Do you support union-led strike action?

21% (19 votes)
79% (72 votes)
Total votes: 91

Your Comments

Cost of living is increased by increase in wages.

What is the point of striking for more wages.

They should be thankful they have a job and cut there own costs to fit their present wages

My experience is that it is relatively easy to rise to a position in a trade union where you can influence the decision making process.  The members are therefore easily comprimised.  The members feel obliged and sometimes locally threatened to follow the recommendations of the union.

Management are there to manage the situation.  They should stand firm in the best interests of the company (i.e. all stakeholders).  Compromise is never a solution it merely puts off making the necessary changes.  Bad management is worse than bad trade unions - they jointly endanger the long term future of the company.

PS. I have been a trade union member for 50 years and served on the executive of my union - have also experienced poor performing managers

Most union led strikes show how little they know about commerce or service.  They hold the strikes at a time that causes maximum distress to the customer and not the company.  This is suicide for thier jobs and future. We still hear the same tired diatribes from the same activists over the last 40 years... always citing safety as the main reason, when money or outdated practices are the real reason...  We can see what it is for what it is, but the lemmings who follow them seem blind.  If you have a bad manager, then sack him and replace them... if you have a bad union leader....the same rules should apply, but apparently do not..

Strikes are the first resort of failed negotiators determined to hang on to their overpaid sinecures  - to hell with everyone else, bosses.general public and, most importantly, the Union Members they are paid to represent and protect. It is high time they ' got real ' and wakened up to the harsh realities of present day commercial life - no individual or group can be held immune from current financial pressures. They should get back to the table, resolved to stay there until they can find agreement that equitably addresses the needs of both sides. Maybe that will not be achieved without a change of lead negitiator and the appointment of one able to see the man on the other side of the table, not as an adversary, but as one sharing and seeking solution to a problem.   

The problem in this country nowadays is the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher - No. 1 first, second and last, with no thought for anyone else. We have become, on the whole, a country of selfish, self centred, self obsessed people with no thought to Society as a whole. Just look at the hundreds of sharing, caring MPs that run the country on our behalf!

She, and later Tony Blair followed by good ol' Gordon Brown, have between them almost destroyed the Trade Union movement.

But what everyone should remember is that in this country of ours, if it had not been for the Trade Union movement then there would still be young children working down mines, in factories, and other industries today. You do not find many philanthropic companies in this world, they do not give their employees anything they do not have to, and as a whole they do not give anything without, sometimes a very dirty fight.
All anyone has to do is look at the working conditions in the "Third World" where young children are forced to work long hours in sweat shops. They have to work in terrible conditions to create the training shoes and clothes that most people in so called "Developed" countries purchase. Yes, I am also guilty of buying these products.
It is ok purchasing all those cheap products, but don't ever forget that somewhere someone is being exploited so that you can have them at that price.
The reasons for this are the workers' low wages, long hours and terrible working conditions that they are forced to endure. There are no Trade Unions in these countries. The big manufacturing companies don't want their workers unionised, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it, as it lowers their profit margins. It does not matter that all the workforce live in abject poverty. Oddly enough most of these companies are those self same caring companies that have factories and offices in the "Developed" countries where they graciously allow their workers to enjoy such good working conditions.
I agree, there are some badly managed unions, as there are some badly managed companies, and oddly enough we also even manage to have a badly managed country. That is the price of "Democracy".
But that should never, ever, prevent anyone from trying to improve their conditions or lifestyle, whatever that may mean. Be it for a better wage packet, better/safer working conditions, or even more time to spend at home with the family.
Most people who are against the Trade Unionist nowadays owe what they have in some way to the Trade Union movement, unless of course they were fortunate enough to be born into a privileged lifestyle.
Sorry for the long diatribe, but as you will have guessed by now I believe that EVERYONE must have the right to improve their lot, even if in doing so they cause inconvenience to others.

Older Sometimes Wiser!

If a strike is related to the basic freedoms of the individual ,and protects these freedoms, then it is justified. I have personal experience in the past of  arrogant overpowerful management exerting its power to the detriment of the individual. Without concerted action by Union members the individual is lost.

Its ok calling a strike if you are a union leader as it is only the workers that lose wages, those at the top of the union still get paid (from strikers wages).

Workers shouldn't have to strike, they should be able to elect representatives to govern..., instead we have a choice of one set of buffoons or another. Were the playing field more level, then the workers wouldn't have to bail out the banks or pay so much tax into the Westminster trough.

If the few were not so glutonous the many would be able to feed their families without the need to strike.

So-called "industrial action" (actually industrial stoppage) has always been and will always be a total waste of time, resources and money.   The road to financial prosperity is hard work, long hours and integrity.   Striking for higher wages leads companies to bankruptcy in the short-term and to inflation in the long-term.  The power of the unions must be controlled so that it is not abused by highly-paid union bosses and is harnessed to bring about peaceful negotiations to phase in improved conditions as business and the economy improves.


It's when the management get so greedy that the workers are backed against the wall and they have nothing to lose that they call 'Strike!'

It's the option of last resort, the workers way of saying, "Enough. Either you share some of the wealth or we'll bring down the company and you'll lose out too." Staff would rather not lose their jobs either.

How is it that so many at the top earn so much that they can afford to be philanthropic, while others at the bottom of the company are on benefits..., the company doesn't exist without either the top or the bottom.

Why is it that wages so often increase (or not) by percentages through a whole company.., so the gaps between top and bottom perpetually widen? And how often is it that after settling a dispute with a small percentage wage rise a manager is rewarded with a larger percentage? (Ah so there was some more money slushing around after all)

And no, I've never voted labour. Yes I do vote, and I would be prepared to vote Labour but only if they represented the 'working' class rather than the 'no intention of working' class. 



BA for Virgin Airlines...£16k...happy to have a for BA...£24k...strike...get real..BE happy you have a job in the midst of a recession!

I couldn't agree more with what you have said.  It is a known fact that strikers never make up the money they lose through going on strike.  Would they like it if their wives/partners went on strike and refused to cook, clean and do their washing for them? I think not !!!  I am of course speaking about male strilers here.

The days of sending 8 year old boys out to clean chimneys for 12 hour days for a monthly stipend of a groat each are thankfully long gone. It would boost my instinct for fairness if the present day "strike" enthusiast were made to start a ligitamate company, employ at least 2 others at minimum wage and be in profit after 2 years trading.