UKC

Is "Strike" a dirty word?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The Lemming 21 Aug 2022

Seems like Strike Action is the fashionable thing to do at the moment, with people ranging from rail workers to barristers taking industrial action, but is strike action effective or the wrong way to go when an employer will not increase wages?

Will not, as opposed to can not. Sensible people can tell the difference when negotiating.

13
 FactorXXX 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

> Will not, as opposed to can not. Sensible people can tell the difference when negotiating.

I think most sensible people will realise that there is also a lot of middle ground that seems to get ignored when industrial disputes become political as opposed to what might be actually best for the employees.
 

Post edited at 00:24
1
In reply to The Lemming:

Strike action is a last resort, only taken when negotiations have failed. Balloting is a long, difficult process,subject to many legal challenges along the way. The days of showing hands in the carpark and walking out are long gone.

In some cases it achieves,in others it doesn't what it does do is show a strength of feeling. My union is currently balloting over pay, it will be interesting to see the outcome.

Rather than fashionable to strike, we are seeing a perfect storm of high profits, high inflation and low pay awards. All this under a government which won't support workers. It is fashionable to exploit which has lead to the strike action.

Interestingly, I read yesterday that journalists at the express plan to strike. How will that be reported?

7
 payney1973 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

I think who it is striking that important to how much the public support their strike.

nurses and NHS staff come to mind because their work is well known to he horrifically under valued. 
As opposed to train drivers on average 50k+ and barristers that I can only imagine get a stomach churning amount. That’s not to say they don’t have a right to strike but you’ll hardly get support from the rest of society that average earnings are half yours. 

42
 deepsoup 22 Aug 2022
In reply to payney1973:

>  and barristers that I can only imagine get a stomach churning amount..

If you take the time to find out what their deal actually is instead of just imagining it you might change your mind.

In reply to payney1973:

Should you do some research, rather than jumping to conclusions, you will find that the barristers strike is justifiable. Train drivers salaries are fair, there was a long debate on here a few weeks ago about those, have a read.

When pay is in the news it is all too easy to play beggar my neighbour and belittle the efforts of others. All this succeeds in doing is accelerating the race to the bottom.

If your salary is currently half of a train drivers, what's to say it won't stay at that level, tracking that of the drivers. Every piece of industrial action has the potential to benefit all workers. Instead of criticising other sectors in a fit of jealousy, encourage your employer to improve your conditions towards them.

6
 FactorXXX 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

>  Train drivers salaries are fair, there was a long debate on here a few weeks ago about those, have a read.

The only conclusion I got from that debate was that there is a bit of a disconnect by some users on UKC of what a fair wage actually is.

OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Earlier this year I read that Barristers earned very little compared to the work that they do and the knowledge and skill required to do that work. Its also quite shocking to learn that the average self-employed take home pay is around £27k

See FAQ 5

https://thesecretbarrister.com/frequently-asked-questions/

As a nation have reached the race to the bottom yet I fear there is further to fall.

2
 cathsullivan 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

Industrial action (which can include strike action but can also take other forms) is a negotiating tool. When employers withdraw from negotiations, then a ballot for industrial action can be a useful bargaining tool - the purpose of which is to bring the employer back to the negotiating table so that the action doesn’t need to be taken. Obviously, it is a risk. A ballot that gives a mandate for industrial action can lead to the resumption of negotiations and strengthen the union’s position. If the ballot doesn’t give a mandate for action then it gives the employer a green light and weakens, in general, the union’s bargaining position. Often balloting for (rather than taking) strike action is what is effective because it helps to make sure meaningful negotiations continue.  It is negotiations that either 'win' or 'lose' things (hopefully 'resolve' them, which is a better way of describing it, I think) rather than strike action itself. If there is a ballot and this is successful in its goal of making meaningful negotiations resume, and the dispute is then settled, you may never even hear about it in the news.  What all sensible people involved in industrial relations want is for things to be resolved through meaningful negotiations.  A ballot with a decent turnout, even on another issue, can really help to improve the bargaining power of trade unions and this makes them better placed to defend the rights of their members.  This defence can be collective (as in pay bargaining) but it also often consists of individual casework. A good turnout in a ballot for action will indirectly strengthen the arm of the caseworker who is trying to stop the employer from sacking somebody instead of providing reasonable adjustments for their disability.

Attempting to resolve things through collective bargaining is challenging and imperfect, but nobody has ever even come close to convincing me that there is an effective alternative that will promote equality and protect the vulnerable.

Post edited at 08:38
 wilkie14c 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Train drivers only make up around 20% of total rail staff car but the media are twisting the facts claiming the strikes are all around the drivers. It isn’t, it’s all of us other workers too and we haven’t seen a pay rise for 3 years. 

