Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
An excellent question, Lucy. They only take these actions when there are absolutely no other alternatives. No worker likes to be on strike. It means there are no wages coming in and they do not qualify for benefits. But if it means they have protected their jobs and conditions and are able to put food on the table after it, it will have been worth it. Leeds City Council's attitude is, "we won't even consider talking to them, until they roll over and accept our new terms."
|
What do you mean by "no alternatives" though?
Many strikes, especially over lack of pay rises and redundancies, are simply where the union doesn't want to admit that such managerial decisions are required and there is no alternative.
Rather than costing the company more and thus potentially leading to more redundancies or liquidation, unions in that situation should concentrate on pushing for relocation of suitable employees to other positions in the company, supporting their members with new training, using their networks to help members into new jobs, and ensuring their members are out of work recieve all the benefits they are entitled to.
Royal Mail for instance needs to modernise, replace workers with automation to reduce costs so that it can continue to be competative and continue employing as many people as it needs.
The unions should be ensuring that the modernisation takes place without non-required job losses, and supporting those who are made redundant as I've said above.
Not risking more jobs by losing lucrative contracts.