Is there a basic human right to strike?

[soloman]

After last night's High Court injunction to prevent the planned walk-outs at British Airways, leading to union protests that 'a basic human right' to take industrial action has been ripped up.

Did such a right exist?

Read more:- BA strike cancelled after airline wins high court injunction | UK news | guardian.co.uk

[Midas]

After last night's High Court injunction to prevent the planned walk-outs at British Airways, leading to union protests that 'a basic human right' to take industrial action has been ripped up.

Did such a right exist?

Read more:- BA strike cancelled after airline wins high court injunction | UK news | guardian.co.uk

I don't think such a right should exist other than under very closely defined circumstances. When someone takes a job, regardless of what it is, they enter into a legally binding contract with their employer to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. OK, there can be some argument over what's 'fair', but the bottom line is that once that person has accepted the terms and conditions, unless there is some major change in those terms and conditions in the future, caused by the employer who then refuses to bring whatever is causing the dispute - pay or working conditions - at least up to the accepted average for the industry concerned, there should not be any grounds to strike. Even then that right should only be after all avenues of arbitration have been sought, should be limited to the company concerned only and even that should be denied for certain critical categories of worker.

[Opinionated]

When someone takes a job, regardless of what it is, they enter into a legally binding contract with their employer to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Yes precisely and if the employee in this scenario breaks that contract then they will be removed as appropriate, however if the contract is broken the other way round what redress does the worker have? Sometimes if he's lucky he has union backing and can temporarily withdraw his labour, and yes striking is a basic right, covered I should think by right to free assembly!

[DC]

No. It may be a 'political' right (I use the term loosely, as strikes should not be used for political outcomes, something modern Unions fail to grasp), but's certainly not a human right, and the way that many rights are increasingly thrown in with human rights is absurd.

[Tantal]

Sometimes if he's lucky he has union backing and can temporarily withdraw his labour, and yes striking is a basic right, covered I should think by right to free assembly!

What if it's every physician and nurse employed by the NHS and they all want their salaries doubled? Should THEY be able to strike too?

[LibLeft]

When you make a contract it is not for life. The contract of employment (in the UK at least) allows for change within it. The Employer is allowed to change things like times of work (if these are not specified) or type of work to be done etc.. The employee is allowed to negotiate for an increase in pay or for better working conditions. The contract and employment law together give people the legal right to negotiate changes to the contract. If agreement cannot be reached, then the law allows people to withdraw their labour.

Essentially the right to strike is a legal right and not a human right.

[LibLeft]

As noted in my other reply, UK law gives the right to strike. Many European countries protect this right by stopping the employer from dismissing people when on strike. British Law does not give this protection. Many States is the US (laughingly called 'right-to-work states) allow employers to dismiss for no cause except for protected classes (race, gender etc.)

[LibLeft]

They are in the UK. There is a 'gentleman's agreement not to.

[Barry]

I've said it before, all workers have the right to remove their labour.
All employers then have the right to sack them.
They also have other rights:
... resigning.

[manrow]

They are in the UK. There is a 'gentleman's agreement not to.

'immunity in tort' is the legal expression I believe. That does not suggest any right to strike.

[Don]

As noted in my other reply, UK law gives the right to strike. Many European countries protect this right by stopping the employer from dismissing people when on strike. British Law does not give this protection. Many States is the US (laughingly called 'right-to-work states) allow employers to dismiss for no cause except for protected classes (race, gender etc.)

Just as clarification, the term "right to work" means union membership is not a requirement for work. The term is fitting, not everyone believes in unionization and they should not be prohibited from working because of that belief, hence they have a "right to work". Seems more fair than a "union shop" in which one is required to join a union or an "agency shop" where one must pay union dues even if they do not join the union. In a "right to work" state, the right to work, free of a union, is obviously a legal right.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program on "human right to strike?"

[Opinionated]

What if it's every physician and nurse employed by the NHS and they all want their salaries doubled? Should THEY be able to strike too?

It has been known but as they tend to be people who do their job for more than financial gain (same as policemen, teachers etc.) they tend to do it on a union by union basis - meaning the hospitals can still operate. I've never known doctors to strike or threaten to do so, they do get well paid and respected so perhaps they've never felt the need. Anyway yes just because the State is the employer the principle of withdrawing labour in protest at unfair treatment should still be allowed.