The fact is, in it’s simplest form, ‘work’ is an arrangement where the employer buys an individual’s time and expertise for an agreed amount. It has come to the point where the individual has decided not to sell that time & expertise anymore as the amount paid for it doesn’t match the current financial climate (therefore a pay cut compared to last year/year before etc)

Its interesting that the Tories can vote for their next leader of the gang on-line (180k member eligible to vote) however, they won’t allow the unions to vote on-line, it has to be done by snail mail. That alone tells you where they are with reducing the county’s CO2 emissions without even the ‘one rule for them’ argument.

2
 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I think most sensible people will realise that there is also a lot of middle ground that seems to get ignored when industrial disputes become political as opposed to what might be actually best for the employees.

The downside of strike action is that it often impacts on, unfairly, the general public who are not parties to the dispute. Is it morally justifiable to for example, ruin people's holidays, or affect people's health, sometime's very seriously by interrupting travel arrangements, or supply chains which could deprive sick people from getting essential medicines? Why is the arbitration route so often rejected or ignored? I am a believer in arbitration being one of the best and fairest devices developed by human kind for settling disputes. We live in an imperfect world, that's a fact of life, but arbitration seems to me to be such an obvious route that it should be compulsory and binding. If you have a fair case what do you have to fear from it, unless deep down your own conscience and common sense tells you that it is flawed in some respects?

17
 elliot.baker 22 Aug 2022
In reply to payney1973:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62628181

Have a look at the chart down this article, they're on about £10kpa after expenses for the first year, £19k after that. Read the Secret Barrister, they'll be doing long hours, stressful, around challenging people, and I assume they are paid nothing for travel time etc., and the prep/research work they do out of hours.

Even the highest paid are "only" on about £65k after expenses (median), so it's not like footballer/CEO/surgeon/dentist money, though I think (and this is mentioned in the Secret Barrister) the career is seen as a super high-flying well paid one. I think that's probably people mixing up other types of lawyer/solicitor/barrister with criminal ones working public-funded cases.

In reply to Trangia:

> If you have a fair case what do you have to fear from it, unless deep down your own conscience and common sense tells you that it is flawed in some respects?

What in the world makes you think this government have any interest in hearing a fair case? You think they would agree to a binding arbitration process?

3
 neilh 22 Aug 2022
In reply to elliot.baker:

That is why nobody in their right mind would choose a career in being a criminal barrister and in turn why lots are leaving and doing something else.

OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> The downside of strike action is that it often impacts on, unfairly, the general public who are not parties to the dispute.

Its highly likely that almost every job impacts on the public, does that mean that strike action should be banned so that people can get on with their lives and jobs which are probably underpaid too?

>  Is it morally justifiable to for example, ruin people's holidays, or affect people's health, sometime's very seriously by interrupting travel arrangements, or supply chains which could deprive sick people from getting essential medicines?

Is it morally justifiable for a portion of the nation to vote in a government that knowingly, through their manifesto, under-fund a health care system and then systematically reduce the number of doctors and nurses to save money in those voter's pockets?

Is it morally justifiable when those same few doctors and nurses vote to go on strike for what is generally accepted as being underpaid for work in unprecedented dangerous conditions of a lifetime?

1
 mondite 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

>  We live in an imperfect world, that's a fact of life, but arbitration seems to me to be such an obvious route that it should be compulsory and binding. If you have a fair case what do you have to fear from it

A cursory look at how arbitration actually works is quite a lot actually.

The USA recently passed a law banning mandatory arbitration for employment, consumer and other areas due to its massive imbalance and bias towards the companies vs employees/consumers.

 Forest Dump 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

Nope, it's a valid tactic to secure fair pay for work. Especially so when profits far outstrip pay increases

2
 wilkie14c 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

As far as railways are concerned, we would love to run a normal service but not take any fares (Like the Japanese) thus not inconveniencing anyone but still having the same effect as a strike for the employers. Alas, the Tories made this illegal.

1
OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to wilkie14c:

> As far as railways are concerned, we would love to run a normal service but not take any fares (Like the Japanese) thus not inconveniencing anyone but still having the same effect as a strike for the employers. Alas, the Tories made this illegal.

I did not know that.

It should be advertised more during Strike Action!

1
 Dave Garnett 22 Aug 2022
In reply to elliot.baker:

> Even the highest paid are "only" on about £65k after expenses (median), so it's not like footballer/CEO/surgeon/dentist money, though I think (and this is mentioned in the Secret Barrister) the career is seen as a super high-flying well paid one. I think that's probably people mixing up other types of lawyer/solicitor/barrister with criminal ones working public-funded cases.

I don't think anyone makes much while training to be a barrister or in their early years at the bar, but those in commercial law rapidly ramp up their earnings, while most criminal practice remain dependent on legal aid payments.

