I found out today that with the newly revised wage offer by government it will take the public servants on strike four years to recover the money they’ve lost through the no-work-no-pay policy, adjusted for the new negotiated increase.
Four years!? What the …. ? The 14 days of industrial action equates to a four year debt.
I’m not sure it has occurred to our average public servant, be it an administrator, teacher or hospital nurse, that while they have either been sitting at home, or out on the streets intimidating volunteers working in their place, that it will take them so long to recover the money they’ve lost?
Now, lest I be misunderstood, I am all for the right to strike. Especially in this current situation. The pay scheme’s for teachers, nurses and the like are woeful. I can attest to this myself having been a teacher. But there comes a point when a protracted strike has no logical reason for it’s continuation. There is no econmic justification, just a principle-based pissing competition. Here’s what I mean …
If one had to look at a strike purely from a personal finance perspective, there comes a tipping point, a break even if you like, where the money lost due to no-work-no-pay is greater than you’ll make up via the increase you’ll get as part of the negotiated settlement. I heard from a reliable source that the break even point for the current strike was day 6. Today the strike entered day 14.
And so, when a strike gets protracted the economic rationale for the industrial action flies out the window. So what is left by way of rationale?
Well, power dynamics. When reason leaves the room, you have a fight based on the principle of not giving way. And so it becomes a power struggle where neither party is willing to give way. On a matter of principle, labour will not give up.
Now, if fairness was a key organising rationale for the strike in the first place, what happens to it when the strike surpasses the break even point? I guess fairness has to give way to ego.
And so, this is the dance that happens at about this time every year in South Africa. Wage negotiations begin. Both parties table a ridiculous figure, knowing full well that neither party has the intention to stick to that figure, and that an inevitable compromise will result. It all becomes a big fat game of chicken.
What really gets me going is the ethical perspective – while labour has been playing chicken with government over what is effectively a four year debt for their members, our children have lost 14 days worth of education; masses of people have been denied health care; and scores have died as a result.
There is a short-circuit somewhere in the brains of the South African workforce and union bosses. They seem to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic basket.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Aiden Choles, Samantha Choles. Samantha Choles said: RT @aidencholes: I just wrote a new blog post on aidencholes.com: South Africa's annual pissing competition @http://tinyurl.com/2wsqsw2 #fb […]
“I am all for the right to strike.”
It sure doesn’t sound like it. Workers are in a catch 22 when faced with your kind of ‘logic’. They only have power via collective action, yet using that power brings forth all sorts of blame from would-be supporters. Blaming them for using their power is simply absurd and unfair. If workers only strike until a break-even date, then their strike is broken before it even starts. I’m not sure you understand how industrial actions are supposed to work.
The people writing the checks are the ones who are not educating your children, who are denying healthcare, etc. If these jobs are so important, then these workers should be paid what they deserve.
Chromalux, my tone surrounding the strike it critical yes, but I am still in support of the right to strike. It is how the strike unfolds that I am not in support of. It doesn’t happen with the majority of the strikes, but when intimidation, violence and death occur as a result, I have a real issue with that.
My point is simply this: there comes a tipping point in some strikes where the battle is no longer an economic one, but purely a political one. It is at this point that the union members are then held ransom to their organisers .. .the organisers do not feel the pain of having to “work back” the money that has been lost due to a political power struggle.
I agree fully with your last point.
Aiden, I agree with you that the strikers undermine their cause when violence, intimidation and hooliganism happen. However, that is a small part of the story of the strike – as is the financial consideration. Yes, perhaps it will take four years to make up the financial loss, but the big question is this: if the strikers only work on financial considerations (breaking even), where will they be in four years time? In exactly the same situation they are now.
However, if they pay the price – yes, even for four years – then, perhaps, in four years time, they will begin to see the fruits of their negotiations now. They may actually begin to receive the fair deal for which they are now fighting. Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but even if the deal is still not fair, it will be better than if they ended the strike at “break even point”. It’s about making sacrifices now that will hopefully pay off later.
And as for “our children” not getting educated – surely we need something to hurt before we will realise that our system is broken. If the strike just happens to “others” “out there”, what public motivation would there ever be to change the system? It’s only when we all feel the pain that we will be committed enough to work for change. But, of course, that would mean we need to actually do something, believe something, commit to something – which is a tough choice for those of us who live in relative comfort…
You may want to consider my post on the strike here – just for a different perspective.