[Don]

It has been known but as they tend to be people who do their job for more than financial gain (same as policemen, teachers etc.) they tend to do it on a union by union basis - meaning the hospitals can still operate. I've never known doctors to strike or threaten to do so, they do get well paid and respected so perhaps they've never felt the need. Anyway yes just because the State is the employer the principle of withdrawing labour in protest at unfair treatment should still be allowed.

What if that strike by employees of the state is threat to civil order. Many years ago, in my city, the police department rank and file, when on strike, not so called 'blue flu', rather full strike. This necessitated bringing in outside agencies to perform law enforcement duties (they even had game wardens pulling police duty). Even more serious, the US air traffic controllers went on an illegal strike several years ago. Some state employees should not have the right to strike as it is contrary to the public good.

[uncon]

lets be absolutely honest...we all deserve the right not to be summarily dismissed and to be protected at work.

Do we have the right to a job when that job no longer exists?

By the way it would cost me more to make someone redundant fifteen years ago than last year

[Don]

lets be absolutely honest...we all deserve the right not to be summarily dismissed and to be protected at work.

To be absolutely honest, I would agree that anyone should have those rights. The question as to whether or not it is a human or legal right to strike to protect those rights, still remains. Interestingly, the 'international community' through the International Declaration of Human Rights, considers the right to work a human right, it appears mum on the so called 'right to strike'. Labor law usually governs unions and their strikes, therefore i still would consider it a legal right, unless prohibited by law and or contract.

Do we have the right to a job when that job no longer exists?

How could we possibly have a right to job that no longer exists? There may be rights to retraining, however.

[TheMixer]

After last night's High Court injunction to prevent the planned walk-outs at British Airways, leading to union protests that 'a basic human right' to take industrial action has been ripped up.

Did such a right exist?

Read more:- BA strike cancelled after airline wins high court injunction | UK news | guardian.co.uk

It hasn't been 'ripped up'.The question is what if the technicality hadn't been breached? If it hadn't then the strike could have gone ahead. I don't think the unions can complain. V.few people, inc. the union and it's members, in any circumstances would be generous and concede a defeat when they could avoid it even on something as minor as a technicality. Get better lawyers is my advice and get real too.

[TheMixer]

What if it's every physician and nurse employed by the NHS and they all want their salaries doubled? Should THEY be able to strike too?

They wouldn't have the public,their paymasters, on their side in that scenario and the they'd see sence before too long...It wouldn't happen in other words

[LibLeft]

Just as clarification, the term "right to work" means union membership is not a requirement for work. The term is fitting, not everyone believes in unionization and they should not be prohibited from working because of that belief, hence they have a "right to work". Seems more fair than a "union shop" in which one is required to join a union or an "agency shop" where one must pay union dues even if they do not join the union. In a "right to work" state, the right to work, free of a union, is obviously a legal right.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program on "human right to strike?"

I understand that. What it means in practice is that there is no right to work unless you agree with the employer. In Europe there is more right to work- employers usually need a just cause to dismiss. Ther are very few 'union shps' in Europe- none in the UK since 1982.

[uncon]

This is why the unions got so much power. Now they are seen as the bad guy because they got a bit up on themself...protecting the rights of the worker is one thing...but you can't protect the worker unless there is work!

[Don]

I understand that. What it means in practice is that there is no right to work unless you agree with the employer. In Europe there is more right to work- employers usually need a just cause to dismiss. Ther are very few 'union shps' in Europe- none in the UK since 1982.

No, what it means is that you are free to work without having to agree with the union. You do understand, do you not, that there are unions, and strong one's, in "right to work" states. Those who wish to join, if a union exists, are free to join, those who do not wish to join are 'supposedly' free of coercion from union goons.

[Robin Edward Putland]

No, what it means is that you are free to work without having to agree with the union. You do understand, do you not, that there are unions, and strong one's, in "right to work" states. Those who wish to join, if a union exists, are free to join, those who do not wish to join are 'supposedly' free of coercion from union goons.

And allowed to join unions 'supposedly free from company goons'.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Personaly I believe workers should have the political right to stike as decided by them not the courts as it is an internal argument.
Unions should deffinately use strikes as a last resort in a dispute, as otherwise they risk loosing public support, because poeple start thinking protecting their rights is a selfish act.

