Workers who go on strike.. are they paid?

riddlermarc · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:13

As title, I was just reading about the RM strike strating today and it struck me I didn't know if striking staff were paid whilst on walkout?

If so, is that because they are part of a union and are "allowed" to walk out? If not, how the hell would they survive being out on strike for such a long time?

4p · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:15

As far as i recall, no...

Stelly · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:15

nope definately not

Stelly

basmic · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:16

I don't think so.

When I was in the post office this morning, I overheard a postlady tell a post office member that she wouldn't be striking, because she can't afford to.

Fothsn · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:18

Nope, would be nice though

I can afford to strike as I'm still at home, plenty of RM staff at my office that are working during the strike as they can’t afford to lose a week’s wage.

Azagoth · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:21

Paid? Bloody hope not, in my opinion they should all be fired if they strike!

scorza · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:21

No they aren't paid for striking. Sometimes they may get strike pay, but this is paid for by the unions and not the companies. I think strike pay only happens if they're on strike for a long time e.g. miner's strike in the '80s.

riddlermarc · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:30

Aah as I presumed.. sounds fair enough then

Moredhel · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:56

Azagoth said:
Paid? Bloody hope not, in my opinion they should all be fired if they strike!

Here here, unions have far far too much power and aren't necessary in this day and age, and striking should be grounds for being fired. Yes they protected workers back in the day, but in the modern welfare state there are plenty of protections for workers that don't involve these monolithic abstract power-mad entities.

Biohazard · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:01

Unions have too much power?

Mwaahahaha! Yeah rightio. Certainly not in the public sector anyway..

TheMightyTen · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:15

Moredhel said:
Here here, unions have absolutely no power what so ever even though they are necessary in this day and age due to an attitude of profiteering from many companies at the expense of the Human resource creating a sick parody of the late 19th/early 20th Century that created the need for Unions in the first place

Corrected for accuracy

dannyjo22 · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:19

Biohazard said:
Unions have too much power?

Mwaahahaha! Yeah rightio. Certainly not in the public sector anyway..

Exactly. I've worked in engineering for 17 years with a large union membership. Union powers are next to nothing.

People on here seem to think you can just turn up, decide you dont like something and all go out on strike. It doesnt work like that, for that you will be sacked.

It takes a hell of a lot to be able to get in the position of strike action.

Sometimes you have to do it, otherwise you end up get bent over.

Biohazard · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:30

People who say Unions are overpowered tend to be molly cuddled rich folk. (I am neither concerned with, nor making reference to the CWU strike)

Thatcher seriously broke the back of the Unions, which a time ago were all encompassed and powerful. These days, within Whitehall departments, they have succesfully employed devide and conquer. The civil sercive as a whole cannot act, but soley within 'streams' or pay regions.

I would rather people take action for what they believe in, because believe it or not folks, the employers are not always right.

big_white_dog84 · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:35

I am a member of a union which engages with employers and works with them to get a solution. As a result there has only ever been one day of strike action called, and that was over a serious misunderstanding rather than a real dispute.

Tom0 · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:43

basmic said:
I don't think so.

When I was in the post office this morning, I overheard a postlady tell a post office member that she wouldn't be striking, because she can't afford to.

you should have shouted "SCAB" from the back of the queue

seaviewuk · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:44

fothsn said:
Nope, would be nice though I can afford to strike as I'm still at home, plenty of RM staff at my office that are working during the strike as they can’t afford to lose a week’s wage.

Here in Brighton, a few of the lads are going in, just to sit around or do minimal work and then going to divvy it up amongst their striking mates who have kids when they get paid. Won't be fortunes but every little helps. They collected over £2,000 in their tins/buckets in just 2 days on the last stoppage!

Biohazard · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:44

LOL @ Tom0!

*Moangroan* · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:49

If people did not strike now or in the past you would not have half the terms and conditions you have now.

Moredhel · 4 Oct 2007 at 19:55

*Moangroan* said:
If people did not strike now or in the past you would not have half the terms and conditions you have now.

Of course we wouldn't if they hadn't gone on strike in the past. But we do have them now, so why do they need to carry on striking? I at least think they should be limited to only striking in a way that disrupts the company, not the public. Especially for services. I also think fire, police and ambulance crews shouldn't be allowed to go on strike by law. When they do that, people die.

scorza · 4 Oct 2007 at 19:58

Moredhel said:
Of course we wouldn't if they hadn't gone on strike in the past. But we do have them now, so why do they need to carry on striking?

Because often their members are getting shafted by the management. My employer doesn't recognise any unions unfortunately, but if they did then I'd join like a shot.