Are the strikes working?

[Flooble]

I can't remember who is on strike today, but it made me ponder. I think we have had strikes by:

Nurses
Doctors (Junior)
Doctors (Senior)
Royal Mail
Trains (various bits - track, drivers, etc.)
Teachers
Civil Servants (Not sure if all the Central Government ones went out earlier in the year?)
Border Force
Passport Office (? I think?)

However, as far as I know, none of them have achieved anything in terms of a better settlement? I may be wrong, but it feels as if in times gone past by now the train drivers would have been given a 10% rise or whatever. I think Royal Mail staff have given up and resumed regular working - not that I am sure since we only get deliveries twice a week or so round here anyway. Which is perhaps indicative of why the strike made no difference to most people - when you can't tell if they are on strike or not the impact is minimal.

Are these industries no longer as powerful as they used to be? For example, with the trains, a lot of people just work from home (and perhaps the people who can apply leverage to ministers to resolve the strike are also the sort who are more likely to now work from home on a strike day and not be inconvenienced). With the healthcare professionals the majority of the population are fortunate to not need their services, so a strike has no impact directly. And with the NHS already "on the brink of collapse" the difference between a bad service and an even worse service is small enough to also not be noticeable perhaps.

Are the strikes just going to roll on forever, achieving apparently very little?

[Ed.]

I don't think they can roll on forever, doctors and nurses are leaving quicker than they can be replaced. If they go private the country will presumably move with them.
if they emigrate or leave the profession I expect the UK will have to replace them from abroad but that will only work with more money so wouldn't it be cheaper to do it now?

[AlexRS2782]

With regards to Royal Mail / Parcelforce a large number of areas throughout the UK are now very stretched on staffing hence the delays.

A large percentage of their staff have left, and are still leaving, for various reasons related to contracts, pay, terms, conditions, etc, and the owners / recent new investors into the company think the best way to maximise profit is to order the remaining staff to take on the extra work / deliveries / gaps in the routes (next to impossible) so then those staff also decide to either leave or work to rule. Chatting to one of the nice local guys a few weeks back (Surrey) when he was delivering a tracked package and he said that in our area since last year 30% of workers had left to other jobs.

They also don't want to recruit new staff full time on decent terms so try to use short term temps to cover but regularly fail there due to the lack of care / consideration (undelivered / lost / all dumped through 1 letter box in the road, etc) from some of those they take on as well as the poor terms offered on new contracts for those who might want to take on the work.

As a result, round our way packages are still being delivered daily in the vans, but regular mail is now held at the local sorting office / depot and most areas are allocated 1 day every 7-10 working days when a couple of RM staff are sent to drop off everything that has built up over that time in bulk. This is fine when it's one of the regular posties as stuff still goes through the correct door, but when it's one of the day to day contract temps who doesn't care it's fair game as to where it ends up. A few weeks back my letterbox was used as the choice for any post for our road (presumably as it's the easiest to park outside, post, do a u-turn and drive off) which resulted in me distributing to about 15 houses later in the day.

Edited by AlexRS2782 on Saturday 22 July 23:47

[Oliver Hardy]

AlexRS2782 said:

As a result, round our way packages are still being delivered daily in the vans, but regular mail is now held at the local sorting office / depot and most areas are allocated 1 day every 7-10 working days when a couple of RM staff are sent to drop off everything that has built up over that time in bulk.

This happens around here too, get a delivery once a week, but the letters are up to six weeks late. Last month got a letter for a hospital appointment but it arrived after the date of the appointment. Also got a Tesco discount voucher through the post but it had expired by the time I got it. It happened again this month a couple of vouchers from Tesco but out of date by the time the post office delivered them

[Derek Smith]

One of the reasons for strikes is to disrupt. In this endeavor, they seem to have been successful.

I used to work in a job where striking for any reason was banned, a criminal offence. No worries though, we had a wage agreement with the government/home office to match pay with other, fairly similar roles. It lasted for a couple of years or so then the government decided not to agree with the agreement they forced on us all. No ability to strike meant no equivalence, and that we could be kicked around. Since then, pay has continually dropped in comparison to these other roles. Further, so have conditions, perhaps more so. With the ability to strike, conditions and pay would not have plummeted.

With these current strikes, the government has dug its trenches and there seems little likelihood of a change. Until, that is, the GE.

The first GE after the winter of discontent cost the government 80% of its seats and had it not been for internal squabbling in the labour party, they probably would have lost more. I think the impression that the tories couldn't govern that was generated in the WoD. Once a viable alternative arose, voters flocked to it, and labour got a landslide, well over twice the majority of Johnson's landlide.

If the government is the employer, and they refuse to negotiate, there is no option. Strikes in the private sector hurt the company. Public sector strikes can harm the government. It's a legitimate ploy. There was a turnout of 41% at Johnson's vacated seat. That's in a true blue seat. If MPs in more marginal seats want to remain in their jobs, they will put pressure on the cabinet to settle.