[Midas]

Yes precisely and if the employee in this scenario breaks that contract then they will be removed as appropriate, however if the contract is broken the other way round what redress does the worker have? Sometimes if he's lucky he has union backing and can temporarily withdraw his labour, and yes striking is a basic right, covered I should think by right to free assembly!

Sorry, but I disagree entirely. There are very few instances where contracts of employment have been changed to the degree that in practical terms it makes a significant difference to the employee's life. The overwhelming number of strikes have been about relatively insignificant things or have been in politically inspired 'support' of other workers' supposed grievances. A contract of employment is a legally binding document, and if it says that an employer can vary working hours or shift patterns or work done or bonuses or the number of tea breaks, as long as they remain reasonable and within the norms for whatever industry is involved, the employee should have no grounds for complaint. If they have any justifiable complaint (i.e., a change is being made in that contract which is fundamentally outside the industry norm), there are always independent arbitration schemes to go to; only if the employer fails to acknowledge the recommendations of the arbitration should the employee(s) involved be allowed to take matters further.

[manrow]

Sorry, but I disagree entirely. There are very few instances where contracts of employment have been changed to the degree that in practical terms it makes a significant difference to the employee's life. The overwhelming number of strikes have been about relatively insignificant things or have been in politically inspired 'support' of other workers' supposed grievances. A contract of employment is a legally binding document, and if it says that an employer can vary working hours or shift patterns or work done or bonuses or the number of tea breaks, as long as they remain reasonable and within the norms for whatever industry is involved, the employee should have no grounds for complaint. If they have any justifiable complaint (i.e., a change is being made in that contract which is fundamentally outside the industry norm), there are always independent arbitration schemes to go to; only if the employer fails to acknowledge the recommendations of the arbitration should the employee(s) involved be allowed to take matters further.

On that basis it would seem that the BA cabin staff have little justification for a strike?

[uncon]

If you take away the courts right to rule it illegal, then you have everything under union power.

you want to get to work? Well thats a bit tough as the train drivers are demanding £200,000 a year...yes it does look ridiculous, but it would be possible without recourse to the court

[Midas]

On that basis it would seem that the BA cabin staff have little justification for a strike?

Quite, which the way the High Court has also seen it. They're already benefitting from better terms of employment than cabin staff with many other airlines, so what do they really have to complain about?

[soloman]

Quite, which the way the High Court has also seen it. They're already benefitting from better terms of employment than cabin staff with many other airlines, so what do they really have to complain about?

Indeed! However where a company such as BA is facing stiff competition from other airlines both at home and abroad, the staff never consider that their remuneration could go down rather than always upwards?

[Robin Edward Putland]

If you take away the courts right to rule it illegal, then you have everything under union power.

you want to get to work? Well thats a bit tough as the train drivers are demanding £200,000 a year...yes it does look ridiculous, but it would be possible without recourse to the court

It doesn't give all the power to the unions. Buisnnesses would still be able to fire people within the law and the strikers would still have to feed themselves.
It would focus both parties on resolving the dispute.
As for the possible £200,000 stike, Unions defend workers right to relsolve their grievences not get luxuries, the unions wouldn't call for a stike because no one would take them as a serious organisation again, staff wouldn't use strike to get rediculous luxuries ( it would be the boy who cried wolf), and niether would get public or external unions support.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Quite, which the way the High Court has also seen it. They're already benefitting from better terms of employment than cabin staff with many other airlines, so what do they really have to complain about?

The High Court ruled the strike illegal because of a technical voting discrepancy which is what the law covers, all stikes have to be voted on and the union messed up the vote, not rigged it.
The strike is about already agreed pensions being cut and is justifiable.

[vickylee]

We have to fight for the rights of us! And the government should approve it!

[soloman]

Quite, which the way the High Court has also seen it. They're already benefitting from better terms of employment than cabin staff with many other airlines, so what do they really have to complain about?

Possibly confirmed yesterday when Tony Woodley said that 'if BA could only restore the cabin staff's travel benefits then the strike could be called off'. In which case why did they go on strike in the first place?

[DC]

We have to fight for the rights of us! And the government should approve it!

