.png){kind=small}
Trade unions and strikes
The stronger trade union activity is in a country, the stronger the economy. However, big corporations don't like trade unions as they see them as a threat to their profits.
The government and the billionaire-backed media often condemn employees who stand up for their rights rather than the corporate interests that make striking necessary. This proves whose side they're really are on.
If an organisation is shaped like a pyramid, it is the people at the bottom that make the biggest contribution to profits. Despite this, they are often undervalued by their employer. Corporations know that the less they can pay employees, the higher the profit they can make. And that means more payouts to shareholders.
Why are trade unions important?
​
Do you like weekends? Bank holidays? Paid time off? A livable wage? The rights and freedoms you enjoy at work were won by workers in the past who collectively fought for them. However, progress does not only go one way. Society needs to keep fighting to ensure these rights are not rolled back to serve wealthy interests.
​
A trade union's mission is about using the power of the people to challenge the people in power. They are an example of the the strength working people have when they unite behind a common cause.
​
Unionised workplaces are safer and good for the economy. The more employees participate in fighting for their rights in their country, the stronger the economy.
The UK, has the third worst employee participation in Europe, according to Commonwealth.
Why do strikes happen?
​
Trade unions represent workers. By negotiating as a collective entity on behalf of workers rather than as individuals, unions seek better pay and working conditions for their members.
Strikes are a last resort, called only after negotiations with the top of an organisation have failed, and only if the majority of members, i.e the workers themselves, vote in favour. Striking is a significant sacrifice for workers, who do not get paid during that time.
Disrupting the normal functioning of an organisation is how front-line workers get those at the top to listen, as polite letters or petitions do not have the same impact as withdrawing labour.
Despite the success of strikes, the government will lie to convince you otherwise.
Modern Opposition to strikes
Selfish
Those who go on strike are called selfish, because strike action is inconvenient. The divide and conquer tactic is used to paint "hard working people" as the "victims" of strike action, as if striking workers and the rest of the working population are two separate entities.
When the train drivers went on strike, “what about the other rail workers?” when other rail workers went on strike “what about nurses who make less?” when nurses went on strike “what about teachers?” and so on. They always want to direct anger downwards, they never want us to look upwards.
​
Pay rises are unaffordable
​
In the private sector, for example, it is cited that that companies cannot afford to give workers a pay rise.
​
In rail, prices have go up in line with inflation every year. Workers salaries do not. However, those at the top's salaries do.
​
Rail, telecommunications and mail, are among the industries who have been most active in taking industrial action against their decreasing pay and worsening conditions. These industries have also been making big profits with big payouts to shareholders. How can you boast about record-breaking profits, but at the same time claim that pay rises are unaffordable?
​
Contribute to inflation
​
The UK government claims that giving pay rises to workers would lead to inflation because companies would have to raise prices to maintain their profits. However, this is a lie. Wages in the UK have not increased in real terms for average workers for over a decade (although they have for CEOs and MPs). If wages were the cause of inflation, prices would have remained stable over the last 15 years. However, we all know that prices have continued to rise, so wages are not the main cause of inflation.
​
Many of the workers who are striking in 2022 and 2023 are public sector employees, such as those in education and the NHS. These services are free at the point of use, so increasing their pay would not lead to higher prices.
​
We need to modernise and move with the times​
​​
The word “modernisation”, in terms of the service industry seems to be synonymous with “paying fewer people”, “worse service” and “increasing profit”.
​
Technology can replace work done humans, which is a threat to jobs. However, just because a computer can do something doesn't always mean it should. For example, in the rail industry, the only party that benefits from things like driver only trains and automatic ticket machines is the train company because their wage bill is lower.
​
Additionally, while modern society is 24/7, it doesn't mean profitable companies should get away with removing evening and weekend overtime pay.
The Role of the Government
Instead, of supporting rights of citizens, the recent UK governments have prioritised profit over people and giving welfare to the wealthy.
​​​
Through the numerous strikes in 2022 and 2023, it has was clear that the Conservative government at the time were taking a more direct role in negotiations between trade unions/workers and organisations. They were accused of wanting strikes and engineering failure, not only as a tactic to turn the public against strike activity but also to put off other organizations from striking.
Passing anti-strike laws
The other tactic governments have is to legally restrict the right for workers to withdraw their labour. The UK already had some of the most restrictive labour rights in the developed world. For example, in the UK a type of action called Revenue Strikes are illegal, where employees would still provide the service, but not take money for it (for example bus drivers or train conductors not collecting fares). The only way for workers to pursue industrial action in the UK is to withdraw their labour completely, causing the maximum level of disturbance.
However, the existing laws don't go far enough accourding to the former Conservative government. In 2022 they wanted to pass laws to make striking harder less effective. But if the industries affected by these laws are too important to all be able to go on strike, they’re important enough to be paid adequately. Forcing people to work against their will, effectively turning them into slaves is no way to run a country.
