In the light of the ongoing industrial dispute between the Communication Workers Union (CWU) and the Royal Mail, the BBC asks an interesting question - why are strikes a day at a time? The answer turns out to be fairly interesting.
The BBC article starts by pointing out that:
[A]ccording to the Office for National Statistics, in both 2005 and 2006, 55% of all stoppages lasted for just a single day. This is up from 49% in 2001. In 1988, the figure was 42%. In 1977, only 17% of stoppages lasted for a single day, while 18.5% lasted 12 days or more.
Clearly strikes have become shorter over the last 30-odd years. There are also far less of them - 754,000 working days were lost due to stoppages in 2006 compared with an average of 12.9 million per year in the 1970s.
As to why 24 hour stoppages are now the prevalent form of industrial action, Professor Paul Edward of Warwick Business School offers several reasons, including "[unions are]...using the 24-hour strike as a demonstration of solidarity and commitment, not a test of economic strength." He also mentions that even successful industrial action might not be worthwhile to employees if it takes too long. What use is a pay increase if you've just lost three weeks wages?
Another interesting question comes to mind when considering the prevalence of 24-hour walkouts - is this just the visible feature of a new(ish) direction in industrial disputes? The official figures don't include go-slows and walk-outs.
|
| Permalink | Email this |
