One more battle to fight

As the US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Labor cannot, on any terms, surrender the right to strike.” Brandeis didn’t say that because he personally rejoiced in seeing factories lying idle; rather, he said it because he knew that strikes were the only weapon union members had. Take that away, and they have nothing.

This is the reason why trade union activists have rallied together against Cameron latest attempt to shackle trade union power and its practices.

While it’s true that other tactics and strategies are available to union workers, such as go-slows and work-to-rules, the strike—defiantly bringing the whole operation to a screeching halt—is their only viable “weapon.” Why? Because it, and it alone, immediately affects the company’s profits. Without labor, they’re crippled. Moreover, if management didn’t think strikes were effective, they wouldn’t fear them as much as they do.

Consider what happens at the bargaining table. If you can’t strike in response to an inferior contract offer, your only other choice is to accept it. There isn’t a third option. You can scream and stomp your feet and promise management there will be dire repercussions if this lousy offer is forced down their throats, but in truth, without the threat of a strike, none of these histrionics amount to more than dramatic posturing.

Let’s not fool ourselves. If going on strike means losing your job, you no longer have the “right to strike”.  This was the clear message given by Ineos in the recent Grangemouth dispute.