyrrhic victory, the miners strikes that would ultimately be failed. The "winter of discontent" strikes worked for a similar reason that others did...strike action was prolonged.
But again, I would class those particular "victories" as somewhat Pyrrhic given that they gave power to a woman who decimated their ability to make such an impact again. I imagine that the Trade Unions did what they did thinking their Labour friends would back down so close to an election, and got stuck in a rut when the government didn't back down. I wonder how many of those involved in the orchestration of the late 70's strikes would have chosen to do things differently rather than make such politically opportunist moves...?
"You suggest that strike action should be "a final option" for workers - but when do we reach the final moment?"
Good question, better strike laws would enable this to be defined.
"Your comparison with a YouGov poll that asked a loaded question and polled "only those in the heart of Witney" is clearly not valid."
It's absolutely valid. You cannot gain a truly accurate account of all workers wishes off of such a small turnout. As I say, you do not know how many of the vast majority that didn't vote did so because they do not agree with strike action and voting on it.
By comparison, the varied base of voters, and significant turn out, means that it's more than fair to assume that the views of those who voted in the general election are generally reflective of those who didn't.
"You don't propose any realistic alternative to strike action. You mention tribunals and legislation - but if strikes are a blunt weapon then legislation is hardly a sharpened sword that can be wielded in defence of workers' rights, and much of the legislation that does benefit workers is only in place as a result of workers' struggles, including strikes, that have taken place in the past."
And strike law will continue to change, whether workers and unions wish to drive that change to ensure their rights, or leave it to the Tories to water down some more is up to them, I guess?
"You don't propose any realistic alternative to strike action. You mention tribunals and legislation "
ReplyDeleteThey are the realistic alternatives. Pay negotiations and rights of workers are currently hammered out by entrenched opinions. My feeling is that an independent pay and benefits review should take place first...if you look to history most strikes end with a certain rise in pay but only completed fully after a review. Why it's always been done that way around is absolutely absurd.
Take, for example, the way the police have (largely) been organised in terms of pay and conditions over modern times. An independent body works out what is fair to pay them, and the police accept that independent view unconditionally, as do the government, in return for giving up a general right to strike. It worked for years (until at points various Home Office ministers would try and suggest they would ignore that agreement, that never did last too long though).
If workers have a problem with their pay and conditions they should go to the unions. Before any kind of ballot the unions should represent their members with initial meetings with employers, to air grievances and discuss options.
If this is futile then workers can be balloted over a desire to formally start a dispute. This would need to be accountable, and low turnouts would simply not be acceptable for this. If most people are not fussed to vote about their pay, then most people do not have a problem about their pay.
An independent pay and conditions review occurs, and the parties are bound by law to accept and work to implement their findings (if any work needs to be done). This could lead to further negotiations about the way to achieve this outcome.
Should the employer still refuse to meet the obligation then in reality there should be no need for strike action, as the unions should be able to take the employer to court. Should this not be an option for some reason, perhaps politically through no desire to allow courts to be able to bind companies to a pay structure, then strike action could be undertaken in the same way it is now. Most people have agreed to a dispute, now whoever votes, however little, can endorse a strike. I'd even relax the restrictions on striking in this circumstance as the workers are clearly in a position of moral and ethical "right".
"I agree with you to some extent that a strike of just one day can only have a limited impact - but then you don't say that you would support a longer-term strike either. "
I wouldn't support nor not support a longer strike. It's up to the people involved to make that decision, it's just a shame their leaders couldn't see themselves to do more to negotiate first. So many concessions have already been talked about or offered that it seems ridiculous to make it a political "who can blink first".