Why do workers go on strike?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Striking rose to popularity during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labour grew to staff factories and mines.
It's all about power. The owners of the factories and mines had considerably more power than the individual workers, and they exploited that power to impose unfair working conditions and pay rates. Joining forces and refusing to work was one way workers were able to level the playing field.
But then, what do powerful people do when the little guy finds a way to fight back? They make such action illegal, of course. Most countries did this quickly to quell the "rabble", but eventuially striking was partially legalised in most Western countries by the early 20th century. Legal battles over the legitimacy of striking continue to this day.
In the second half of the 20th century, the United Nations established oganised industrial action including striking as a fundamental human right in international law. Maina Kiai, the former special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, stated in 2017 that the right to strike is also intrinsic to the fundamental right of freedom of association. This human right has been implemented in the Australian federal Fair Work Act 2009.
I have written many times about the imbalance of power in the workplace and the impact of utilitarianism and neoliberalism on our industrial interactions. But the power imbalance is palpable when the government is involved.
Trains came to a standstill in Sydney on Monday this week, with news outlet all over the country initially reporting that the NSW Rail, Tram and Bus Union had ordered a strike in response to negotiations over the weekend. However, come Monday morning, rail staff were reporting that they were clocked in and ready to work, but Transport NSW had shut down the network, while blaming the RBTU for going on strike. What were the headlines? It was about the inconvenient effect of the apparent "strike" for voters, not the cause of the turmoil.
While most papers initially reported that the RBTU had called a strike, as the day went on, news outlets began to reshape the story. It turns out workers actually "never planned to strike" and were all going to show up to work under "comparatively minor bans on rostering flexibility", but Transport NSW had decided to shut the entire Sydney network down, with an email from secretary Rob Sharp at 1.38am cancelling the services.
MORE ZOË WUNDENBERG:
A "lockout" is an employer response action, but it cannot actually be implemented in response to industrial action that is "threatened, impending, probable, or even imminent", and there must be notice of responsive action taken. The notice requirement is a principle from the case of Telstra v CEPU, and stipulates that notice is required to allow the "recipient" to respond to the action and make "relevant preparations". I'm not sure what court would rule that an email at 1.38am cancelling the services for that day could be determined sufficient opportunity for a response.
However, the worst part of all of this is the politicisation of the situation by the NSW government. Transport Minister David Elliott said the union and workers had "deliberately misinterpreted the agreement [they] had on Saturday", but Nine News pointed out that he never clarified what that misinterpretation actually was, beyond a "breach of faith". During a radio interview on Monday, he also accused the RBTU of "terrorist-like activity" - a seemingly growing "catch-all" for any activity that doesn't fall in line with government expectations.
Meanwhile, NSW Premier Dom Perrottet has claimed it to be a politicised action, with the unions and Labor in cahoots "12 weeks out from a federal election" and "12 months out from a state election". He referred to the areas affected as "the electorate", again trying to score cheap points by blaming those who are currently locked out of their workplace for the cancellation that was ordered by their employer.
The NSW RBTU secretary, Alex Claasens, held back tears as he spoke about the loss of.a friend in a train accident two years ago on that day. For rail workers, this is about safety, hygiene, fair pay and conditions. They don't want to die. They don't want to get sick. They want to afford to survive in a city with skyrocketing cost of living.
But sure. This is all about the LNP. It couldn't possibly be about anything else, right?
- Zoë Wundenberg is a careers consultant and un/employment advocate at impressability.com.au, and a regular columnist. Twitter: @ZoeWundenberg