This week’s tube strike has, as always, led to polarised views on the justification for industrial action and seen people either empathising with or criticising the staff who decided to go on strike. Similarly, it’s seen people either articulating their support or their frustration at the disruption to their commute (and their consequent ire with staff on strike) via social media. The blogosphere has been no different with both sides represented.
I read a blog post on The Right View condemning the strike action titled ‘Do we really need unionised staff?’, a presumably rhetorical, ideologically driven and not particularly well-thought out question. Well, the short answer is yes, unfortunately we do.
The reason I say ‘unfortunately’, isn’t because I’m anti-union. As is probably apparent from previous posts, I’m actually pro-union. It’s unfortunate because there is still a need for employees’ terms and conditions to be fairly protected. Where this isn’t the status quo, unionised staff are very necessary. To question the need for a unionised workforce is a stance that doesn’t appreciate that workers sometimes need a collective voice to safeguard against an employer abusing its position.
Specifically in relation to the tube strike, many would argue that the RMT and TSSA are essentially resisting modernisation in their opposition to London Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to close ticket offices and the consequent job cuts. And to an extent, perhaps they are. Technology has made fewer ticket office staff a viable prospect and there is a degree of pragmatism that is required when considering how far the unions should be prepared to concede to the Mayor’s plans.
A reduction in ticket office staff (with adequate redeployment and redundancy packages for those affected) is probably inevitable if not justified to ensure TfL continues to run as a viable business. Though Boris Johnson’s ticket office plan is driven by ideology, much like the sentiments within the aforementioned post which naïvely and arrogantly suggests the ticket office closure plans don’t go far enough –
‘Get rid of ticket offices and get rid of drivers. Those that are happy to stay can be rehoused to work on platforms or in control rooms. Those that complain can take their voluntary redundancy payments and find a new job.’
Those are clearly the views of someone who doesn’t hold any empathy for employees or see labour relations as any value to an organisation. Although it’s somewhat unsurprising coming from a centre-right blog.
 |
Closing all ticket offices goes too far, particularly against a growing use of the tube. By all means, modernise and move towards further use of technology. However there are numerous precedents for job cut programmes, under the guise of modernisation, used as justification for further and unnecessary cuts – only for it to be later realised as a flawed and failed approach that requires a U-turn and a serving of humble pie. Boris Johnson has said the ticket offices closures will not result in any compulsory redundancies – but he also said he was opposed to any ticket office closures in his 2008 manifesto and latterly in 2010. As a result, I wouldn’t blame the unions and ticket office staff to be sceptical of his so-called promises.
The disruption to Londoners is frustrating to say the least and underpins most negative views towards those striking. But surely there should be some empathy for the staff who seek to protect their jobs? Particularly in the current economic climate, why is an attempt for workers to protect their jobs, especially given the extent of the proposed cuts, met with such a lack of empathy and hostility? Is it because it’s blue collar work largely undertaken by the working class (who the right and centre-right continue to demonise)? Indeed, I doubt there would be such an indifference to workers’ jobs from The Right View had it been traditionally middle class jobs that were at risk en masse.
A further dimension to the tube strike is that Boris Johnson can turn commuters’ frustration to contempt towards the staff on strike. It certainly takes the hostilities around industrial action to a higher and unfair level. It also illustrates the extent to which the staff are effectively having a campaign waged against them that goes beyond tube modernisation.
What needs to be understood by those who argue against a unionised workforce and their willingness to strike is that unions rarely take strike action lightly. Even for militant unions, deciding to call strike action is akin to playing your trump card. And if it doesn’t have the desired effect, you’ve severely weakened your position. Few unions would therefore take strike action with indifference or nonchalance.
Strike action is never the first step in seeking a resolution. It only comes after failed negotiations and typically a refusal by the employer to compromise. At that stage, all the employees have at their disposal to commence or resume meaningful negotiations is withdrawal of their labour. And contrary to the suggestion in The Right View, it isn’t ‘at the drop of a hat’ either. Unions have to ballot members and give notice for a strike in line with employment legislation. Consent for potential strike action is also enshrined in union recognition agreements between the union and the employer. While there are of course militant unions that are too quick to ballot their members for strike action (and hardly help depict the trade union movement in a positive and modern light), it’s an erroneous belief that taking strike action is taken on a whim.
Trade unions have achieved much for employment legislation and labour relations that have benefited society as a whole such as maternity leave and annual leave. Furthermore, in questioning their value, it is necessary to question whether all employers can be trusted to protect their employees’ terms and conditions, not to mention their job security where practical and financially viable. Unfortunately the answer to that is sometimes no.
Being an employer is a position of authority and responsibility and one that should not be dictated by employees. A problem with unions’ relationships with Labour governments and nationalised industries of yesteryear was that the unions wrongly felt it was their place to dictate to the employer and hold them to ransom (which some commentators ignorant to history may wrongly argue is happening with the tube strikes). Yet sometimes their authority can be abused and their responsibility neglected. When that occurs, workers need their voice to be heard. In the case of the tube strikes, the union members are merely trying to ensure this while faced with Boris Johnson’s blinkered ideological pursuit.
Uninformed and unempathetic views surrounding unions and their members are likely to continue. Yet if all employers were able to show themselves as responsible and able to value their staff, union membership would certainly dwindle and they’d be less need for the trade union movement. Alas, there are too many employers unable to do this, hence the continued relevance of unions. Until then, unionised workforces will continue to be necessary, as will the unions themselves.
