How Long Could the Unions Hold Out For on Strike?

Byron85 · 01-05-2011 11:12pm #1

In a thread that I can't seem to find anymore, someone mentioned that the unions only have enough money in the "strike kitty" to pay their members for 2 weeks or so of striking. I'm just wondering if this is true and if the exact figures could be provided?

Mods: Sorry if this breaks any rules etc and feel free to move it around but I thought the question was most aptly posed in the Irish Economy forum.

Delancey · 02-05-2011 12:21am

It's always been my understanding that union ' Strike Pay ' is a fraction of the pay a member could expect were they not on strike - I've never heard of unions fully covering lost wages , anyone else heard different ?

amacachi · 02-05-2011 2:22am

Pretty sure when the CPSU went on strike there was no strike pay at all.

Count Dooku · 02-05-2011 4:48am

amacachi wrote: »

Pretty sure when the CPSU went on strike there was no strike pay at all.

do you mean work to rule strike, when instead of unions CPSU members been paid by taxpayers?

deise blue · 02-05-2011 6:38am

It depends on how the Unions play it , a work to rule across the entirety of the Public Sector would be extremely disruptive without any appreciable effect on pay.

In terms of causing optimum disruption the unions need to get frontline workers out & have a cogent & workable unified plan to ensure that rolling strikes by such workers can take place without significant impact on their pay.

This however is a doomsday scenario & most unlikely to happen .

sollar · 02-05-2011 9:50am

I don't think it will be a case of staff striking for days or weeks. This time round work to rule would be alot more damaging. BTW work to rule was barely observed last time where i work. People were kind of expecting cuts. This time round people can't afford to give up anymore so will react much worse imo.

Over the last 3 years thousands of staff have taken on the work left behind by retiring or leaving staff. On a work to rule they would cease to co operate with this. That would leave major problems as so much is tied together by this co operation.

They would also carry out rolling and targeted strikes.

sarumite · 02-05-2011 11:04am

Whatever happens I just hope the government doesn't roll over and actually plays hardball. It may be hard in the short term, but will be much better in the long term. I can understand PS workers not wanting to give up what they have and they have gotten used to a certain lifestyle based on their pay but the country just cannot afford to maintain it.

bamboozle · 02-05-2011 11:28am

sollar wrote: »

I don't think it will be a case of staff striking for days or weeks. This time round work to rule would be alot more damaging. BTW work to rule was barely observed last time where i work. People were kind of expecting cuts. This time round people can't afford to give up anymore so will react much worse imo.

Over the last 3 years thousands of staff have taken on the work left behind by retiring or leaving staff. On a work to rule they would cease to co operate with this. That would leave major problems as so much is tied together by this co operation.

They would also carry out rolling and targeted strikes.

are the thousands of HR Staff in the HSE giving a dig out in the other departments? didnt think so, they're still sitting around drinking tea and doing no work.

Strike or work to rule wont really matter, the ECB and IMF are telling our govt what to do and if they say to cut wages the govt will have to tow the line - irrespective of the quality of work etc by the various public sector workers, it will be a result of the harsh fact of life that this country cannot carry on paying these salaries.

RobbieTheRobber · 02-05-2011 11:44am

Strike pay only comes into play after 3 or more days on strike. AFAIK

Spudmonkey · 02-05-2011 12:35pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Strike pay only comes into play after 3 or more days on strike. AFAIK

In that case what are the first two days considered?

RobbieTheRobber · 02-05-2011 12:56pm

Spudmonkey wrote: »

In that case what are the first two days considered?

The union has a a solidarity fund which is used during times of prolonged striking, so that members can feed their families themsleves etc.

The first two days are still considered strike action, but no union payment is made to members for these days.

RobbieTheRobber · 02-05-2011 1:01pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

do you mean work to rule strike, when instead of unions CPSU members been paid by taxpayers?

