|
The right to 'strike means the right to withdraw labor for one
of several reasons; as a means of enforcing wage increases, of improving
employment conditions, of showing sympathy with other strikers, sometimes
overseas, of showing displeasure at the employment or dismissal of a
'trouble-maker' or a non-Union worker, and occasionally of gaining a political
objectives. 'Striking' as a means of 'industrial action' is universally legal
today, though in wartime, National defense measure illegalize it, and it is "unquestionally"
right that the worker should enjoy this freedom of action.
The fact is that any enlightened government accepts the right of
the workers to go on strike as art of his basic personal freedom, and when large
numbers, by so doing, seriously upset the national economy by essential
production to a halt, or prove themselves an inconvenience to the general
public, a solution is sought by an unofficial process of collective bargaining,
sometimes with trade unions, sometimes without them. In this way, a solution is
nearly always reached at some point and the men and women go peacefully back to
work. A case in point was the strike of motormen in London, which greatly
inconvenienced the 'commuting' workers. Some people wanted the strike broken,
but the government refused, despite the fact that electric train driving is a
government service. The strikers argued that precisely, because their job was
responsible, it should be better paid. Finally, a solution was reached.
But what happens about wages during a strike ? Nowadays, the official 'Union'
strike is a planned measure, and funds are set aside to provide 'strike-pay' --
a minimal wage. When funds run out, either other unions help with loans, or the
strike is broken.
Thus, it is seen that there is a real economic basis to strike action, which in
most countries is a highly organized Trade Union affair. The worker's advantage,
as an individual, is that his personal grievance can be speedily rectified by
the Shop Steward, who, if he considers it justified, will demand satisfaction of
the management. This is rarely refused, as no business wants to face the loss
incurred by a strike. But both employer and 'Union' object t 'wild-cat' strikes,
often the impulsive and unreasonable action of the few, called on grounds hard
to justify, throwing the business into chaos, and bring industrial action into
disrepute.
In all democratic countries today, the employer and the employee are legally
held to be equal, but of course, this was not always so. Before 1875 in Britain,
the employer who broke his contract was only liable for a civil offence; the
employee was convictable for a criminal offence, but since then, the law has
kept out of the picture, except in the minor matter of the giving and receiving
of due notice.
Strikes, for whatever reason, are both legally and morally justified, provided
their grounds are reasonable, and provided they do not endanger the country in
wartime. The fact that they may be inconvenient is unfortunate, but no adequate
reason for banning them. the fact that worker's pay demands are sometimes
exorbitant is true, but the final check on these is a simple matter of
economics. If a firm cannot afford its wage bill, it has to go out of business,
and the worker must choose whether he wants it to happen, knowing that it may
have disastrous effects on himself. |
