Doctor's Strike

[Scott_F]

I hold this particular dispute as one of the excellent examples as to how a union should not go about its business. The actual details of how it arose and how it was conducted and how it was resolved are fascinating. The leadership of the union branch makes for a very interesting story in itself.

BA regularly provide an example of how industial relations should not be conducted. Not only do they upset their own employees on a frequent basis, they are also able to cause problems at their suppliers too.

BBC NEWS | Business | BA intervenes in catering dispute

 

[Bellow]

in your last post you tried to compare the running of a country to the running of a house budget, they're totally different, so incomparable. ?

says davethemus

There are a lot of similarities, and really the principles are the same.

and you say differently

Investment for future needs, repairs, children and the unexpected.

but for you to be at least consistent - where's the investment?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Regarding equality, when has capitalism been about equality? I can't remember. The withdrawal of labour is a part of the free market and if you support the idea of a free market then you also must support the idea of a strike, even if you disagree with the detail.

Hang on - the free market existed and operated before the right to withdraw labour was enshrined. Surely the free market dictates that if an employee withdraws his labour, then the employer is entitled to dismiss and replace him? Otherwise, the employees can collectively hold the employer to ransom.

The "right" to withdraw labour really more of a privilege that is tolerated by employers in the interests of being seen to promote good industrial relations. I can't imagine that any free-market industrialist actually wants his employees to go on strike, or sees this as being at all necessary.

 

[HughJarse]

Im not sure whats happening with the replies before mine; however with regard to doctors pensions, teachers pensions or any pensions really, these professional people who studied at university etc etc, knowingly went into a profession that had benefits. Why should anyone have the right to now say " hold on why should you get that" and take it away. If they had known that was going to happen they may have chosen another career path.

If the powers that be wish to change it from now on, i.e. for all new people entering the profession, then fair enough, but retrospectively changing someones conditions is just wrong in my book. Its like filling your car up with petrol and once its full the cashier saying "actually we've changed the price, its now doubled"

 

[davethemus]

Hang on - the free market existed and operated before the right to withdraw labour was enshrined. Surely the free market dictates that if an employee withdraws his labour, then the employer is entitled to dismiss and replace him? Otherwise, the employees can collectively hold the employer to ransom.

The "right" to withdraw labour really more of a privilege that is tolerated by employers in the interests of being seen to promote good industrial relations. I can't imagine that any free-market industrialist actually wants his employees to go on strike, or sees this as being at all necessary.

And part of the free market used to enable white people to own black people but thankfully we've moved on from there. As the free market that I have known all my life, the withdrawal of labour has been and is a right.

I'm also sure that no free-market industrialist wants his competitor to undercut him and drive him out of business either but.....

 

[MOCAŠ]

And part of the free market used to enable white people to own black people but thankfully we've moved on from there. As the free market that I have known all my life, the withdrawal of labour has been and is a right.

I'm also sure that no free-market industrialist wants his competitor to undercut him and drive him out of business either but.....

This isn't about slavery, and drawing an equation between that and the lack of a right to strike does your argument no favours.

The ability to withdraw labour cannot be a right - if it were, it would apply universally. There are thousands of small businesses that simply could not survive if their employees withdrew their labour, so in fact this so called "right" is little more than a tool used to manipulate larger buinesses and, particularly, public sector organisations that can - ostensibly, at least - afford to withstand periods of worker inactivity.

Essentially the right to withdraw labour sets an adversarial agenda between employee and employer - as though the former is saying to the latter "treat us well, or else...". That does not make for a healthy relationship in any walk of life. There are better ways of ensuring a good employee/employer relationship, such as the partnership model employed by the John Lewis group. By giving employees a meaningful stake in the business, its in their interests (and not just financial) to see the business do well.

Your final point illustrates this rather well - one of the chief challenges facing the free-marketeer is how to beat his competitors. The last thing he needs is the distraction of also having to fight his own workforce.

 

[davethemus]

This isn't about slavery, and drawing an equation between that and the lack of a right to strike does your argument no favours.

The ability to withdraw labour cannot be a right - if it were, it would apply universally. There are thousands of small businesses that simply could not survive if their employees withdrew their labour, so in fact this so called "right" is little more than a tool used to manipulate larger buinesses and, particularly, public sector organisations that can - ostensibly, at least - afford to withstand periods of worker inactivity.

