Strikes the bane of national development

Roshantha Fernando
Human Resources Management and Development Consultant

The recent strike by teachers in the State run education system and threatened industrial by doctors and employees of the C.E.B. bring into sharp focus the moral responsibilities of the unions and the indiscreet resort to strike action to win their demands.

The recent strikes particularly by professionals have unmistakably manifested the helplessness of the public and it is timely to consider the moral obligations of the trade unions towards society and the need for effective legislation to regulate unions particularly in essential services.

The refusal of teachers spurred by their trade unions to mark the A level answer scripts was a national crime. Marking of A level answer scripts is a monopoly enjoyed by a certain group of teachers in the

 education system.

Not all teachers can do it. But to hold it as a ransom is unpardonable. Whom are they trying to victimize? Not the government but innocent student. Students have done no harm to the striking teachers.

Role of unions

A trade union is an organisation of workers formed to promote, protect and improve through collective action, the social, economic and political interests of its members.

While the philosophies of trade unions have gradually changed with the times, trade unions are essential entities in any democratic country and should be encouraged to represent the voice of the workers. They provide the perfect forum for workers to project their demands and the most effective vehicle to interact with the employers.

In Sri Lanka trade unions which were formed to protect the common interests of the workers has become tools in the hands of power seeking selfish individuals. Regrettably these individuals have not hesitated to sacrifice the interest of the country and the workers by launching ‘wildcat’ strikes. Unfortunately, Trade Unions are no longer democratic organisations, most of them are run by the Mafia with no internal democracy.

The right to strike

Most democratic countries have reformed their trade unions to ensure that the unions respond to their general membership. The weapon of strike is the sharpest in the trade union armoury reserved for use as a last resort when other methods of settling disputes had failed.

The right to strike is one of the most fundamental rights enjoyed by employees and unions and it is an integral part of their right to defend their economic and social interests. While the law in several countries expressly recognises the right to strike, in others strikes are prohibited.

In some others limitations exist in regard to certain types of strikes e.g. general strikes, stay in strikes, sympathetic strikes designed to inflict hardship on the community to coerce the government like in the case of doctors, CEB and hospital minor staff.

In certain countries strike if it does not resolve furtherance of a trade union dispute within the industry is prohibited. Strikes may be considered legal but as a breach of the contract justifying dismissal as in Malaysia.

In Australia strikes are often considered to be against public policy and provides for a system of compulsory arbitration. In Britain the right to strike has not been expressly recognised by English Law. The legal right given to strikes and their trade unions have been in the form of immunities.

The Supreme Court of India has declared that strikes of public servants are illegal as it causes inconvenience to the general public and disruption of the entire public services. The judgment will be hailed by the public. It is a bold, realistic and patriotic decision.

The only statutory decision of a strike is found in the Trade Union Ordinance which defines a strike as “the cessation of work by a body of persons employed in a trade or industry acting in combination or a concerted refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons who have been employed, to continue to work or accept employment”.

Devastating effect

In Sri Lanka a strike is generally considered a legal weapon and the only curbs are under the Collective Agreements which could totally restrict strike action or restrict action to particular sections in times of emergency, proclaimed under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Public Security Ordinance to declare certain services essential.

Unfortunately sections of so-called ‘public servants’ appear to have become so insensitive, if not senseless that they have used the weapon as the first option disregarding all norms of trade unionism.

The unkindest cut is that drastic consequences of such “wildcat “ strikes are imposed upon the poor, innocent and heavily burdened people. It is no wonder that we are becoming a nation of strikers.

In the context of “wildcat” strikes which were launched by the Doctors and certain sections of the Ceylon Electricity Board, Railway employees and hospital minor staff and with the threat of recourse to industrial action again by the doctors and C.E.B. it is timely and relevant to consider the consequences of the major strikes in the public sector in the past few years.

Whether these strikes were justifiable, the effects of these on the economy and the hardships and inconvenience caused to the public. It is also timely to consider what effective measures should be taken to prevent or at lest curtail these “wildcat” strikes.

The strikes which have been periodically launched in recent years have denied the country “hundreds of thousands” of working hours painting a gloomy picture in the minds of the investors and creating an adverse image of the country in the global community apart from the untold hardships imposed on the public.

While sometime ago the Government Medical Officers Association struck work to protest the failure to rectify the salary anomalies and since they have been regularly threatening the government of resorting to industrial action.

It is justifiable for a professional service engaged in humanitarian service to resort to strike action considering the inconvenience and difficulties caused to thousands of poor patients who opt for non fee levying State hospitals due to their inability to pay for their treatment, causing immense suffering to the poor particularly the poor who were ruined by the recent floods?