​Here is former SNP MP Mhairi Black explaining just some of the reason why proposed anti-strike laws are morally and potentially legally unworkable.
The problem is that wealthy politicians, such as former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, could afford to hard-ball the trade union movement. Sunak, the guy who gets private jets between London and Leeds for photo opportunities, doesn't care if the trains are running. He doesn't care if NHS workers are on strike because he uses private healthcare. It makes no difference to him or his kids if state school teachers are picketing. None of these disputes affect him or his cronies, so playing chicken with other people's lives is an easy gamble.
​​
The role of the Media
​
The default role of the majority of the media during industrial disputes is of protecting the powerful and attacking the powerless.
Media frame the debate from the point of view of the big business and parrot their talking points: the inconvenience of disruption, the greed, the unfairness of other groups who get treated worse. Rarely do we see those at the top of organisations criticised for their role in failed negotiation. Why not frame the argument as organisations not giving workers what they deserve- especially organisations who can well afford it?
​
Personal Attacks on Union Leaders
The media will also attack individual leaders of trade union movements to delegitimise the arguments being made. It is a common trope to demonise anyone who wants to challenge the status quo.
Tabloid newspapers have criticised Union Leaders as the ones responsible for the strikes. The reality is that strikes can only happen if the majority of Trade Union members want it. It is not a unilateral decision by one member. These leaders are also democratically elected by members to represent them. If members do not like how the leaders behave, they can be replaced. The same cannot be said for CEOs.
Union leaders are also called hypocrites for earning high salaries. For example, RMT leader Mick Lynch makes £84k per year. It is around 4 times the average salary of a rail worker, as opposed to the CEOs of rail companies, who make over 30 times the average worker salary.
So why aren’t leaders of organisations who will not negotiate with unions and make strikes necessary demonised in the same way? CEOs are truly unrepresentative of their workforce, You rarely see their faces splashed on the front page of The Sun.
​
Example: Rail Workers (Private companies)
Despite railways being privately owned in England, they receive significant subsidies from the Government. They have delivered appalling service and still get paid these subsidies. They also compensate rail companies during strike days, ensuring that they can keep making money while those on strike will make nothing.
The government claimed that they do not like to interfere with private business, but were shown to have been obstructive in negotiations between rail trade unions and the companies. They have added clauses that they know would never be accepted in negotiations, the only explanation for which is to extend the dispute.
Unsurprisingly, it was the workers who faced the brunt of criticism for striking over the festive period.
The dispute of the RMT is misrepresented. They are maligned as greedy, because it is apparently a well-paid industry. But the dispute is more than money (even though due to inflation workers are taking a significant pay cut). Their working conditions are also being ripped up.
This is being done in the name of modernisation. None of these changes need to happen, it is all down to greed and a desire for rail companies to make even more money. Any attempt to turn the public against the rail workers’ dispute is a cynical and callous assault on the 99.9%, which the government and large parts of the media are supporting.
​
For rail strikes, it would have cost less to settle the disputes that it would to keep the strikes going.
Example: NHS Wokers (Public Sector)
A decade of denying funding to the NHS to the health service has led to a series of crises, from workforce problems, low employee morale out of date equipment and buildings that are not fit for purpose. Now, alarmingly, NHS workers are being accused of greed by the same government that called them heroes during COVID. They are expected to show dedication to a role without being paid appropriately for the job they do. This not only affects the workers but the service being provided to the public.
​
The nurses and paramedic strikes in December 2022 are unprecedented. It is the first time the Royal College of Nursing have balloted for strike action in their history. Even though nurses’ wages have fallen in real terms by 9% since 2010, they are not just striking for pay, but for patient safety.
​
The poor pay and conditions imposed on nurses has affected staffing levels. In 2022, nurses have left the profession in record numbers Not only does this decrease the numbers of staff, but when people are taking their expertise and experience out of the profession it is going to affect the quality of care being provided.
In a similar situation, ambulance workers have severe concerns of patient safety. According to the GMB Union, one third of their paramedic members think delays in ambulances have led to the death of a patient. There are more than 3000 vacancies in the ambulance service. In the winter if 2022/3, it was estimated 500 people died every week waiting on NHS emergency care.
​
Junior doctors, who went on strike in March 2023, have received a 25% pay cut over the previous 10 years. They were accused of being unreasonable for asking to have their pay restored to the equivalent of what is was a decade ago. Nobody in the media accused the government of being unreasonable that junior doctors, essential workers had such a shocking pay cut imposed on them.
It was claimed that it would cost £28 billion to give public sector workers a pay rise, the equivalent to £1,000 per household. However this was found to be grossly exaggerated and open to factual inaccuracies. ​​
​
Basically, the establishment want NHS staff to pay for elite greed.