Essentially the right to withdraw labour sets an adversarial agenda between employee and employer - as though the former is saying to the latter "treat us well, or else...". That does not make for a healthy relationship in any walk of life. There are better ways of ensuring a good employee/employer relationship, such as the partnership model employed by the John Lewis group. By giving employees a meaningful stake in the business, its in their interests (and not just financial) to see the business do well.

Your final point illustrates this rather well - one of the chief challenges facing the free-marketeer is how to beat his competitors. The last thing he needs is the distraction of also having to fight his own workforce.

I wasn't trying to compare the lack of a right to strike to slavery, however I can see why you would think that.

The point I was trying to make was that in times gone past things were acceptable that nowadays are unacceptable and contemptible, so because the withdrawal of labour is a relatively new part of the 'free market' doesn't make it a bad thing.

You should also recognise that there is big difference between a PLC and a LTD company.

 

[MOCAŠ]

You should also recognise that there is big difference between a PLC and a LTD company.

Excuse my ignorance on this point, but what bearing does the difference have when it comes to industrial action?

 

[davethemus]

Excuse my ignorance on this point, but what bearing does the difference have when it comes to industrial action?

In theory, if a LTD company is threatened with industrial action then you can wind the company up. If a PLC company is threatened with industrial action then they have to appease the workers. Possibly the reason we only see industrial action in companies once they get to a certain size, mostly.

 

[MOCAŠ]

In theory, if a LTD company is threatened with industrial action then you can wind the company up. If a PLC company is threatened with industrial action then they have to appease the workers. Possibly the reason we only see industrial action in companies once they get to a certain size, mostly.

Thanks for the explantion.

Sounds like a fairly stark choice for the small employer, though: close the company down, or potentially see it go out of business anyway due to loss of competitive advantage. Of course, there's always the third option of giving in to workers' demands - which is why I characterised this as holding the employer to ransom.

 

[tali]

And now Driving Examiners wanting to strike.
Talks have stalled.

 

[HR17]

There are plenty of SMEs out there where if you withheld your labour, you'd be unemployed. There are legal ways of getting rid of people who cause trouble by making or trying to carry out threats like that. Its doesn't work for all, but in a competative environment, rocking the boat isn't wise, and a bad record sticks with you, expecially in times like these when decent jobs are harder to find.

 

[Dryce]

In theory, if a LTD company is threatened with industrial action then you can wind the company up. If a PLC company is threatened with industrial action then they have to appease the workers. Possibly the reason we only see industrial action in companies once they get to a certain size, mostly.

It's about money. Winding up an SME isn't generally a good idea because it undermines the goodwill of the company.

However your average SME employee is much more aware of the concept of month to month cash flow and their need for it to genuinely healthy in order to be paid next month. Whereas in a lot of large corporations/public sector the unions and employees are quite detached and treat their employer as if they have bottomless pockets.

 

[Colin_b]

A little story. I worked for IBM in the late 1970s. They paid very well indeed, and were anti-union. One union decided to recruit members within IBM, and managed to get a vote by employees of their desire to join a union.

The vote was held by ACAS, who duly conducted it and stated there was a case for the company recognising unions to negotiate on the employees behalf. This result was somewhat surprising to the employees, there seemed to be no desire for a union as there wasn't a problem.

Then the actual results were leaked, after ACAS refused to release the voting figures. 94% against, 4% for. Cue some blustering, and the issue went away.

30+ years later, I'm still a member of a union, but I still woudn't trust them to act with any degree of competence or business acumen.

 

[Benzowner]

In theory, if a LTD company is threatened with industrial action then you can wind the company up. If a PLC company is threatened with industrial action then they have to appease the workers. Possibly the reason we only see industrial action in companies once they get to a certain size, mostly.

Good theory, would never work in practice. The debtors would claim inadequate work, not pay their bills and the creditors would then not get paid, the employees would be owed wages, holiday pay and redundancy pay and let us not forget the taxman, VAT and the insolvency company. IMO, the difference between PLC and private limited company (Ltd) is that normally management(usually the owners) talk to their employees in a Ltd company, where as shareholders in a PLC look only for results to get their hands on their share of the dividend. Which I suppose, reverts back to it only being about ££££££ or $$$$$.