Fight for rights? Yes.
Fight for privileges? No.
Political reasons? No.
Because your Union is being a bunch of political, power hungry mobsters? No.
and in this specific case, because the company you work for has hit hard times and has to cut hours and lay off staff in order to keep afloat? No.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Fight for rights? Yes.
Fight for privileges? No.
Political reasons? No.
Because your Union is being a bunch of political, power hungry mobsters? No.
and in this specific case, because the company you work for has hit hard times and has to cut hours and lay off staff in order to keep afloat? No.

The Unions are doing their job by representing the members stance.
If they were being political they would have held the strikes after the election so as to make labour look good and not put the presvious government in a bad situation and made Con/Lib look bad as they came to power by striking.
The company has hit har5d times and will have to reduce its expenditure, but should have consulted with staff and found out what they would have excepted rather than create antagonism by cuting pensions.
The Strike is still about pensions as far as im aware.

[DC]

The Unions are doing their job by representing the members stance.

A lot of Union do not do this, they represent their own, usually extreme, political interests. And in this case, striking is not in the interests of the workers, so the Unions should be advising their members of this.

If they were being political they would have held the strikes after the election so as to make labour look good and not put the presvious government in a bad situation and made Con/Lib look bad as they came to power by striking.

I didn't say that there was political motive in this case, but in many cases there have been.

The company has hit har5d times and will have to reduce its expenditure, but should have consulted with staff and found out what they would have excepted rather than create antagonism by cuting pensions.
The Strike is still about pensions as far as im aware.

and what if the staff still disagreed? The fact is that clearly UNITE has not done its job in representing its members. BA obviously doesn't want a strike to go ahead, and would have compromised to stop it, yet perhaps the strikers are demanding too much?

[Robin Edward Putland]

A lot of Union do not do this, they represent their own, usually extreme, political interests. And in this case, striking is not in the interests of the workers, so the Unions should be advising their members of this.

The Vast majority of disputes are settled by the unions workers and companies talking and making desicions together, most concern peoples behavior in the work place not industrial action or infringement of rights.

and what if the staff still disagreed? The fact is that clearly UNITE has not done its job in representing its members. BA obviously doesn't want a strike to go ahead, and would have compromised to stop it, yet perhaps the strikers are demanding too much?

This is why Union members vote on striking so its a representative democratic designion, all members are not majically controled by some extremest political secret. thats just your politcal ideology blinkering you.

The BA srike didn't go ahead was a technical cock up by the union not fraud or vote rigging.

[soloman]

The Vast majority of disputes are settled by the unions workers and companies talking and making desicions together, most concern peoples behavior in the work place not industrial action or infringement of rights.
This is why Union members vote on striking so its a representative democratic designion, all members are not majically controled by some extremest political secret. thats just your politcal ideology blinkering you.

The BA srike didn't go ahead was a technical cock up by the union not fraud or vote rigging.

The problem is that the union wants an end to the strike, but militants at Heathrow want it to continue. Apparently a sub-group of BASSA?

[Robin Edward Putland]

The problem is that the union wants an end to the strike, but militants at Heathrow want it to continue. Apparently a sub-group of BASSA?

The unoin does but BA doesn't want to negotiate at the moment.

Unite says strike action so far this year has cost BA at least £63m, based on a loss of £7m a day over the nine days of industrial action.
Unite's joint general secretary Tony Woodley called on BA's chief executive Willie Walsh to "waste no further time or resources" on fighting the strike and instead return to the negotiating table

BASSA seem to think Willie Walsh is a problem to the negotiations and will only talk with Unite. So it is a mess but not because of the unions. They should get back to the negotiation table immediately.

[soloman]

The unoin does but BA doesn't want to negotiate at the moment.
BASSA seem to think Willie Walsh is a problem to the negotiations and will only talk with Unite. So it is a mess but not because of the unions. They should get back to the negotiation table immediately.

