AnonymousUser1
Elite Member
It is not a beauty or popularity contest!
From The Guardian, today:
On Boxing Day, I was informed by a relative that the sympathy he’d once had for the RMT union had evaporated after its decision to hold rail strikes over Christmas. My relative understood his change of heart to be of grave significance for the trade union. Prolonged disruption had turned people like him away, he warned, and that would cost the union dearly.
His position – that the outcome of an industrial dispute is in large part determined by the presence or absence of public support – is repeated throughout coverage of the current wave of strikes. Sky News recently asked the Aslef general secretary, Mick Whelan, if the fact that nurses are paid less than train drivers made it difficult “to get the public on board when you’re talking about pay”. The Financial Times reported that senior Conservatives believe teachers, who are currently being balloted, aren’t likely to gain widespread public support after the disruption to children’s learning during the pandemic.
In each case, the role played by public support is assumed: the alignment of public sentiment with the strikers moves them toward a victory, while backlash against the unions risks their defeat. However, the relative levels of sympathy drawn by different workers doesn’t suddenly translate into leverage.
Instead, it’s workers’ ability to maximise disruption that determines their industrial power. Rather than trade unions needing to keep the public on side, the necessary and intended consequence of disruptive strike action is often the frustration of the public. This is particularly true in public sector disputes, which can’t use lost profits as leverage. Indeed, if industrial action doesn’t hurt the public, then it’s arguably only hurting striking workers through lost wages.
From The Guardian, today:
On Boxing Day, I was informed by a relative that the sympathy he’d once had for the RMT union had evaporated after its decision to hold rail strikes over Christmas. My relative understood his change of heart to be of grave significance for the trade union. Prolonged disruption had turned people like him away, he warned, and that would cost the union dearly.
His position – that the outcome of an industrial dispute is in large part determined by the presence or absence of public support – is repeated throughout coverage of the current wave of strikes. Sky News recently asked the Aslef general secretary, Mick Whelan, if the fact that nurses are paid less than train drivers made it difficult “to get the public on board when you’re talking about pay”. The Financial Times reported that senior Conservatives believe teachers, who are currently being balloted, aren’t likely to gain widespread public support after the disruption to children’s learning during the pandemic.
In each case, the role played by public support is assumed: the alignment of public sentiment with the strikers moves them toward a victory, while backlash against the unions risks their defeat. However, the relative levels of sympathy drawn by different workers doesn’t suddenly translate into leverage.
Instead, it’s workers’ ability to maximise disruption that determines their industrial power. Rather than trade unions needing to keep the public on side, the necessary and intended consequence of disruptive strike action is often the frustration of the public. This is particularly true in public sector disputes, which can’t use lost profits as leverage. Indeed, if industrial action doesn’t hurt the public, then it’s arguably only hurting striking workers through lost wages.