[NuckyThompson]

Derek Smith said:

One of the reasons for strikes is to disrupt. In this endeavor, they seem to have been successful.

I used to work in a job where striking for any reason was banned, a criminal offence. No worries though, we had a wage agreement with the government/home office to match pay with other, fairly similar roles. It lasted for a couple of years or so then the government decided not to agree with the agreement they forced on us all. No ability to strike meant no equivalence, and that we could be kicked around. Since then, pay has continually dropped in comparison to these other roles. Further, so have conditions, perhaps more so. With the ability to strike, conditions and pay would not have plummeted.

With these current strikes, the government has dug its trenches and there seems little likelihood of a change. Until, that is, the GE.

The first GE after the winter of discontent cost the government 80% of its seats and had it not been for internal squabbling in the labour party, they probably would have lost more. I think the impression that the tories couldn't govern that was generated in the WoD. Once a viable alternative arose, voters flocked to it, and labour got a landslide, well over twice the majority of Johnson's landlide.

If the government is the employer, and they refuse to negotiate, there is no option. Strikes in the private sector hurt the company. Public sector strikes can harm the government. It's a legitimate ploy. There was a turnout of 41% at Johnson's vacated seat. That's in a true blue seat. If MPs in more marginal seats want to remain in their jobs, they will put pressure on the cabinet to settle.

It doesn’t appear that anyone in this government realises that lack of negotiation is damaging their election chances. With the list of public and private professions on strike you start to see that that’s a huge amount of the electorate that are embittered. This government however seem to think that the strikers are annoying the general public and that their hard line stance and ‘no negotiating’ is what the general public want.

In general striking does more damage to both sides than the subsequent net gain. It just appears to me that there isn’t even any dialogue from the government which embitters people even more and makes the strikers dig deeper and there’s no backing down from the strikers either as they feel that this is the rock bottom point and like with the doctors and nurses they feel that it’s nit necessarily about their wages for themselves but the fact that the wages on offer aren’t attracting the right people to sustain the service now and in the future

[markymarkthree]

Mrs Marky works for Sirona as a nurse. Voted to strike but none of the strikes fell on her work nights. She received a nice £1500+ lump sum and a pay rise. Worked for her.

[Flooble]

Derek Smith said:

One of the reasons for strikes is to disrupt. In this endeavor, they seem to have been successful.

I used to work in a job where striking for any reason was banned, a criminal offence. No worries though, we had a wage agreement with the government/home office to match pay with other, fairly similar roles. It lasted for a couple of years or so then the government decided not to agree with the agreement they forced on us all. No ability to strike meant no equivalence, and that we could be kicked around. Since then, pay has continually dropped in comparison to these other roles. Further, so have conditions, perhaps more so. With the ability to strike, conditions and pay would not have plummeted.

With these current strikes, the government has dug its trenches and there seems little likelihood of a change. Until, that is, the GE.

The first GE after the winter of discontent cost the government 80% of its seats and had it not been for internal squabbling in the labour party, they probably would have lost more. I think the impression that the tories couldn't govern that was generated in the WoD. Once a viable alternative arose, voters flocked to it, and labour got a landslide, well over twice the majority of Johnson's landlide.

If the government is the employer, and they refuse to negotiate, there is no option. Strikes in the private sector hurt the company. Public sector strikes can harm the government. It's a legitimate ploy. There was a turnout of 41% at Johnson's vacated seat. That's in a true blue seat. If MPs in more marginal seats want to remain in their jobs, they will put pressure on the cabinet to settle.

I know I'm not quite as old as you Derek, so maybe my memory is a little more fuzzy as I was a child at the time, but was the Winter of Discontent not under a Labour Government and it was a Tory landslide victory in 1979?

From the other comments here it does sound as if the strikes are just going to trundle on until the general election. However, my original question was regarding the way in which the Winter of Discontent caused (or appeared to cause) huge disruption (not quite bodies in the streets style, but close). These strikes seem to be largely invisible - at work people with children had a bit of a grumble about the teacher strikes, but after all the Covid school shutdowns they are pretty slick at finding things for the children to do and the employers in many cases are also well geared up for quick fixes such as "Gary is working 0600-0900 and 1700-2100 today as he's looking after his children" stuff.

Does anyone else old enough to remember previous bouts of industrial action feel like these ones aren't having the same impact?

[Biggy Stardust]

Flooble said:

I know I'm not quite as old as you Derek, so maybe my memory is a little more fuzzy as I was a child at the time, but was the Winter of Discontent not under a Labour Government and it was a Tory landslide victory in 1979?

Facts are not important. This is about having a swipe at the conservatives.