 65 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> The downside of strike action is that it often impacts on, unfairly, the general public who are not parties to the dispute. Is it morally justifiable to for example, ruin people's holidays, or affect people's health, sometime's very seriously by interrupting travel arrangements, or supply chains which could deprive sick people from getting essential medicines?

I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, but arguably yes. It is that same public who voted in the very government who are asset stripping the NHS, stealing public money for PPE contracts for friends of theirs, and creating the conditions which allows directors to pay themselves obscene bonuses while their staff fall behind in inflation. I acknowledge that this applies specifically to the current government and not necessarily to others, though to an extent it does.

Why is the arbitration route so often rejected or ignored? I am a believer in arbitration being one of the best and fairest devices developed by human kind for settling disputes. We live in an imperfect world, that's a fact of life, but arbitration seems to me to be such an obvious route that it should be compulsory and binding. If you have a fair case what do you have to fear from it, unless deep down your own conscience and common sense tells you that it is flawed in some respects?

Agreed up to a point. When dealing with someone as disingenuous and untrustworthy as Shapps et al or your value is measured in people clapping on their doorsteps, at some point the gloves have to come off. There is also the question of who the third party would be in a quasi mafia state like the UK.

Also, while striking is a last resort, ultimately it must remain so irrespective of legislation. Not that it might happen here, France would be a different matter, but illegal or not, all-out strikes by major services and/or industries, or a general strike would bring the country to a standstill and no amount of well meaning teams of soldiers would keep us going. But it all hangs on public support. Remember the fuel crisis triggered by the hauliers in 2000? 

I am a union (Prospect) member FWIW, on principle rather than need, and I'm not a raving Trot.

I'll get loads of dislikes for this, (not that I'll see them, I turned them off) but one of the key problems is that the notion of compromise being a weakness is very deep-rooted British culture, on all sides, and it takes a painfully long time for anyone to offer any ground.

2
 NathanP 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

I feel let down by the unusually serious and sensible replies, this is supposed to be UKC! I suppose it is down to me to maintain standards:

"'Strike' isn't a dirty word, Lemming. 'Crevice' is a dirty word, but 'strike' isn't." ― General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth, sort of.

1
 65 22 Aug 2022
In reply to payney1973:

> nurses and NHS staff come to mind because their work is well known to he horrifically under valued. 

Until Election Day when most people get preoccupied about how much tax they might have to pay.

> As opposed to train drivers on average 50k+ and barristers that I can only imagine get a stomach churning amount.  

Train drivers do earn a good amount but the strike is not about train driver's pay, it's about rail workers pay, and I have it on good authority that there are a lot of them, including essential safety workers, on minimum wage and absolutely terrible conditions (having to use their own car with no recompense etc).

A bit of research will let you know what junior barristers earn. Senior barristers can and do earn a lot but you don't pass the bar exams and immediately go nose to nose in court with BP or get clients like Max Clifford or Geoffrey Archer. 

You are correct about public support and perception, but the public are easily hoodwinked, the rail workers being reshaped as the £50kpa train drivers being an example.

3
 guffers_hump 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

Why would the media who are on the side of the Tories advertise this?

 Cobra_Head 22 Aug 2022
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I think most sensible people will realise that there is also a lot of middle ground that seems to get ignored when industrial disputes become political as opposed to what might be actually best for the employees.

>  

Are you suggesting the rail workers have been brainwashed?

Something like 97% voted for strike action.

It seems to me, the government has had a hand in where these negotiations have ended up and yet won't get involved!

So this particular dispute has had to become political. Note the Welsh rail workers already have a settlement in place! Why?

 cathsullivan 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> The downside of strike action is that it often impacts on, unfairly, the general public who are not parties to the dispute.

I think the key thing to remember is that the negative impact of strike action occurs when employers refuse to engage in meaningful negotiation.

Regarding arbitration, I don't know how often this is an option that the parties involved refuse to use. I agree that it makes sense to use it. I suspect there is reluctance sometimes because AFAIK, both parties have to agree when they enter the process that they will abide by whatever outcome is arrived at by the process.

Post edited at 12:30
 earlsdonwhu 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

I have noted that the current government messaging is not to mention the word "strikers" without prefacing it by the word "militants". 

 Garethza 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

'profiteering' is definitely a dirty word (on ukc atleast)  

2
 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> What in the world makes you think this government have any interest in hearing a fair case? You think they would agree to a binding arbitration process?

If it was law this government would have to submit to and abide by it whether they liked it or not. Governments are not above the law.

2
 mondite 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> If it was law this government would have to submit to and abide by it whether they liked it or not.

They get to set the law though in most cases. So why exactly would they come up with an arbitration scheme which doesnt favour them?