Work to rule is not striking, during a work to rule action union members will attend work. However they will only complete work which is explicitly covered by their terms of work or contract.

Byron85 · 02-05-2011 1:32pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Strike pay only comes into play after 3 or more days on strike. AFAIK

But does anyone know how long they could fund a continuous strike?

bamboozle · 02-05-2011 1:38pm

not long, very few of the unions would have sufficient funds to pay more than a few weeks wages. No way the union leaders would want this happening cause all of a sudden their giant salaries will be the focus of attention.

read somewhere recently that it would cost about 17m a week to pay teachers salaries.

Count Dooku · 02-05-2011 2:09pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Work to rule is not striking, during a work to rule action union members will attend work. However they will only complete work which is explicitly covered by their terms of work or contract.

Why do we need public services with so poor written contracts?
Why not to start build new alternative public services with well defined tasks with new hard working staff?

deise blue · 02-05-2011 2:10pm

The Unions have absolutely no intention of funding a continuous strike.

The most likely scenario in a backs to the wall scenario is a hugely disruptive work to rule Public Sector wide allied to rolling and targeted strikes by frontline workers which are far more easily funded.

The_Thing · 02-05-2011 2:29pm

Is it legal for a third party with a vested interest to help fund a strike?

deise blue · 02-05-2011 2:43pm

The_Thing wrote: »

Is it legal for a third party with a vested interest to help fund a strike?

Absolutely legal for any sympathetic party to donate to a strike fund.

Spudmonkey · 02-05-2011 3:15pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The union has a a solidarity fund which is used during times of prolonged striking, so that members can feed their families themsleves etc.

The first two days are still considered strike action, but no union payment is made to members for these days.

Does this mean that the first two days are given free so to speak by those striking. They don't get paid as per normal?

RobbieTheRobber · 02-05-2011 4:23pm

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why do we need public services with so poor written contracts?
Why not to start build new alternative public services with well defined tasks with new hard working staff?

Why dont we just rename ireland and start as a new country with no debt?

RobbieTheRobber · 02-05-2011 4:28pm

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Does this mean that the first two days are given free so to speak by those striking. They don't get paid as per normal?

I am only speaking from my personal knowledge here and probably shouldnt be taken as the universal voice of all unions.

So with that caveat, then yes the first two days are given free by the union members as such.

Although I dont think free is the right word as their isnt really strike pay, just funds set aside to cover members basics during a period of sustained industrial action.

mikemac · 02-05-2011 4:40pm

It depends, isn't that the answer to everything

Some unions have good officers and management and have managed their reserves so could handle strike pay.
Some unions have little in reserve, the Irish Nurses Organization had issues in the past. But then their members need to start asking questions about their highly paid leaders. Replace if neccesary

In a desperate situation and reserves run out they can always make an appeal for help and donations

dan_d · 02-05-2011 6:05pm

I...can't imagine an appeal for donations being in any way successful for a myriad of reasons.
I seem to remember hearing that strike pay was about 25 eur a day - now I could be way off on that, but it was quite low. Different unions may have different rates??
They probably couldn't hold out for very long. Well, actually, in monetary terms maybe they could, but it's questionable how long their striking members might survive on that kind of money.

mikemac · 02-05-2011 7:48pm

Yes, different unions have different rates. A few years ago it was €30 per day from SIPTU, I don't know what it currently is

I agree an appeal would probably fail to raise much but they would get some contributions.
It's for every union member to start asking hard questions to their officers about the reserves. Some have it ready and plans in place and some have managed it terribly.
You might have officers who worked their way up and know zero about finance or investments

WalterMitty · 03-05-2011 6:29am

Let them strike. It wont last long as it will get them no where. There is no support among the wider public with unemployment and emmigration sky high. They have little or no leverage over government and decisions are largely out of governments hands. If they dont like the cuts to pay and conditions in public sector they are free to leave and try out Irish private sector or go abroad to work. The country does not owe them a living.