[johnboy1975]

For it to work, there has to be a mutual respect. Our union turned down 6% (with a split between new and old contracts, where the 6% was kept in name for old T+C, but in reality was 3% up front (one off) and 3% pay rise) by a margin of 90+%. Nice to see the new T+C voting with the old guard

New offer of a straight 7.5% for all + £500. Strike averted

If the union had come in with 35%, they'd have been laughed off the negotiation table (although I do sympathise with the JDs, it's just not realistic)

On the other hand, 5/6% as a full and final offer feels a touch short. And if we'd been negotiating with the government, I think we'd be half way out the door by now

NB Don't ask, and I won't tell

[fido]

I think the train strikes are having less and less impact especially as those who can WFH do so. Of course they have now moved onto a ban on overtime working which is mildly annoying and hurts them less in the pocket.

[speedyman]

Many of the strikes are due to employers (I include the current government in this) paying zero or small increases which are below inflation for a number of years. This builds a head of steam in the workforce which eventually blows.

[Grumps.]

Derek Smith said:

The first GE after the winter of discontent cost the government 80% of its seats and had it not been for internal squabbling in the labour party, they probably would have lost more. I think the impression that the tories couldn't govern that was generated in the WoD. Once a viable alternative arose, voters flocked to it, and labour got a landslide, well over twice the majority of Johnson's landlide.

Not sure you have that correct.

I believe it was the Labour Party in power in that era.

[NuckyThompson]

Some of the private sector strikes are baffling too. Company I worked for, salaries represented between 1 and 2 % off turnover. Yet they would still argue over about £50k a year total cost of a pay rise for us when they were making at one point 10 million dollars a day just at our facility. They had about 18 facilities.

They could have double our salaries and not seen a huge affect on profits. Some of the employees if really on their game could eek out a few extra percent of production a day adding at least that £50k a year in one day. Wasn’t even a mention of further increasing profitability through efficiencies through staff in negotiations. It was very strange as the staff were always treated as dispensable when they were anything but.

Don’t get me wrong the salary was good but they’re now haemorrhaging staff and good quality staff throughout the business which is probably costing them millions (although hard to quantify in the accounts you know it’s correct). It’s baffling but sometimes it was like they couldn’t see the wood for the trees

[Vasco]

fido said:

I think the train strikes are having less and less impact especially as those who can WFH do so. Of course they have now moved onto a ban on overtime working which is mildly annoying and hurts them less in the pocket.

People are fed up with the railway Trade Unions, for some it's just a reminder of the bad old Scargill/Miners era.

Many people no longer need, or trust, the trains and join the increasing numbers on the road. Rail staff/Unions simply don't have the same clout as they did but they persist in their various actions. Unfortunately, for them, the government have far more important issues to progress and are, largely, ignoring them.

[Vanden Saab]

The Gov. Has settled with the people the general public care about. Nurses and teachers and are hanging those who are doing it for political reasons out to dry. Doctors and train drivers.
Clever move which will help not hinder them at the next election on more than one level.

[survivalist]

Vasco said:

fido said:

I think the train strikes are having less and less impact especially as those who can WFH do so. Of course they have now moved onto a ban on overtime working which is mildly annoying and hurts them less in the pocket.

People are fed up with the railway Trade Unions, for some it's just a reminder of the bad old Scargill/Miners era.

Many people no longer need, or trust, the trains and join the increasing numbers on the road. Rail staff/Unions simply don't have the same clout as they did but they persist in their various actions. Unfortunately, for them, the government have far more important issues to progress and are, largely, ignoring them.

Agreed. The priority for most is healthcare and teaching is pretty important for those with children. Only a small percentage of people use the railways regularly.

Royal Mail is irrelevant, largely because the delivery of letters is pretty irrelevant these days and there are loads of companies that do a better job of delivering parcels.

[gt_12345]

Why didnt the Tories just outlaw strikes when they had a majority under Boris?

[DeejRC]

Outlawing strikes would be a hugely dumb political move with very little support from any sector of society.
It is much much easier and cheaper (in every way) to settle with those you deem political necessary and hang those you don’t. As other have noted - the nurses & teachers have been settled, the postie mob and the train drivers have been ignored. The BBC told everybody that Consultants are on £100k, at which point nobody listened to the rest of the story as they were too busy laughing. As a general rule in life, you can pretty much hang on your hat on the British public never supporting a bunch of ppl who they already consider spend too much of their life on the golf course.

[gt_12345]

DeejRC said:

Outlawing strikes would be a hugely dumb political move with very little support from any sector of society.
It is much much easier and cheaper (in every way) to settle with those you deem political necessary and hang those you don’t. As other have noted - the nurses & teachers have been settled, the postie mob and the train drivers have been ignored. The BBC told everybody that Consultants are on £100k, at which point nobody listened to the rest of the story as they were too busy laughing. As a general rule in life, you can pretty much hang on your hat on the British public never supporting a bunch of ppl who they already consider spend too much of their life on the golf course.

The only ones who deserved a pay rise during the current situation were nurses and ambulance workers.