At the current time in the UK anyway, there was a large number of disputes between unions and the UK Government. It seems like there is a constant flow of strikes that nurses doctors, teachers change drivers and others and not in the strikes aimed at public events such as the Eurovision Song Contest final and the FA Cup Final to try and maximize impact and inconvenience.
The strikes are being driven by unions demanding wage increases (triggered by the increased cost of living) as well as increased or improved working conditions.
The government are under financial pressure so they can always meet the higher wage demands, and they are under political pressure not to give in to trade unions too easily because (a) it will make them look weak to the rest of the public, which could then in turn (b) trigger a number tsunami of other demands from other unions.
The end result is that the relationship between the government and the unions has become increasingly toxic which has meant the strikes are continuing. This is obviously not good for the strikers themselves, the government and for the rest of us who use the services that the strikers provide.
While some face-to-face negotiations have taken place, it appears that most of the communications appear to be via very direct press releases. The unions are saying the government is not listening to them, trying to bully them and not willing to compromise. The government is saying that the unions are asking for things that the covenants cannot give and they purposely targeted ordinary working people to get what they want.
One of the things that I’ve learned over the years is that if there is any sort of dispute then all sides need to sit down, meet and speak regarding the problems. This speaking can either be direct or via a back channel. I think this is true for any type of dispute whether it’s an argument between neighbours, a husband and wife having an argument, commercial disputes between organizations, countries at war, etc.
The longer a dispute goes on without any communication then the more charts of misunderstanding will occur and the toxicity will increase.
Speaking face to face it offers many advantages: namely
- It allows each side to fully understand what the other side’s needs and demands are.
- It allows both sides to ask reasonable questions of the other side.
- It allows working relationships between both sides to be built.
- It allows offers to be suggested which can be tested and reviewed.
- And ultimately it will allow something to be agreed that is a win-win for both sides.
(Also, it’s not uncommon for some sort of independent arbitrator to be employed to act as a chair or as a neutral to coordinate the whole process).
Deep down the unions know that the government cannot give them everything that they want. Similarly, the government know that they will need to increase wages and improve work condition to some extent.
Therefore, the sooner both sides sit down and speak then the sooner then dispute will get resolved and we can all move on.
Recent Comments