On the morning of the 10th of November, Harris Westminster staff and students faced the hardship of getting to school alongside the mass rail strikes of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) who wanted an increase in pay. Consequently, thousands of commuters were either late or unable to attend work or school. Despite this, strikes continue to be planned and negotiated rises in wages continue to be rejected. So, if striking isn’t making much of a difference, is it moral? It must be acknowledged that regardless of the verdict, striking should not be banned, as it is freedom of choice. This article is only questioning its ethics and asks if it is the best way to create solidarity and change.
Striking is the collective refusal of employees to work under the conditions required by employers. It started during the Industrial Revolution when mass labour was introduced and was most common amongst lower skilled jobs. The result of striking led to the creation of unions, one of the first being the Trades Union Congress at the Mechanics Institute in 1868. For decades, striking has proved an effective method of unifying the underpaid and undervalued, as well as bringing awareness about issues where the government or firms are failing to create proper working conditions. An example of this was the National coal strike in 1912, where almost 1 million workers went on strike. After 37 days, the government intervened by passing the Coal Mines Act in 1912, securing their minimum wage and bringing the dispute to an end. Therefore, the right to strike is ingrained into our society, and is one of the fundamental reasons the labour party came into being, to protect the rights of trade unions and workers.
Despite this, in modern times strikes have arguably caused more harm than good. Through railway strikes it can be argued that a divide has been created with a resentment towards the strikers by those it effects, as why should railway workers, on average being paid more than £40,000 a year, get an increase but other sectors, such as teachers, be neglected? Whilst this is cause for concern, there is still significant support for the strikes. Additionally, it is important to note that the inconvenience caused by the strikes only reinforces the message that these workers are essential and so should be paid as such. Moreover, striking is almost always a last resort as there runs the risk of unemployment and the fact that this must happen in the first place is a massive failure of management or government policy. Another example of this is nurses, who have long been undervalued in our society and their recent threat of industrial action has led to panic and worry for the patients that will be affected. This though surely reinforces their value to society and sends a signal to the government that their wages need to be increased.
Ultimately, the major risks of striking, such as unemployment and division within society, does not undermine the truth that it is a fundamental right of working people to strike, which historically has given us the hard-fought rights and benefits everyone in society enjoys today. Whilst strikes can cause annoyance and inconvenience in our daily lives, this is only in the short term. In the long term, striking creates a universal benefit. Trade unions have and will continue to play a big part in making our voices heard, and despite the criticism they receive from government or the media, it is a moral duty of society that they stay protected
Comments