The question that is posed after the current irresponsible strike by the professional body is whether a professional saving a life should be allowed to do the very opposite.

The material and human cost of such callous, precipitate action which was also accompanied by acts of sabotage and vandalism in June 1996, strike of the CEB employees will not be erased from the public mind.

Apart from the financial loss of over 800 million, the other damages and hardships to the public could not be easily assessed. The unions callously disregarding all trade union norms used the “privatisation” issue as a means of mobilising the rank and file behind them to carry out this unjustifiable struggle.

Essential Services

It is justifiable for public sector employees in essential services like power, water, transport, health to have a right to strike even if they have a trade union dispute? Many democratic countries do not even recognise the right to strike, particularly those engaged in essential services.

In the context of strikes we have and are experiencing, in the public sector, it may be necessary, apart from invoking the Essential Service Order to consider new regulations to prevent those public sector employees in “Essential Services” from resorting to strike action.

Ours is a free country and trade unions enjoy unrestricted liberties. In fact Sri Lanka has a surfeit of labour regulations not found in any part of the world.

From a study of most strikes in recent times, it can be asserted with a degree of certainty that most of these strikes were regrettably without justification, for frivolous reasons, some politically motivated and others manipulated by outsiders.

It is not trade unionism to resort to strike action for the slightest grievance, which should be the ultimate weapon when negotiations fail. The “cart before the horse” policy striking first and negotiating later is alien to trade unionism.

The patience the country has displayed is far running thin particularly in respect of the strike by professionals and those employed in the essential services. Trade unions are simply becoming a law unto themselves and they seem to think the public institutions are their inheritance to do with as they please.

This is a dangerous line of thinking against which an urgent red line needs to be drawn stating thus and no further.

The people as a whole who own the country’s assets are reduced to watching and suffering the antics of a few thousand uniform ruffians at these public monopolies as they hold the entire nation to ransom for their narrow gains. No wonder people are calling for draconian measures to restore sanity.

Resolving disputes

There indeed are valid reasons in this land of eternal disputes for trade unions to resort to trade union action. Salary inadequacies and anomalies, unreasonable transfers and promotions, unjust curtailment of employee rights and the recruitment of unqualified persons to services and so on are among these disputes. The correct and proper way to settle these disputes is through discussion and negotiation.

Responsible trade unions with democratic leadership, as their initial step make written complaints about their problems to authorities and ask for appointments to discuss the issues.

When they get such opportunities the disputes are settled more often than not. If any unreasonable delays occur in granting the required interview by the authorities, the unions give notice of strike action as required in the trade union law. At this stage the authorities respond quickly and the need for strike action is thus averted.

The legitimate process of settling disputes has fallen on the way side during recent times. Today both sides, the unions and the State authorities, follow those procedures more in the breach than in observance. Some unions submit their demands and often the authorities do not pay attention to them.

Then they follow up their demands with the threat of strike action. The authorities tend to dawdle while the deadlines given by the unions expire. The unions then launch their strike action. Some union demands, are of course so intricate that they do not lend themselves to easy solutions by administrative heads or political authorities.

There are also occasions where irresponsible sections of employees rush into strike action even without the approval of their respective trade unions.

This type of ‘wildcat’ strike occurs in the power and energy, health and transport sectors putting people into unanticipated difficulties. Political reasons sometimes motivate these strikes.

Another ugly form that trade union action has acquired during recent times is the practice of employees to submit sick notes to be away from their place of work to participate in various trade union protests, demonstrations and other activities.

Immunity

In no democratic country are trade unions that resort to violence tolerated. In every country which grants trade union immunity from civil action lays down that where union members resort to violence or damage to employers’ property they forfeit such immunity.

The trade unions are set up under the Trade Union Ordinance and are given legal rights and immunity thereunder but equally they have to abide by the laws of the country and members are liable to be dealt with the alleged acts like every other citizen.

The government is caught between the need to resolve the ethnic conflict, promote investment and the social need to regulate the flow to ensure that the economic development does not lead to social problems. For its part is no longer able to play a dominant role in industrial relations.

If strikes could be avoided hundreds of thousands of useful working hours could be saved. Productivity will increase, foreign investors will have greater faith and rush in investments.

The country by large would benefit. To ensure industrial harmony it is necessary for than ever before effectively regulate the trade unions particularly when even professional bodies act without any sense of responsibility.

The public cannot be expected to sit back and watch trade unions launch “wildcat” strikes with monotonous regularity. They too have a right to voice their grievances and the right to protect their interests as do strikers, if not more so, particularly when it involves highly essential services such as electricity, water and health.