How do strikers afford to strike?
Discussion
The right to withdraw one's labour and go on strike is, to my mind, one which should be preserved as a fundamental human right in the overwhelming majority of cases, but I'm puzzled as to how people afford it???
CWU members at Royal Mail have announced a further 19 days of strikes over the next couple of months on top of the 3 they've already had. Assuming those all go ahead, by my reckoning losing 22 days' pay in 4 months equates to a 21.9% pay cut over that period.
I don't know all that many people who could tighten their belts enough to shrug off that sort of pay reduction at the moment, and they'd need in excess of a 7% pay rise for the coming 12 months just to catch up to where they would've been had they carried on working with no pay cut at all!
Yes, workers should have the right to strike, but surely there comes a point, fairly rapidly, where the financial impact of doing so outstrips any possible reward (assuming you're striking over pay rather than something like safe working conditions) so how and why do people manage to keep it going?
I've never been in a union, so I've always had to take the view that if I can't get the pay I want from my current employer, I have to find a different one. If I had to stop earning whilst I went on my job search, I'd be royally screwed though!
CWU members at Royal Mail have announced a further 19 days of strikes over the next couple of months on top of the 3 they've already had. Assuming those all go ahead, by my reckoning losing 22 days' pay in 4 months equates to a 21.9% pay cut over that period.
I don't know all that many people who could tighten their belts enough to shrug off that sort of pay reduction at the moment, and they'd need in excess of a 7% pay rise for the coming 12 months just to catch up to where they would've been had they carried on working with no pay cut at all!
Yes, workers should have the right to strike, but surely there comes a point, fairly rapidly, where the financial impact of doing so outstrips any possible reward (assuming you're striking over pay rather than something like safe working conditions) so how and why do people manage to keep it going?
I've never been in a union, so I've always had to take the view that if I can't get the pay I want from my current employer, I have to find a different one. If I had to stop earning whilst I went on my job search, I'd be royally screwed though!
Kermit power said:
I've never been in a union, so I've always had to take the view that if I can't get the pay I want from my current employer, I have to find a different one. If I had to stop earning whilst I went on my job search, I'd be royally screwed though!
Simple, a union is a collective and it negotiate with employers on the basis of more equal negotiating power. If you're part of the collective you get (or lose) the same as the other members of the collective. If you're confident and skilled enough to go negotiating with employers on your own and you get the outcomes you're after then great but there are others who can't and those people band together in a collective - a union.Type R Tom said:
Can't help feel your two statements are a bit of a contradiction, support right to strike but also if you don't like it leave.
Not really. I was just saying that, never having been unionised, MY only realistic choice has been to change employers if I couldn't get the money I wanted from my current one - strikes by individuals don't have much leverage after all! - but that I couldn't afford to walk away from 24 days' pay to do so, hence wondering how striking workers managed it. rodericb said:
Simple, a union is a collective and it negotiate with employers on the basis of more equal negotiating power. If you're part of the collective you get (or lose) the same as the other members of the collective. If you're confident and skilled enough to go negotiating with employers on your own and you get the outcomes you're after then great but there are others who can't and those people band together in a collective - a union.
Yes, I understand that, but just because union members have the same collective terms and conditions and enter into collective negotiations, that doesn't mean they have the same personal circumstances. It's easy enough for a young employee with no dependents and possibly still living with their parents to give up 24 days of earnings over the space of 4 months to go on strike, but rather a different matter for someone who is maybe the main breadwinner in the family with kids and a mortgage to pay.
Assuming the latter is taking on debt whilst they're striking, there presumably comes a point where the financial impact of striking is going to permanently outweigh any improved terms they might realistically win?
Kermit power said:
rodericb said:
Simple, a union is a collective and it negotiate with employers on the basis of more equal negotiating power. If you're part of the collective you get (or lose) the same as the other members of the collective. If you're confident and skilled enough to go negotiating with employers on your own and you get the outcomes you're after then great but there are others who can't and those people band together in a collective - a union.
Yes, I understand that, but just because union members have the same collective terms and conditions and enter into collective negotiations, that doesn't mean they have the same personal circumstances. It's easy enough for a young employee with no dependents and possibly still living with their parents to give up 24 days of earnings over the space of 4 months to go on strike, but rather a different matter for someone who is maybe the main breadwinner in the family with kids and a mortgage to pay.
Assuming the latter is taking on debt whilst they're striking, there presumably comes a point where the financial impact of striking is going to permanently outweigh any improved terms they might realistically win?
Kermit power said:
rodericb said:
Simple, a union is a collective and it negotiate with employers on the basis of more equal negotiating power. If you're part of the collective you get (or lose) the same as the other members of the collective. If you're confident and skilled enough to go negotiating with employers on your own and you get the outcomes you're after then great but there are others who can't and those people band together in a collective - a union.
Yes, I understand that, but just because union members have the same collective terms and conditions and enter into collective negotiations, that doesn't mean they have the same personal circumstances. It's easy enough for a young employee with no dependents and possibly still living with their parents to give up 24 days of earnings over the space of 4 months to go on strike, but rather a different matter for someone who is maybe the main breadwinner in the family with kids and a mortgage to pay.
Assuming the latter is taking on debt whilst they're striking, there presumably comes a point where the financial impact of striking is going to permanently outweigh any improved terms they might realistically win?
As far as I know, many unions can only afford moderate payouts while their members are on strike. Any who go on strike and expect their union to make up their income are going to have a shock.
