Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The right to strike

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The right to strike

    I said people couldn't afford to live on it. That's the entire point.

    Comment


      The right to strike

      And it's a point I get.

      Comment


        The right to strike

        On this subject, I got a message in my inbox from Canada's main business research think tank, with a somewhat counter-intuitive result on the subject of "essential services":

        Declaring Public Services "Essential" Leads to Higher Wage Costs: C.D. Howe Institute

        Toronto, Sept. 11 – Designating public services as "essential" may be aimed at protecting public safety by guaranteeing service availability, but it can be costly to the public purse, according to a report released today by the C. D. Howe Institute. Evidence from across Canada shows that declaring a public service to be essential drives up negotiated wage increases by 13 percent, drives up hourly wages by up to 0.8 percent and does not necessarily reduce strikes or other job actions. To draw these conclusions, reported in "No Free Ride: The Cost of Essential Services Designation," Policy Analyst Benjamin Dachis examined 6,721 public sector contract settlements involving at least 500 employees over the last 30 years, and reports on what happens when services are designated essential. Toronto City Councillors are set to debate whether to ask the province to designate the Toronto Transit Commission as an essential service: Dachis says policymakers should weigh the cost of that designation against the uncertain benefits of service continuation.

        The report is available at: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_62.pdf

        Comment


          The right to strike

          AG- I'm not sure that's so counter-intuitive. Increased wage costs are a predictable effect of no-strike deals, and- if the unions are stronger than the restrictive laws used against them- the deals may well fail to prevent strikes and other disputes entirely, although presumably there'll be fewer of them than without the deal.

          Toronto taxpayers and citizens want two things broadly, I'd guess- guaranteed trash collections/ staffed late night transit trains etc. on the one hand, and at worst a controlled increase to costs on the other. They may be getting more of the former than the latter, but that's market forces for you...

          Comment


            The right to strike

            Fair points, Duncan - but the normal union critique of "essential service designation" is (I think) that workers will suffer if their rights are restriced by being declared "essential" and having their right to strike limited. This research suggests it's not quite that simple.

            I guess it comes down to whether or not unions are indeed, to use your words, "stronger than the restrictive laws used against them". Although, when you think about it, if they really were that strong, how did those laws get passed in the first place?

            Comment


              The right to strike

              I'd be interested to know whether unions would be 'okay' with losing their right to strike (in very specific cases) knowing that the negotiated settlement would typically result in higher wages than if they were to strike.

              Comment


                The right to strike

                if they really were that strong, how did those laws get passed in the first place?
                Simplistically, there are a lot more anti-union voters than members prepared to strike in a particular union.

                In Britain at least, some unions- eg railway employees- are prepared to strike against what they see as provocation and intimidation by employers (including, effectively, the threat of banning strikes). 70,000 such union members don't have much clout in national electoral politics, but clearly they can protect their interests on the London Underground.

                I'd be interested to know whether unions would be 'okay' with losing their right to strike (in very specific cases) knowing that the negotiated settlement would typically result in higher wages than if they were to strike
                Without splitting hairs, I'd prefer negotiating a deal to avoid a strike, than signing away the right to do so.

                What very specific cases were you thinking of?

                Comment


                  The right to strike

                  Police, ER nurses, transit drivers, that sort of thing. Essential services.

                  Comment


                    The right to strike

                    If an employee in the latter two services, I would not favor my union giving up, or having legislated away, the right to strike.

                    I would prefer Police officers had broadly similar employment rights- including to strike- to the other groups.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X