General strike illegal?

[Obelix]

Not wanting to restart the thread, which was closed anyway, but

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7028146&postcount=67

 

wrote "general strikes are illegal"

 

I was just wondering on the source/reason for that as I've never heard that one before.

[andygardener]

I would imagaine they are not illegal in the sense of criminal but in the sense that legislation designed to protect strikers assumes a specific dispute with an employer or group of employers and a specific union or group of unions. Other (or all in the case of a general strike) unions who have no such dispute with their relevant employers joining the strike in solidarity undermine the basis of the validity of protection of the right to strike in protection of your livelyhood so the legal rights that a striker is entitled to would probably removed in the event of striking other than in a genuine direct dispute with your employers.

[Wildcat]

Not wanting to restart the thread, which was closed anyway, but

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7028146&postcount=67

 

wrote "general strikes are illegal"

 

I was just wondering on the source/reason for that as I've never heard that one before.

 

A General strike would be political and secondary action. Banned under Thatcher's anti-Trade Union laws for the latter reason and probably banned earlier under the former.

 

The only way we could practically have a legal general strike would be for every workplace to be in a legal dispute at the same time and call strikes on the same day.

[Tradescanthia]

Everything is illegal now mate, the 'Orwellian 1984' has arrived good and proper. I am pleased I am nearing the end of my working life and not just starting out. Democracy is now only a word, it has no meaning as most people cant remember what it meant.

BUT, if the people stuck together, forgot the self interest adopted in recent years it would be a different story.............

[Obelix]

I would imagaine they are not illegal in the sense of criminal but in the sense that legislation designed to protect strikers assumes a specific dispute with an employer or group of employers and a specific union or group of unions. Other (or all in the case of a general strike) unions who have no such dispute with their relevant employers joining the strike in solidarity undermine the basis of the validity of protection of the right to strike in protection of your livelyhood so the legal rights that a striker is entitled to would probably removed in the event of striking other than in a genuine direct dispute with your employers.

 

Oh I agree that it wouldn't work due to the various clauses against sympathy strikes that are rightly enforced, I was just wondering if there was somehting that specifically said no general strikes. I should have worded the question better I guess. Thanks for the reply.

[Nagel]

But if there was enough reason for people to feel a general strike was necessary there would be nothing the authorities could do to prevent it. What could the government do, they can't prosecute people for not turning up to work and they can't prosecute every trade union if they don't have the support of the people.

[andygardener]

But if there was enough reason for people to feel a general strike was necessary there would be nothing the authorities could do to prevent it. What could the government do, they can't prosecute people for not turning up to work and they can't prosecute every trade union if they don't have the support of the people.

 

The government per se would not do anything, however those employers (the government being a rather large one) could sack all those strikers they wished to get rid of for gross misconduct. No redunancy, pension etc.

[TeaFan]

But if there was enough reason for people to feel a general strike was necessary there would be nothing the authorities could do to prevent it. What could the government do, they can't prosecute people for not turning up to work and they can't prosecute every trade union if they don't have the support of the people.

 

I think this is right. There have been a number of technically illegal but successful strikes in recent years, mainly in Royal Mail, which have not resulted in legal action against the union, partly because the action has been taken in defiance of the official union policy. One of the reasons for the anti-union laws that Thatcher introduced was that they give more time for employers to prepare for and undermine strikes. Spontaneous rank and file action takes that preparation time away and makes it likelier that workers taking the action will win.

[Nagel]

The government per se would not do anything, however those employers (the government being a rather large one) could sack all those strikers they wished to get rid of for gross misconduct. No redunancy, pension etc.

 

Not if everyone was on strike they couldn't. The government wouldn't support it as they would have a revolution on their hands. The real thing.

[andygardener]

Not if everyone was on strike they couldn't. The government wouldn't support it as they would have a revolution on their hands. The real thing.

 

Well my personal policy is to try and get enough work to ensure i can pay my rent and put food on the table. I think it's an approach followed by a lot of people. So after a couple of days of comradely placard waving i think most people would go back to work rather than get evicted in defense of that lazy bloke in accounts that nobody really liked anyway who got fired.