The impact on take home pay from striking often isn’t as much as might be expected, as any loss of pay will be entirely at whatever the maximum rate of tax/NI it is that the employee pays, so for postal workers outside of Scotland it’s likely to be about 33%. For train drivers, again outside Scotland, they’ll be getting taxed at roughly 43% in total, so each day’s strike will only cost just over half a day’s take-home. Obviously these may vary as some employers still deduct employee side pension contributions on strike days, others don’t.
For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
alangla said:
The impact on take home pay from striking often isn’t as much as might be expected, as any loss of pay will be entirely at whatever the maximum rate of tax/NI it is that the employee pays, so for postal workers outside of Scotland it’s likely to be about 33%. For train drivers, again outside Scotland, they’ll be getting taxed at roughly 43% in total, so each day’s strike will only cost just over half a day’s take-home. Obviously these may vary as some employers still deduct employee side pension contributions on strike days, others don’t.
For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
So is the money strikers get from the Union while on strike not taxable? For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
Vanden Saab said:
So is the money strikers get from the Union while on strike not taxable?
It isn't pay so not taxable.https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/topic/pay-be...
alangla said:
The impact on take home pay from striking often isn’t as much as might be expected, as any loss of pay will be entirely at whatever the maximum rate of tax/NI it is that the employee pays, so for postal workers outside of Scotland it’s likely to be about 33%. For train drivers, again outside Scotland, they’ll be getting taxed at roughly 43% in total, so each day’s strike will only cost just over half a day’s take-home. Obviously these may vary as some employers still deduct employee side pension contributions on strike days, others don’t.
For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
I'm confused. To keep the maths simple, let's say that a striker normally earns £100 per day, and pays overall 33% in tax, so their take home is £67 and their tax is £33. For strikers earning £43-50k in Scotland, btw, the impact on take home from a strike is surprisingly small thanks to the effective 54% tax rate.
Presumably for every day of strike action, their take home drops by £67 and they pay £33 less tax? How is that costing them less than expected?
NWTony said:
I'd imagine they get it back from overtime clearing the backlog the strike caused.
Currently the lads I used to work with on the railways are doing exactly that.Rest day working apparently was going to be banned by the then transport secretary when the strikes started.
It wasn't.
The general line is that striking benefits neither side, the employer loses tehir labour and the labour loses cash which may well outstrip the pay rise they are asking for in the first place but their only option is to withdraw labour to effect the employer.
Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
NuckyThompson said:
The general line is that striking benefits neither side, the employer loses tehir labour and the labour loses cash which may well outstrip the pay rise they are asking for in the first place but their only option is to withdraw labour to effect the employer.
Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
I'd like to work for a company that makes 'tens of millions a day' (profit ?) with 250 employees.....Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
Kermit power said:
.... but I'm puzzled as to how people afford it???
CWU members at Royal Mail have announced a further 19 days of strikes over the next couple of months on top of the 3 they've already had. Assuming those all go ahead, by my reckoning losing 22 days' pay in 4 months equates to a 21.9% pay cut over that period...
I may be wrong but think I read that not everyone will be on strike for the whole 19 days, so different jobs will be on strike at different times meaning they will only lose about 6 days pay each but collectively will affect the mail delivery system for more like 19 days.CWU members at Royal Mail have announced a further 19 days of strikes over the next couple of months on top of the 3 they've already had. Assuming those all go ahead, by my reckoning losing 22 days' pay in 4 months equates to a 21.9% pay cut over that period...
NuckyThompson said:
The general line is that striking benefits neither side, the employer loses tehir labour and the labour loses cash which may well outstrip the pay rise they are asking for in the first place but their only option is to withdraw labour to effect the employer.
Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
The other side of the coin being that if the company caves to the union every time, that £800k a year they're asking for becomes £1.5m next year, £3m the year after, etc etc. Where I work they will push negotiations to the wire in the hope the employees will get fed up. I’ve seen the employer basically spend more money on management and union officials time than the pay rise the union were asking for in the first place. Bloody stupid and ends up smashing employee apathy and morale even more.
They would push it to the wire for an £800k a year total pay rise for 250 employees when they are making tens of millions a day. Then wonder why they’re losing a lot of employees atm.
The way I see it, a lot of the people running unions are more interested in "sticking it to the man" rather than looking out for the long term interests of their members. I read somewhere that Royal Mail are currently losing £1m a day, not sure how sustainable that is in the long term, and only going to be made worse by the scale of these strikes.
There is also strike action that doesn't mean missing work, for example working to rule, refusing to work overtime/provide cover. This can cripple a company, and as stated many unions will provide financial support. This can be more sustainable for the employee but really damaging for the employer.
rigga said:
NWTony said:
I'd imagine they get it back from overtime clearing the backlog the strike caused.
Currently the lads I used to work with on the railways are doing exactly that.Rest day working apparently was going to be banned by the then transport secretary when the strikes started.
It wasn't.
Strikes are not planned overnight. It’s usually the result of months and months of stalemate and negotiations and any employee with only a few months notice can generally see where it’s heading and are advised to put a few quid aside just in case strikes actually happen.
Strike pay maybe paid but this will vary enormously and is not paid for the odd days strike.
As above, overtime before and after the strike will generally be available and probably essential to clear backlogs.
Hardship loans and grants from the union may be payable to those who genuinely can’t afford it.
Most striking will see that the long term gains may outweigh the short term loss so are prepared to take it in the chin. It can really be a case of who blinks first. An extra 1% win can be worth more over the years as that rise will be compounded.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff