Workers Going on Strike - Is This Acceptable?

aboogee on 28/05/2024 - 17:43
Last edited 28/05/2024 - 17:45

Title says it all - what do ozb community think about workers going on strike just because they cant reach a deal with the gov on pay rise?

While I understand the employer doing whatever it takes to keep expenses down, but for employees to then say I don't like it and therefore going on strike for me is just silly.
I mean if employees don't like the pay and benefits, then what's stopping them from looking elsewhere?
I don't think I am fairly compensated, but the reality check brings me back down to earth in that there is no better alternative, otherwise I would've gone for the better alternative.
Going on strike is effectively blackmail… and the gov should figure out a longer term solution to get out from this position.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/sydney-lightra…

Financial

Comments

      • ThithLord on 30/05/2024 - 14:22
        +2

        That's just conjecture! Sustained

    • D3HUN on 29/05/2024 - 13:12
      +13

      Yeah the same way the employer blackmails employees like "you do whatever I tell you (even if it is unreasonable), or I'll destroy your only source of income". Financial coercion.

        • banana365 on 30/05/2024 - 11:08
          +16

          It's always fun to see "lefties" flung around like its some sort of insult. All it really does is mark out the person saying it as self centred. "I'm alright, sod everyone else."

          There are plenty of us who, looking at the demographics, you would think would be supportive of more right wing, conservative policies but seem to have the ability to look at others struggling and thinking "Yeah, that's not on. They deserve support."

          • CrowReally on 30/05/2024 - 18:08
            +10

            @banana365: I think you're giving them too much credit in the uh, I guess we will call it the "reasoning process"

            The reality is more

            ocker: says something ignorant
            Dozens of people, from a variety of backgrounds: that's dumb, think again
            ocker's brain: clearly this is because they're all lefties, no need for any self review

        • beach bum on 30/05/2024 - 11:23
          +3

          What’s the hardest job you’ve ever done and for how long ?

        • GrueHunter on 30/05/2024 - 21:31
          +4

          "Oh yeah, well you stand up for workers' rights" isn't quite the insult you think it is, champ

        • Eeples on 31/05/2024 - 01:02
          +1

          Good to see the lefties are alive and well on OZB

          Next time try an argument instead of what you imagine to be an insult.

    • Orion au on 01/06/2024 - 09:32
      +1

      Yeah, good thinking. I'm sure the employers would just love it if all their employees just moved on. That'd help the company thrive. Well done.

  • mskeggs on 28/05/2024 - 19:11
    +14

    Employers are welcome to sack the striking staff (well, accounting for protected industrial action and fair work obligations), pay out their entitlements, hire new staff at lower rates and capture the benefit of lower wages.
    If an employer is not willing to do that, they probably have to work out a compromise.

    If the worker’s aren’t worth the demands they are making, the strike won’t be successful.

      • mskeggs on 28/05/2024 - 20:40
        +23

        I think you are having a hard time seeing both sides of the issue because you value the service the workers and their employer deliver together.
        Consider the employer is forcing a strike by not finding compromise - a strike only comes after a long period of intransigence.
        Nobody wishes to strike, strikers don't get paid but the stiker's bills continue.

        • aboogee on 28/05/2024 - 23:50
          +2

          fair point. thanks

      • brad1-8tsi on 29/05/2024 - 22:11
        +5

        Why do you keep mentioning the government as an employer in relation to Sydney Trams?

        Transdev runs Sydney Trams. It's a French company. If the government ran Sydney Trams then it's likely everyone would be on the same EBA.

        Do your research dude. Google is great

    • donga100 on 28/05/2024 - 22:05
      +3

      Employers are welcome to sack the striking staff (well, accounting for protected industrial action and fair work obligations), pay out their entitlements, hire new staff at lower rates and capture the benefit of lower wages.

      They most definitely are not welcome to do that under Australian law. They can only sack employees for poor performance or negligence and there needs to be a comprehensive detailing of the procedures followed to make sure the employee was given every opportunity to rectify the performance. Anyone who has ever attempted to performance manage staff out of government jobs or large companies will testify to how onerous this process is. Staff can be made redundant if the role no longer exists/isn't required but they can not then hire replacements for the same role.

      • mskeggs on 28/05/2024 - 22:14
        -1

        Pilots strike and Patrick's dock workers dispute come to mind.
        I guess my point is, both the employees and the employer can disrupt services, but it is rarely in either parties' interests to do so - for the employer it requires replacing a workforce and facing the potential fairwork actions, for the employees it means no pay (and potential fairwork actions for their union).

        • donga100 on 28/05/2024 - 23:34
          +2

          The union took Patrick to the Federal & High courts and won all 3 cases. The pilot strike didn't involve any sackings, rather resignations to avoid litigation for the unlawful industrial action. Agree that industrial action isn't without consequences.

      • infinite on 29/05/2024 - 16:59

        All employers can effectively sack staff in this scenario by just making them redundant due to employee salary and associated tax costs becoming too high for the business to afford. You then re-name the role, re-phrase the job spec & hire a new staff member at the salary that suits the business.

        Absolutely as easy as that.

        • Parentheses on 29/05/2024 - 23:19
          +2

          Easy enough when it's one role, perhaps, but if you do it en masse to a unionised workforce you'd best have some serious budget allocated to your legal department, because even if you win you'll be litigating that one for years.

          • infinite on 30/05/2024 - 07:53
            -3

            @Parentheses: How would they litigate anything against redundancy?

            There's no legal precedent in Australia that has ever forced a business or organisation to sustain losses or financial stress, to keep any employee of any type or number.

            Employees and Unions can litigate for any Union-related matter they choose too, but no outcome from that would stop any business or organisation from then turning around and saying "OK, well if the employees are now costing us $X a week more, then Y number of positions will need to be made redundant so we can keep within our current operating budget".

            That's why unions in the current day and age are so useless, all they do is end up losing their members employment and employment opportunities, through relentlessly pressing for more and more entitlements despite the employees offering no additional value to a business in return.

            • Jolakot on 30/05/2024 - 08:42
              +2

              @infinite: Do they fire a worker every time the CEO gets a payrise? Or is that only an issue when normal people want more money

              • infinite on 30/05/2024 - 13:25
                -2

                @Jolakot: CEO's are monumentally more valuable individuals to any company than basic employees. They almost always have a direct financial interest in the company too via owning a portion of it, or holding large sums of it's shares. They get huge benefits because they deal with huge risks. If hey do a terrible job and cause harm or loss to the company, they'll suffer an equivalent financial loss too via the financial interest they hold in the company. If a regular employee does a bad job and harms a company, they suffer no financial loss and instead just get hired via a DEI program in the public service.

                • CrowReally on 30/05/2024 - 18:28
                  +1

                  @infinite:

                  If a regular employee does a bad job and harms a company, they suffer no financial loss and instead just get hired via a DEI program in the public service.

                  The politics of envy are alive and well

                  Do you see yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed CEO"?

            • Parentheses on 30/05/2024 - 08:51
              +3

              @infinite: If you don't know how things work, don't talk as though you do, it looks ridiculous. If you THINK you know how things work because you read a Murdoch newspaper that told you so, please stop.

              If a business fires a bunch of people calling it redundancy, then hires a bunch of people to do that job under a veneer, that can and VERY often is challenged in court. If you feel like learning something you can google "sham redundancy court cases australia", and try adding "fined", "reinstated", "fwc", etc., there are many examples for you to look at.

              • infinite on 30/05/2024 - 13:27
                -5

                @Parentheses: I asserted there's no legal precedent in Australia that has ever forced a business or organisation to sustain losses or financial stress, to keep any employee of any type or number in regards to redundancy.

                Prove me wrong since you assert you "know how things actually work" and cite a case where that's ever happened ………………………… I'll be waiting.

    • johnfuller on 31/05/2024 - 10:14
      +1

      thats what the employer should do, if an employee is not happy, they should talk to their employer, not take a strike

      • mskeggs on 31/05/2024 - 11:05

        In Australia it is illegal to strike without first a long process of negotiation and discussion.

        • johnfuller on 31/05/2024 - 11:12
          +1

          according to chatgpt

          In Australia, the legal framework around strikes and industrial action is governed by the Fair Work Act 2009. While it's not accurate to say that it's illegal to strike without a lengthy negotiation process, there are indeed regulations and procedures that need to be followed before industrial action can be taken.

          Under the Fair Work Act, industrial action must generally be preceded by a process of negotiation and, in some cases, mediation or arbitration through the Fair Work Commission. There are also strict rules regarding the form and timing of strike action, including requirements for notice to be given to employers.

          However, it's important to note that strikes are not inherently illegal in Australia. They are a legitimate form of collective action that workers can take if they believe it's necessary to advance their interests in bargaining with their employers. But they must be conducted within the bounds of the law and follow the procedures set out in the Fair Work Act.

          • mskeggs on 31/05/2024 - 11:13
            +3

            @johnfuller: Sorry, if you can't be bothered to write it, I'm not going to waste time reading it

  • Hvrd on 28/05/2024 - 19:13
    +10

    a collective strike balances the power the employer and workers have

  • AustriaBargain on 28/05/2024 - 19:38
    +36

    News Corp thinks that strikes and workers rights are bad, so they must actually be good.

    • PhilosophicalTurtle on 30/05/2024 - 14:17
      +3

      @OP

      Going on strike is effectively blackmail

      Whenever someone forms an opinion about news shared via News Corp, it reveals much about their intellectual depth and the diligence they invest in seeking reliable sources of information.

      • banana365 on 30/05/2024 - 17:49
        +1

        OP at least asked for other opinions in their initial post and has certainly been given them. Whether those views have any influence is another matter, but if other views are asked for genuinely rather than just seeking reinforcement then that's to be admired.

      • aboogee on 31/05/2024 - 14:55

        Well, i will happily accept that.
        Thats nothing but the truth.

    • omniX32 on 30/05/2024 - 18:31

      What part of the article makes claims that the strikes are bad? I read it as a clearly written news story; gives a factual background of the situation, presents the argument from the union for the action, and provides the community with an expectation of what to expect as a result of the action.

      • AustriaBargain on 30/05/2024 - 18:32

        News Corp is an extremely large organisation, some of their outlets will report news more normally than others.

  • Cardy on 28/05/2024 - 20:08
    +1

    "…the reality check brings me back down to earth in that there is no better alternative, otherwise I would've gone for the better alternative."
    Interesting statement.
    However, I'm of the opinion most people are happy to work a day for a fair days pay, but not everyone is a good at negotiations and their value to whoever they work for. As TheRealCher said, going on strike is a PITA for everyone, a last resort. The majority of unions are helping their members. The lot of businesses work with the unions to get fair conditions for their employees.
    I think of it as similar to a game of footy. Team A (Company) vs Team B (Employees), both teams want to win. There is the referee (Union) who watches and makes sure the rules are followed.
    Who makes the rules? The Administration (Fair Work Commission), in consultation with the referees and both teams.
    And everyone is free to move to Team A,B,C,D etc or become a referee or an administrator.
    In the situation you are referring to, the teams playing on the next oval have received several pay rises over the past few years and Team B has asked to for equality but that request has repeatedly ignored by Team A. The referee has put Team A on a warning, next up is a yellow card.
    ('I'm now retired and never worked in the transport industry. I was always a member of a (several different) unions and never been on strike. I support the right to strike.)

    • aboogee on 28/05/2024 - 20:36

      I used to work for the government. I recall they almost went on strike once when employer didn't agree to a 3.5% pay rise and instead offered 2% or something.
      I guess I don't mind the strike itself, probably just when its used in such a way that leaves another party no choice. ie blackmail is how i see it.

      • mskeggs on 28/05/2024 - 21:05
        +4

        Did all the workers agree to strike unreasonably? Or was there discussion about what was reasonable and what wasn't and whether a strike is justified?
        2% is not a very reasonable pay offer to begin with, for example.

        • aboogee on 28/05/2024 - 23:50

          yeah got called off at the end - but didn't really follow what happened.
          2% was in ~2011 when inflation was pretty low

          • brad1-8tsi on 29/05/2024 - 22:17
            +5

            @aboogee: Maybe you should have joined the union and paid more attention to what was going on.

            It's rarely only about money. One of the rules of government pay rises is that there has to be a trade off of either increased productivity or a reduction in benefits. Often the 2 parties put a different value on these things.

            • Jolakot on 30/05/2024 - 08:44
              +5

              @brad1-8tsi: Productivity goes up every year, wages haven't kept up in decades, so that entire point is kinda moot

              • brad1-8tsi on 30/05/2024 - 22:55

                @Jolakot: I agree. The house (employers) always win, especially with union membership so low and non-union members unwilling to take any form of industrial action such as work-to-rule, overtime bans, strike action, etc.

                Too many brown-nosing, bootlicking, lickspittles out there.

      • Eeples on 31/05/2024 - 01:06

        But of course the government isn’t the employer of the light rail workers.

    • donga100 on 28/05/2024 - 22:07
      +7

      Team A (Company) vs Team B (Employees), both teams want to win. There is the referee (Union) who watches and makes sure the rules are followed.

      The unions are most definitely on Team B. Fair Work is closer to the referee.

  • 1st-Amendment on 28/05/2024 - 20:39
    -1

    I think of it as similar to a game of footy. Team A (Company) vs Team B (Employees), both teams want to win. There is the referee (Union) who watches and makes sure the rules are followed.

    That is the worst analogy I've heard in a while.
    The union is not the referee, they are player agents who add no benefit to the game but run a sports betting racket by fixing games and ruin everything for the fans.

    • Cardy on 29/05/2024 - 10:14

      Not everyone plays professionally. I was being inclusive and not just using the big companies similar to E&Y, KPMG, PWC etc.
      Take into consideration weekend sports and school sports, they still want to play. They can play without a referee, but will that make it a better game for all?
      Let's not forget player safety…
      The majority of companies and unions work towards a common goal, however there will always be the exceptions.

      • 1st-Amendment on 29/05/2024 - 13:32

        Not everyone plays professionally.

        In the workplace they do, hence the analogy.

        The idea that the union is some noble and holy adjudicator of fairness like a referee is just preposterous. They are just as corruptible as everyone else.
        Once you work out that everyone is a player and we're ALL out for personal gain, then the game make a lot more sense.

        • Cardy on 29/05/2024 - 17:05
          +1

          You seem to have missed these bits…
          'I think of it as similar to a game of footy. Team A (Company) vs Team B (Employees), both teams want to win. There is the referee (Union) who watches and makes sure the rules are followed.
          Who makes the rules? The Administration (Fair Work Commission), in consultation with the referees and both teams.'

          'The majority of companies and unions work towards a common goal, however there will always be the exceptions.'

          No mention of noble and holy adjudicator… who put those words in there?
          Consultation and negotiation is not something you should fear.

          • 1st-Amendment on 29/05/2024 - 21:25
            -1

            @Cardy:

            Consultation and negotiation is not something you should fear.

            My uncle was a union enforcer. He was not the referee, he was a self appointed executioner. You are living in fairy land if you think they are impartial.

        • infinite on 29/05/2024 - 17:13
          -1

          The last commission into Union corruption and law-breaking came back with a report articulating systemic crime, abuse and corruption committed by unions in every sector of employment in every state of Australia with so many legal case studies provided, the cited cases and examples of law breaking & corruption was over 3,000 pages long. It led to a recommendation of hundreds of changes to the law and new laws needing to be drafted to start managing the magnitude of the Union problem in Australia.

