Industrial Action

From a Marxist perspective unions are a tricky concept. On the one hand they represent a means by which workers can collectively limit the exploitative tendencies of owners, on the other hand there is also a tendency for unions, through their negotiation (and even 'partnership'), to inadvertently legitimate capital's process of exploitation.

From a Marxist perspective unions are a tricky concept. On the one hand they represent a means by which workers can collectively limit the exploitative tendencies of owners, on the other hand there is also a tendency for unions, through their negotiation (and even 'partnership'), to inadvertently legitimate capital's process of exploitation.

Strike action harms both producers and consumers, in a manner which clearly detracts from the Pareto efficiency of the economy. By increasing uncertainty and discouraging investment, the possibility of strike action necessarily has the effect of lowering the economy's long term growth rate.

Equity can also be considered to be a microeconomic objective, therefore perhaps industrial action may lead to an improvement in equity. I'd say nowadays as as opposed to let's say the 70s, there is relative stability in industrial relations. I don't think there is evidence to suggest investment is being harmed, on the contray things look healthy. So I think the laws as they stand are adequate for the current climate, how long that may last who knows.

Perhaps consumers, being workers themselves in a different economic activity, are in sympathy with fair wages.

Perhaps more seriosuly punitive laws would create an inhospitable working culture that could reduce labour productivity and reduce long-term economic growth? You see my point.

From a Marxist perspective unions are a tricky concept. On the one hand they represent a means by which workers can collectively limit the exploitative tendencies of owners, on the other hand there is also a tendency for unions, through their negotiation (and even 'partnership'), to inadvertently legitimate capital's process of exploitation.

Strikes are occasionally necessary.

Am I missing something but wouldn't banning strikes be the same as telling people they must work? How can you stop people from not working one day?

Also, I would have thought, from a Marxist perspective, that unions could be opposed because they encourage division between the working classes: between those out of work and those in work, who, through union efforts, get more money than they would otherwise get. Because unions increase wages, do unions not help create a middle class that is less likey to support revolution because, given that they have more money than most of the working class, there is less solidarity between them and unionised workers have more (money) to risk from revolution?

I'm not a Marxist, I just wanted to get your thoughts on this.

There's the thing. Of course any individual worker has the right to shirk off work if they want to; the consequences could well be deductions from the number of days leave available, or even the sack. And of course, the worker can say goodbye to a good reference or promotion prospects.

Mass action (or inaction) though - that's a different kettle of fish. It is the active collusion of workers in order to force the temporary shut down of a business - harming both consumers and owners - until their demands are met. I don't see any reason for this te be legal. I would envisage that all workers participating in such action could be fined in order to compensate both the business and consumers. Where that could be implemented, it would be an absolute deterrent from industrial militancy. If we're decided that's what we want of course...

Edit: and of course from the poll, there is clearly a lack of consensus for any change from the present set up. Although, i've not heard any convincing arguments here in favour of being lax with strike action.

am fully in favour of the right to unionise - it's nothing more than an extension of self-ownership and, correspondingly, freedom of association. On the other hand, I think that there is no right to employment; unless it is explicit in the contract, I think employers should be able to fire at will. So yeah, employees have the right to unionise and aim for better conditions via collective bargaining, and employers have the right to fire the workers for doing so if they wish.

The perceptions of public sector workers as overpaid and enjoying chushy working conditions are deeply ingrained in the British public, and probably well justified. Certainly, i heard plenty of grumbles in the canteen at work about the laziness and selfishness of the prison officers on strike today. And i wasn't too chuffed when Royal Mail strikes delayed the handing out of pay checks (as the local branch have the pay slips and checks posted to them by the central branch).

Do you even know what the Prison officers were striking about? It was to stop forced overtime. Whilst they're not alone in that situation (health staff comes to mind....) it not an unreasonable demand and certainly not lazy and selfish.

Where I work (ironically a coop) staff refused to help and serve scab postal officers during the strike - there is support among the public for union action, it just tends be limited to the lower classes (funny that....)

I see nothing illegal with workers colluding to not work for a day. The company will dock their wages to recoup losses. And the company can take measures to counter strike action - either by agreeing to demands or by sacking their staff or by including relevant clasuses in contracts.

Besides, our Trade Unions are less militant and more political these days.

Obviously not. If employers were able to recoup all their losses from strike action, then there would be no such thing as strike action. It is by damaging the property of others, and threatening further damage, that unions obtain privileged and preferential treatment for their workers. If you believe that employers, and perhaps even consumers, should be able to recoup the losses imposed on them by trade union militancy, then perhaps you are in favour of a ban backed up by fines on participating workers?



And as stated above, trade union militancy corresponds to our stage in the business cycle. It is in the next substantial recession that we will see strike action across the unionised parts of the workforce. The trough will be deepened, and the recovery delayed, by the resulting lost output and deterrent to investment. Why allow this?

+1