There is nothing to negotiate about. BA orinally planned to reduce the number of cabin staff on aircraft operations out of Heathrow exactly as they already do at other BA bases, in an effort to make the Heathrow operations more economic. The BA staff at Heathrow stubbornly refused to accept the economic reality that they are already overpaid compared with other BA bases and the Unite union threatened strike action. Willie Walsh warned them that their travel perks would be permanently removed for anyone who went on strike; but they persisted.
BA has to reduce staff costs or it will not survive, hence there is nothing to negotiate. If the strikers still want a job with BA, then they must return to work on the original terms set out by BA 6 months ago, they are pointlessly losing money themselves currently and endangering the longterm future of BA. If BA were to concede on the original union demands then they are merely delaying the point at which there whole Heathrow operation becomes totally uneconomic.

[Robin Edward Putland]

There is nothing to negotiate about. BA orinally planned to reduce the number of cabin staff on aircraft operations out of Heathrow exactly as they already do at other BA bases, in an effort to make the Heathrow operations more economic.

[QUOTE+BBC news] A long-running dispute over pay, working conditions and perks has seen both industrial action and talks involving the two sides.[/QUOTE] The company may be trying to make themselves more efficient, but there are areas that need to be discussed and the staff to have to be part of this process.

The BA staff at Heathrow stubbornly refused to accept the economic reality that they are already overpaid compared with other BA bases and the Unite union threatened strike action. Willie Walsh warned them that their travel perks would be permanently removed for anyone who went on strike; but they persisted.

It is a multi facceted situation which again needs co operation and discussion definately not threats which just creates antangonism that escalates.

BA has to reduce staff costs or it will not survive, hence there is nothing to negotiate. If the strikers still want a job with BA, then they must return to work on the original terms set out by BA 6 months ago, they are pointlessly losing money themselves currently and endangering the longterm future of BA. If BA were to concede on the original union demands then they are merely delaying the point at which there whole Heathrow operation becomes totally uneconomic.

Telling people that their previously negotiated and agrenteed rights are being taken away without discussion and if they protest they lose more is never going to go well, their Job might need to get more austier but heavey handed craconion cuts isn't the right way to go about it. The blame for the Strikes lay firmly in the hands of BA bosses not the workers.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Sorry about the typo

[manrow]

Sorry about the typo

You seem to believe that BA and possibly any other company has a bottomless bucket available to pay its employees. BA certainly does not!

As Soloman has already indicated the travel perks were granted by BA and not negotiated and are not part of the employees contract; as such BA can withdraw them at any time at their entire discretion. BA have already advised that the employees can earn their travel perks back as a result of length of service after returning to work. Where are the reasons for continuing the strike?

This dispute is being perpetuated by inaccurate statements in the media by people who don't fully understand the facts.

[Robin Edward Putland]

You seem to believe that BA and possibly any other company has a bottomless bucket available to pay its employees. BA certainly does not!

As Soloman has already indicated the travel perks were granted by BA and not negotiated and are not part of the employees contract; as such BA can withdraw them at any time at their entire discretion. BA have already advised that the employees can earn their travel perks back as a result of length of service after returning to work. Where are the reasons for continuing the strike?

This dispute is being perpetuated by inaccurate statements in the media by people who don't fully understand the facts.

I've already stated some of the reasons why the strikes have taken place.
I also said that taking away perks would create anagonism and not help the negotiations or help the staff except changes in thier work.
And I certainly never said or thought BA or any other company is a bottomless wallet of cash.
I did say that if BA does need to reduce size and change pay and work of employess it should have brought the staff in at to discussions to co operate with each other to help the company survive. Not a Top down bullying commanding aproch which many people on this forum accuse Gordon Brown of but are unwilling to see Biussness bosses might be accused of that.

[soloman]

I've already stated some of the reasons why the strikes have taken place.
I also said that taking away perks would create anagonism and not help the negotiations or help the staff except changes in thier work.
And I certainly never said or thought BA or any other company is a bottomless wallet of cash.
I did say that if BA does need to reduce size and change pay and work of employess it should have brought the staff in at to discussions to co operate with each other to help the company survive. Not a Top down bullying commanding aproch which many people on this forum accuse Gordon Brown of but are unwilling to see Biussness bosses might be accused of that.

I suspect we would all benefit if you could find a spell checker to run through your postings; if you use Word first for example it would highlight the words needing correction. Heaven forbid that union negotiations should take place with documents containing a high volume of errors. It is important you know.

[DC]

The Vast majority of disputes are settled by the unions workers and companies talking and making desicions together, most concern peoples behavior in the work place not industrial action or infringement of rights.

