AS STATES manual workers began their day of disruption, it remained unclear what the strategy of their union Unite is in flexing its industrial muscle other than making life difficult for islanders and visitors and costing its members a day’s pay.
Unite’s regional industrial organiser has already expressed his reluctance to go to a third party to resolve matters yet that is exactly what will now happen under the island’s disputes legislation.
He has justification for feeling irritated that the pay process has dragged on for months without result and because the States negotiators decided discussions had reached deadlock without the 3% offer being formally rejected by the union side.
Yet while the States may have some flexibility, it will not be anywhere near the near 8% demanded by Unite. Inevitably, therefore, the outcome will be settled by a third party, whether it is the conciliation attempts by the island’s industrial disputes officer or, ultimately, compulsory arbitration with a legally binding outcome.
In other words, since an imposed settlement which has to be accepted by both sides no matter how unsatisfactory to either is inevitable, what purpose is there in striking?
While islanders – who, after all, will be paying for any wage increase – will want a fair settlement, that will be tempered in the knowledge that not all of them will achieve an RPI award this year.
To what extent, then, should States employees be insulated from economic reality simply because they are in the public sector?
And an aggressive campaign of industrial action, particularly if it closes the ports, has the potential to damage the manual workers’ long-term interests.
The reason is two-fold. Firstly, the Policy Council is increasingly warming to the philosophy that while government has to provide certain services, it need not actually run them. Secondly, public sector employees have such clout simply because they have one employer and one review date.
A protracted summer of discontent will merely hasten the breaking up of an area with such potential for conflict.
In addition, with limited scope for paying for big pay rises, Treasury and the council could well decide to let departments ‘fund’ above RPI settlements from existing budgets – which would mean job cuts.
As we said last week, talking still remains the best strategy.
So what was the point?
AS STATES manual workers began their day of disruption, it remained unclear what the strategy of their union Unite is in flexing its industrial muscle other than making life difficult for islanders and visitors and costing its members a day’s pay.
Unite’s regional industrial organiser has already expressed his reluctance to go to a third party to resolve matters yet that is exactly what will now happen under the island’s disputes legislation.
He has justification for feeling irritated that the pay process has dragged on for months without result and because the States negotiators decided discussions had reached deadlock without the 3% offer being formally rejected by the union side.
Yet while the States may have some flexibility, it will not be anywhere near the near 8% demanded by Unite. Inevitably, therefore, the outcome will be settled by a third party, whether it is the conciliation attempts by the island’s industrial disputes officer or, ultimately, compulsory arbitration with a legally binding outcome.
In other words, since an imposed settlement which has to be accepted by both sides no matter how unsatisfactory to either is inevitable, what purpose is there in striking?
While islanders – who, after all, will be paying for any wage increase – will want a fair settlement, that will be tempered in the knowledge that not all of them will achieve an RPI award this year.
To what extent, then, should States employees be insulated from economic reality simply because they are in the public sector?
And an aggressive campaign of industrial action, particularly if it closes the ports, has the potential to damage the manual workers’ long-term interests.
The reason is two-fold. Firstly, the Policy Council is increasingly warming to the philosophy that while government has to provide certain services, it need not actually run them. Secondly, public sector employees have such clout simply because they have one employer and one review date.
A protracted summer of discontent will merely hasten the breaking up of an area with such potential for conflict.
In addition, with limited scope for paying for big pay rises, Treasury and the council could well decide to let departments ‘fund’ above RPI settlements from existing budgets – which would mean job cuts.
As we said last week, talking still remains the best strategy.
Article posted on 21st July, 2008 - 2.30pm