mari2222 · 03-05-2011 6:41am

It is possible a union strike would last longer than the public's tolerance of lack of payment for supplies/ fees/ child benefits/ social welfare/ pensions and provision of services such as passports/ health services/ education etc

sarumite · 03-05-2011 8:23am

mari2222 wrote: »

It is possible a union strike would last longer than the public's tolerance of lack of payment for supplies/ fees/ child benefits/ social welfare/ pensions and provision of services such as passports/ health services/ education etc

Possibly as I imagine the publics tolerance for such things as social welfare payments or health services is short. Although that is probably a dangerous game to play. The public backlash won't be directed towards the government, instead the unions will bear the brunt of it. In the long run such tactics would probably do more harm than good for PS workers.

deise blue · 03-05-2011 8:56am

sarumite wrote: »

Possibly as I imagine the publics tolerance for such things as social welfare payments or health services is short. Although that is probably a dangerous game to play. The public backlash won't be directed towards the government, instead the unions will bear the brunt of it. In the long run such tactics would probably do more harm than good for PS workers.

It's also a high risk strategy for the current Government , disenchanting a huge voting bloc that helped them achieve a huge majority Government is never a good idea.

Hence the current drive to achieve savings from everything bar pay cuts.

sarumite · 03-05-2011 10:19am

deise blue wrote: »

It's also a high risk strategy for the current Government , disenchanting a huge voting bloc that helped them achieve a huge majority Government is never a good idea.

Hence the current drive to achieve savings from everything bar pay cuts.

Perhaps for Labour, I don't think so for FG. FG have more to lose if they cowtow to the unions than if they stand firm. In some ways Labour are between a rock and a hard place, though as long as they continue to place the burden of reponsibility on the troika they should be ok. If the government do capitulate to union pressure they can take credit for it and if the government hold firm they can pass the buck on to Kenny and Co.

sollar · 03-05-2011 10:30am

When the ESB threaten strikes are they concerned about public support. I seriously doubt it crosses their minds. Who would support their electricity going off?? Public support would matter little to the ESB.

I think the idea that public support for strikes matters is overplayed.

sarumite · 03-05-2011 10:58am

sollar wrote: »

When the ESB threaten strikes are they concerned about public support. I seriously doubt it crosses their minds. Who would support their electricity going off?? Public support would matter little to the ESB.

I think the idea that public support for strikes matters is overplayed.

When was the last time ESB actually had a strike as opposed to just threaten strike? When the ESB threaten strike they are playing on public concern. They assume that the government will put public concern about not having electricity first and thus cowtow to their demands.

sollar · 03-05-2011 11:14am

sarumite wrote: »

When was the last time ESB actually had a strike as opposed to just threaten strike? When the ESB threaten strike they are playing on public concern. They assume that the government will put public concern about not having electricity first and thus cowtow to their demands.

All they have to do is threaten, they are not one bit concerned about public support.

Public support doesn't matter half as much as some people think.

dan_d · 03-05-2011 11:26am

mari2222 wrote: »

It is possible a union strike would last longer than the public's tolerance of lack of payment for supplies/ fees/ child benefits/ social welfare/ pensions and provision of services such as passports/ health services/ education etc

That would be the million dollar question.

sarumite · 03-05-2011 4:04pm

sollar wrote: »

All they have to do is threaten, they are not one bit concerned about public support.

Public support doesn't matter half as much as some people think.

When I refer to public support I am not limiting it to one side of the equation as it affects both sides. Public support may not affect what the unions do, though it can affect what the government will do.

swampgas · 03-05-2011 6:42pm

sarumite wrote: »

Public support may not affect what the unions do, though it can affect what the government will do.

+1

If there is a deeply unpopular strike, and the general public are up in arms about it - then the government will not just be able to take action, they may feel compelled to take action.

A public service union ignoring the significance of public opinion is not acting in the best interest of its members.

How Long Could the Unions Hold Out For on Strike?

Comments