But not all, and with the constant threat of strike hanging over companies' heads. "If you don't give us what we want we'll strike", it's borderline extortion. Obviously not all Unions practice such behaviour, but there should be laws to stop the few that might, and absurd situations like this one.

This is why Union members vote on striking so its a representative democratic designion, all members are not majically controled by some extremest political secret. thats just your politcal ideology blinkering you.

So then the Union members are idiots. They're voting to be fired and lose their jobs when the company goes under.

[Robin Edward Putland]

But not all, and with the constant threat of strike hanging over companies' heads. "If you don't give us what we want we'll strike", it's borderline extortion. Obviously not all Unions practice such behaviour, but there should be laws to stop the few that might, and absurd situations like this one.

So then the Union members are idiots. They're voting to be fired and lose their jobs when the company goes under.

In that case demanding workers to work with worse rights with the threat of fireing them is extorsion as well. There are laws to stop bad practises like the voting one and having to annouce your intensions to strike.
You May think that workers are stupid, as your signiture suggests its your default opinion.
whatever our opinions are people still have the right to express their greivances at work, I hope this will remain the case.

[3gallon]

How can there not be a right to strike. This will be a quick and simple answer. If the right to strike was taken away we would find people now attempting to live on £2 to £3 an hour. The gap (which is far too big already) between the haves and have nots getting wider. I would suggest a policy that no one person in any company can earn more than twice the wage of any other employee who is working the same hours. Greed is the downfall of us all.

[DC]

In that case demanding workers to work with worse rights with the threat of fireing them is extorsion as well. There are laws to stop bad practises like the voting one and having to annouce your intensions to strike.

Strikes should be a last resort, all the time. In some cases strikes of any kind should be banned by the courts. Workers do not have a right to hold other workers' jobs hostage. We have seen here the Unions going into negotiations with strikes already planned, that is extortion.

You May think that workers are stupid, as your signiture suggests its your default opinion.

No, I suggested that the Union leadership was stupid, you said it was the workers who made the decision to go on strike, and in doing so harm their job future, so it seems pretty stupid to me.

whatever our opinions are people still have the right to express their greivances at work, I hope this will remain the case.

As long as in expressing those grievances others aren't harmed, which is what could happen in this case.

[DC]

How can there not be a right to strike. This will be a quick and simple answer. If the right to strike was taken away we would find people now attempting to live on £2 to £3 an hour. The gap (which is far too big already) between the haves and have nots getting wider. I would suggest a policy that no one person in any company can earn more than twice the wage of any other employee who is working the same hours. Greed is the downfall of us all.

Under no circumstances is the right to strike a Human right, but it could be a political (or perhaps more accurately an economic one). I'm in favour of restricting strikes, they can only be called after serious attempts at negotiations have failed, and even then a court has the right to determine whether or not it's legal.

[Major Sinic]

How can there not be a right to strike. This will be a quick and simple answer. If the right to strike was taken away we would find people now attempting to live on £2 to £3 an hour. The gap (which is far too big already) between the haves and have nots getting wider. I would suggest a policy that no one person in any company can earn more than twice the wage of any other employee who is working the same hours. Greed is the downfall of us all.

Then you would have very few companies in existence. Like it or not greed and material success are potent motivators. Remove them and you remove the incentive which led to the creation of the vast majority of successful companies in our country.

That said I fully agree that a work force is entitled to independent representation, and socially and economically responsible trade unions provide it.

[Robin Edward Putland]

Strikes should be a last resort, all the time.

They are.

In some cases strikes of any kind should be banned by the courts.

In the state Services they are and thats the only ones that should be.

Workers do not have a right to hold other workers' jobs hostage.

They don't the ones that go on strike do so to represent themselves, the ones that stay at work accept the current situation, no hostge taking.

We have seen here the Unions going into negotiations with strikes already planned, that is extortion.

Its not, its representing the workers position whilst having enough power to make the companies bosses listen to it so both parties can come to an agreement. If workers don't have the right to strike or represent their views most people in Britian would be working for miniscual wages in poverty, being exploited by the rich.

As long as in expressing those grievances others aren't harmed, which is what could happen in this case.

How would representing workers harm others? It is never any unions or members purpose.