  • justworld on 28/05/2024 - 20:42
    +4

    People can always go on strike. It's their right.

    Goes both ways though. If workers want to strike then don't be surprised if the employer, next time they hire, go for casuals or contractors instead.

    My partner is a surgeon and I'm surprised doctors don't strike more - they have so much bargaining power. "Uh, I do lots of overtime and shift work and the base pay isn't good enough. If you don't increase our wages 50% then I and my colleagues in the public hospital will resign. Good luck finding enough qualified surgeons in my speciality to take the flow of patients." That's what I'd say - but I'm not a surgeon and I never signed the Hippopotamus Oath.

    Shrug

    For my own part, as a contractor, I happily turn down work if I feel it doesn't pay well enough.

    • mskeggs on 28/05/2024 - 21:12
      +8

      The doctor's union controls how many specialists are admitted each year, a much more insidious form of price control.

      People act like unions are cut throat mercenaries for more dollars, but in every case, they are made up of ordinary people who understand some claims are unfair, as are some offers from employers.
      In the example of hospital doctors, junior doctors are treated pretty poorly, but more senior doctors acknowledge it gets better and is a difficult period all had to got through. But if things get worse, maybe those more junior doctors will strike, like they have recently in the UK.

      In your role as a contractor you can only refuse low paying work if there is higher paying alternatives. If there are fewer hirers, like say a mass employer like a health department, there are fewer chances to find high paying alternatives.

      • justworld on 28/05/2024 - 21:27
        -1

        Controlling numbers of specialists is no different to a union trying to get members to collectively organise and set EBA pay rates. Both forms are valid ways for workers to increase bargaining power. It's for employers to either accept it or try to work around it.

        I don't think unions are mercenaries at all. They are doing what they can. That's fine.

        Would like to see more doctors striking here, as I think they have no idea how much bargaining power they have - they control life and death.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 28/05/2024 - 21:17
      +3

      For my own part, as a contractor, I happily turn down work if I feel it doesn't pay well enough.

      Well you can afford to turn down work when your partner is a surgeon. Haven't heard of too many surgeons who can't afford to make the rental payments on an average place in a suburb of median prices for any city.

      Please note: not saying surgeons don't deserve their level of renumeration, they absolutely are paid their worth.

    • plmko on 28/05/2024 - 21:54

      Surgeons/doctors striking doesn't work because their clout goes hand in hand with the meritocracy illusion the Government has created. The job of organisations like RACS play the careful fiddle to keep the gravy train moving whilst laying low under the guise that the professionals are a net positive to society so oversight is kept with themselves.

      It is not absolute because Australia has one of the highest ratios of medical graduates to population in the world, much much much more than the system can train or handle. Going hard on the Government would only induce them to flip the narrative that they are all elitists out to harm people for the sake of above and beyond pay grades. That would force their hands on creating frame works to flood the profession.

      You only need to look to South Korea for when Doctors go hard in. The president has threatened overseas recruitment and public sentiment has flipped against the Doctors.

      • MessyG on 29/05/2024 - 18:57
        +3

        Wait hold up - you think surgeons aren't a net positive to society? Australian doctors aren't on anywhere near the same wages as say the US. And while I also believe meritocracy is an illusion, they do make doctors jump through excessive and traumatising hoops to get to where they are, under that illusion.

        Doctors do strike, but when they do, they all just take their lunchbreak and tell the media to meet them outside. That alone is enough to cripple the system, which is why you never hear about it because the gov ultimately backs down because they don't want that to hit to media.

    • Parentheses on 29/05/2024 - 23:22
      +1

      Laws are changing on the use of casuals thanks to employers poisoning the well with pretend casuals (casuals employed in continuing roles for ages with no protections), and Uber and co are in the end game of burning the bridge on contractors. The proportion of permanent employees is currently shooting upwards to avoid getting caught out by these new laws in a whole bunch of sectors.

