Should Wild Cat Strikes Be Outlawed?

[davebro]

The rail strikes are obviously being organised by the various unions to cause maximum disruption at minimal cost (to them). Should legislation be introduced to ensure that strikes (once called) should continue until a settlement is made or either side concedes?

[THECORBYLOON]

What is your understanding of the term, "wildcat strike"?

[jno]

"wild cat"?

[THECORBYLOON]

"Should legislation be introduced to ensure that strikes (once called) should continue until a settlement is made or either side concedes?"

Is that meant to be "should not continue"?

[davebro]

My understanding of wild cat strikes is strikes that have not been previously notified but I extended that definition to include these one-off strikes coordinated to cause maximum disruption.

I think if they go on strike they should stay out until the matter is resolved.

[New Judge]

//Is that meant to be "should not continue"?//

No, Corby, it’s correct as written.

Mr Shapps has plans to limit strikes to one lot of action per ballot. I have said for many years that once a strike is called the employees should remain on strike until the matter is settled. It would concentrate the minds of both sides. Railways are particularly prone to suffering maximum inconvenience (“with regret”) for minimum loss to employees. In particular a 24 hour strike often effects three days’ running. In my view once workers withdraw they should be locked out until they resume normal working.

Shapps also has plans for “Minimum Service Level” commitments in the event of a strike. These are common in other countries across Europe. The Unions would have to guarantee a minimum level of service in the event of a strike otherwise it is unlawful.

Of course the big question is, why have neither of these ideas has been implemented by either Mr Shapps (Transport Secretary for the last two years) or any of his predecessors? After all, rail strikes are not a novelty.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, given that a wildcat strike is one not authorized by a union, whereas the rail strikes have been authorized by the unions, you can appreciate my, "should not continue" question.

[New Judge]

//...given that a wildcat strike is one not authorized by a union, whereas the rail strikes have been authorized by the unions, you can appreciate my, "should not continue" question.//

Yes I do, but I was simply looking at that paragraph in isolation, Corby.

Dave has explained that his version of wildcat strikes (which is not the usual definition) includes the sort of "Day out, three days in, day out" palaver we usually see. I think his point is that these strikes of a day here and a day there cause maximum disruption (even more so when more than one union is involved) at comparatively little cost to staff. It needs to be addressed.

[davebro]

//at comparatively little cost to staff//

Particularly as they will be paid for their "rest" days by their union!

[THECORBYLOON]

"Particularly as they will be paid for their "rest" days by their union!"

How much strike pay does Aslef and the other unions pay?

[Paigntonian]

It's a very silly question. All strikes continue until 'a settlement is made or either side concedes'.

[Mozz71]

Wild cat strikes? Can you provide some lynx for that story please?

[THECORBYLOON]

The strike action continues in that they are continual (start and stop) but they are not continuous (start and have no end).

[New Judge]

//All strikes continue until 'a settlement is made or either side concedes'.//

They don't though. The RMT were on strike yesterday but are back at work today. This causes, effectively, three days chaos. IIRC this can go on for six months before another ballot is necessary to continue.

A strike, one begun, should continue (i.e the workers should stay out) until either a settlement is reached or they decide to return to normal working without one.

[ToraToraTora]

what they should do is put any deal offered to their membership and a strike is only legal if the membership reject it.