The same way US companies used arbritators which favoured them the majority of the time?

 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

> Its highly likely that almost every job impacts on the public, does that mean that strike action should be banned so that people can get on with their lives and jobs which are probably underpaid too?

I don't understand your point. What has it got to do with arbitration?

> Is it morally justifiable for a portion of the nation to vote in a government that knowingly, through their manifesto, under-fund a health care system and then systematically reduce the number of doctors and nurses to save money in those voter's pockets?

> Is it morally justifiable when those same few doctors and nurses vote to go on strike for what is generally accepted as being underpaid for work in unprecedented dangerous conditions of a lifetime?

Again what has those got to do with the principle of arbitration?

 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to mondite:

> A cursory look at how arbitration actually works is quite a lot actually.

> The USA recently passed a law banning mandatory arbitration for employment, consumer and other areas due to its massive imbalance and bias towards the companies vs employees/consumers.

Arbitrators are are, or should be impartial, in the same way that the judiciary are, or should be, that is the whole point of arbitration. Of course arbitrators are human like the rest of us, and they may be biased and have personal agendas. The same could be said of juries, but its a tried and tested system. Can you think of a better one?

 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to cathsullivan:

>  I suspect there is reluctance sometimes because AFAIK, both parties have to agree when they enter the process that they will abide by whatever outcome is arrived at by the process.

Which in effect renders it meaningless. As I said if your case is sound then you should have nothing to fear. Making it compulsory would sharpen the minds of both parties to look critically at their own case before having to resort to it.

1
 wilkie14c 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> As I said if your case is sound then you should have nothing to fear.

That could be likened to saying everyone in the country should have their DNA on the police computer - if nothing to hide, then nothing to fear?

 mondite 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> Arbitrators are are, or should be impartial, in the same way that the judiciary are, or should be, that is the whole point of arbitration.

And yet in the real world it can be horrendously abused.

Again the USA has just passed a law banning what you are demanding because it failed badly and ended up representing the interests of the companies, since they were the repeat paying customers, and not the employees or consumers.

So how are you proposing to design this system so it cannot be rigged by the more powerful party in their favour?

 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to wilkie14c:

No! Totally different concept. I'm talking about looking critically at your own case here. I was suggesting that if your own case is flawed, then of course you are not going to be keen on arbitration which means you need to look at it again. On the other hand if it is sound, then there would be no reason to fear arbitration.

4
OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> If it was law this government would have to submit to and abide by it whether they liked it or not. Governments are not above the law.

Boris is.

2
OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> I don't understand your point. What has it got to do with arbitration?

> Again what has those got to do with the principle of arbitration?

I think there may be some confusion, possibly on my part. I may have misunderstood some of your questions which may have seemed separate to you talking about arbitration.

If that is the case then, my bad.

Sorry

 wilkie14c 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

The gov won’t let the train operators settle the pay/conditions dispute so it’s pretty clear that they’d act the same way with arbitration 

2
 Trangia 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

> I think there may be some confusion, possibly on my part. I may have misunderstood some of your questions which may have seemed separate to you talking about arbitration.

> If that is the case then, my bad.

> Sorry

No worries.

I'm just saddened that arbitration doesn't seem to feature these days in employment disputes.

 Chris Murray 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

"Gusset".....now there's a dirty word.

 wbo2 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia : You might want to recall a lot of peoples wages, particularly in public service, have been getting below inflation pay rises and basically getting poorer the last ten plus years.  There are limits to patience

 ThunderCat 22 Aug 2022
In reply to NathanP:

> I feel let down by the unusually serious and sensible replies, this is supposed to be UKC! I suppose it is down to me to maintain standards:

> "'Strike' isn't a dirty word, Lemming. 'Crevice' is a dirty word, but 'strike' isn't." ― General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth, sort of.

Personally I don't really care if barristers go on strike.  It won't affect me at all,  I can make my own coffee. 

1
 Dr.S at work 22 Aug 2022
In reply to Chris Murray:

> "Gusset".....now there's a dirty word.

only if its moist. nothing wrong with a gusset on a down tube now is there?

 birdie num num 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

All of the train drivers and barristers I know, seem to be popping the buttons on their waistcoats. The horn of plenty has been kind to them.
Time to start slimming.

11
OP The Lemming 22 Aug 2022
In reply to birdie num num:

Good job they don't have a cornucopia then

🤣

 birdie num num 22 Aug 2022
In reply to The Lemming:

They won't go short. Regardless 

4
 MG 23 Aug 2022
In reply to Trangia:

But there isn't a "right" answer with most disputes, like with arbitration of legal matters. Depending on your view point, more pay, or more investment or more dividends might all be right. So arbitration would be err arbitrary.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...