    • May4th on 30/05/2024 - 07:47
      +1

      For my own part, as a contractor, I happily turn down work if I feel it doesn't pay well enough.

      I hope you are not a GP then as apparently doing this will make you a greedy money hungry swine if you don't bulk bill. The ozb barometer seem to be pro union.. unless you earn more than them

      • justworld on 30/05/2024 - 12:52
        +1

        I run my own practice though not as a GP.

        Yes, it's a bit strange. If union members like nurses can strike then so should anyone else. GPs, doctors and in fact anyone at all should be free to charge as much as they want.

  • mrkorrupt on 28/05/2024 - 22:44
    +4

    OP if you don't like the strike, become a tram driver and work for the lower pay, if you don't work that job then shut your mouth.
    this reminds me of the recent post pandemic in the US where people were complaining over maccas increased pay would make their fast food more expensive so they wanted these workers to get still get paid $7 USD wages to keep their cheap maccas

      • BuzzBuzzBuzz on 01/06/2024 - 12:50
        +1

        I am voicing my opinion

        Same as @mrkorrupt then.

        • mrkorrupt on 01/06/2024 - 14:24

          Exactly correct.

  • tsunamisurfer on 29/05/2024 - 00:20
    +2

    I am 100% in favour of someone witholding their labour if they do not get the conditions they want.

    3 things need to be allowed.

    1) Those workers can be fired.
    2) New workers that agree with the terms offered by the company should be able to work.
    3) No one should prevent new workers from working.

    • try2bhelpful on 29/05/2024 - 00:22

      As long as the workers who continue to work don’t get the final negotiated amount.

      • tsunamisurfer on 29/05/2024 - 00:24

        Of course not, they get the current terms and conditions, there should be no need for negotiation.

        • try2bhelpful on 29/05/2024 - 10:53
          +1

          So we end up with a multi tier pay system. That might get a tad messy to administer over the years.

          • brad1-8tsi on 29/05/2024 - 22:20

            @try2bhelpful: When I was at Qantas the new hires came in on less money. Man were they annoyed when they found out. We gave it a few months and then had industrial action to bring them up to the higher level.

          • banana365 on 30/05/2024 - 17:55

            @try2bhelpful: And that's exactly what private enterprise have been doing for many, many years. Why do you think they try to push the "do not speak about your pay to colleagues" angle (which you are legally allowed to do, despite what some would have you think)? That allows them to have effectively a "per person" salary scale and pay individuals as little as they think they can get away with. Many of us don't have the confidence to push for higher pay or even for their pay to keep up with inflation and employers love that. A little bit of admin overhead is nothing compared to the overall wage savings.

    • aboogee on 29/05/2024 - 01:19

      Yep 100%…

    • ThithLord on 29/05/2024 - 08:54
      +2

      Tsunamisurfer agrees with scabs who'da thunk

      • tsunamisurfer on 29/05/2024 - 12:31

        They are not scabs, they are people willing to work at the agreed market rate.

        Are we really going to label people who want to work is a negative light?

        • BLAIL on 29/05/2024 - 17:32

          I think he's a member of this sub - cause those guys love striking. https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/

        • brad1-8tsi on 29/05/2024 - 22:22
          +2

          But they don't go on strike, don't negotiate with management and still get the increased pay & conditions. They are leaches.

          • pizzip on 30/05/2024 - 13:03
            +2

            @brad1-8tsi: Yep just like OP, totally fine with taking the negotiated pay rise but actively disparages those who fought for it. They should be stuck negotiating their own pay and conditions and see how that goes.

            • tsunamisurfer on 30/05/2024 - 15:23

              @pizzip: There IS NO negotiation with the new workers.

              They will happily, graciously, and with open arms, accept the deal they are given.

              • banana365 on 30/05/2024 - 17:59
                +2

                @tsunamisurfer: Happily? You make it sound like potential employees have endless offers to choose from and they'll go with the best of many job packages. The reality is very different. For many, that one job offer that you believe they'll "happily accept" may be the only one they've had a sniff of for months and will grab it just to keep their head above water.

