Highly paid strikers

[tobyaw]

Journalists at the BBC went on strike. The world didn’t stop. A few unfamiliar faces appeared on the BBC News channel; maybe this is a good career break for them.

I find it quite disturbing seeing highly-paid BBC journalists striking. Some of the presenters who didn’t work during the strike earn astonishingly high salaries. Due to the unique way that the BBC is funded, we collectively feel a sense of ownership of the BBC; these strikers are working for us. Of course some of the striking journalists are on relatively low salaries too, but one has to imagine that even for them working at the BBC is a pretty cushy job compared to commercial television news, or newspapers.

I can’t understand why anyone who pays high-rate tax should be allowed to strike. They should sack the lot of them; that would save the BBC some money.

Comments

[tobyaw]

But surely not turning up to work, without the legal protection of actually being on strike, could be a sackable offence?

[silme.livejournal.com]

It's more that they might not be paid for that day. Of course, it depends on what the person honouring the picket line calls it. Police in New York City weren't allowed to strike, so they used to come down with the 'blue flu', termed that because street officers wore blue uniforms and they'd all call in sick.

[tobyaw]

Under UK law, one only has legal protection for withdrawing labour (and hence losing pay) if one is a union member on an official strike, and various legal requirements have been met. If one withdraws labour without that legal protection, then one is in breach of one’s employment contract, and can be dismissed.

I had wondered what “blue flu” was — I’d heard the term in CSI: NY.

[silme.livejournal.com]

Note the modal auxiliary verb 'can'. :)

[tobyaw]

Of course! And I think it is worth noting that the public sector in Britain has always had much less of an appetite for enforcing employment contracts and disciplining bad behaviour than the private sector. Perhaps that is why unions are only really relevant nowadays in the public sector.

[ggreig]

Who are the large private sector employers where unionisation could have an effect? Unions need large numbers of employees with similar conditions to succeed. With industry employing fewer people than in the past, this sort of circumstance isn't so common in the private sector as it used to be; while the public sector still employs large numbers of people under similar conditions.

[tobyaw]

Ah, but with Danny Alexander’s cuts on the way, the public sector will be employing many fewer people…

[ggreig]

Forgive me if I don't view that with unalloyed pleasure.

[silme.livejournal.com]

It's more that the private sector can get away with things.

For example, teachers at independent schools in this country have far less protection than those at state schools or colleges. You can be let go at the headteacher's/principal's whim at an independent school. State schools give you far more protection from such arbitrary decisions.

In the US, I first started teaching at a time when there was a glut of teachers; it was difficult to get a job. I did apply for a job at a Catholic high school, but I gave up when I got to application question asking about my Christian values. By law, the school has to allow non-Catholics (and non-Christians) to apply. However, they can get away with asking questions such as that because they are independent.

As I'm not a Christian, I figured it would be lying to discuss anything that seemed like Christian values. I didn't apply.

A state school in the US or the UK cannot ask such questions of employees.

I worked for two years of my 28-year teaching career at an independent school, an American school in Surrey. It was awful. They were more about making money than educating pupils. I will never return to the world of private education. Boy, did I miss the union there! (I am in UCU now, btw.)