    • Jamie007 on 30/05/2024 - 02:08
      +3

      And this kind of thing is precisely why wages stagnate.

      I'll give an example of the situation I am in. My workplace is closing down soon. The company is opening a new site to replace it. We will all be paid redundancies (redundancies won by the union by the way) and they will hire new workers at the new site. Our base rate, after years of union negotiated pay raises, is about $40 p/h. The pay rate at the new site will be about $30 p/h.

      Who does this benefit, other than the company which was already making insane profit? Certainly not workers, or the wider economy.

      If we want to be America with massive inequality where they have a small number of very rich people while the average worker has to work two jobs just to make ends meet and gets next to no time off than yeah, giving companies the kind of power you suggest is definitely the way to go.

      • tsunamisurfer on 30/05/2024 - 15:35
        +2

        I stand by your ex-company.

        The union and their members KILLED the Golden Goose.

        The low value work was only values at $30 / hour.

        The business was viable where workers paid $30 / hour.

        Yet the Unions and their members kept pushing and pushing greedily for more.

        Who does this benefit,

        YOU, you got a pay out. The company had to wind down, re-incorporate with new company and management structure, new premises, more costs.

        • aboogee on 31/05/2024 - 14:09

          No offence to others but there feels like a macro vs micro view here.
          Employees (including myself) will always want more - more is better
          The moment they can't get more they blaim corporate greed
          While there may be some truth to that, there is definitely a point on viability as well.

        • Jamie007 on 31/05/2024 - 15:28
          +2

          Well while the majority foreign stockholders in the company will no doubt be pleased that you stand with the corporation over Australian workers, dont complain when the flow on effect of stagnant wages and workers having less money due to this kind of things leads to other businesses closing down. Seems to be happening a lot lately..

  • Maglia Nera on 29/05/2024 - 06:28

    gotta ask yourself - why they don't strike on a say a Sunday …

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 29/05/2024 - 19:06
      +4

      I think you are missing the point of a strike, it's based on maximum effectiveness to impact the employer, in this case disrupting the services the employer provides at a peak services time.
      Customers angry = pressure on employer.
      Basic Principles of Successful Strikes 101

      • banana365 on 30/05/2024 - 18:03
        +4

        I like the option taken by public transport workers in, I think, Japan (may have been Germany or elsewhere). They continued to turn up for work and run public transport but they refused to take any fares, so the service still runs, customers don't suffer (they actually benefit) but the employer has their usual expenses but no income.

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 30/05/2024 - 18:30

          That is a very good strategy for keeping the public on side, but is not technically a strike.
          This type of response is a form of industrial action.
          By definition, a strike is the removal of labour.

          • banana365 on 31/05/2024 - 11:31
            +1

            @DashCam AKA Rolts: I know the definition of a strike. The question is which is better at achieving the desired effect. A strike inconveniences employer and customer alike. If you annoy customers, you've lost a potential ally and the sentiment may turn against you. With the "no charge" approach, you not only inconvenience the employer but you cost them more money (running costs that would not be incurred with a strike, no income) and make things better for the customer, increasing their good will towards the industrial action (or at least more likely to be neutral).

            The "no charge" option has been shown to work but I don't think it's an easy comparison to make as to which is actually more effective in the real world.

  • payless69 on 29/05/2024 - 08:29

    We need a new 6 Month airstrike until Bonza is back!

  • Sinnerator on 29/05/2024 - 09:33
    +3

    because otherwise all businesses would be paying american style minimum wage
    you can thank the unions of the 80s that got us to where we are… BUT this has in the last 10-20 years been eroded

  • pharkurnell on 29/05/2024 - 10:45
    +1

    How else do you get a $15,000 payrise when your already earning $200k as entry level worker on a building site

    • shaybisc on 29/05/2024 - 10:55
      +2

      "How else do you get a $15,000 payrise when your already earning $200k as entry level worker on a building site"

      Sign me up for one of those.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join