Strike pay
Sir: In your admirable leader, 'Curbing union power', you are in one respect too kind by half to our trade unions — as indeed is Mrs Thatcher. 'There is no obvious reason,' you say, 'why social security payments should be made to the families of unofficial strikers.'
Indeed. But is there any obvious reason why such payments should be made to the families of 'official' strikers? An official strike is one that is blessed by the approval of the trade union hierarchy: a collective withdrawal of labour. But each individual trade unionist who happens to have a family is morally responsible, or ought to be, for that family's welfare. If, in deference to a strike call from his (or her) union leaders, he deprives himself (or herself) of his or her normal income, upon which the family habitually depends, then the moral responsibility for meeting the loss rests squarely upon the leaders of the union involved in the dispute. The legal responsibility, in the present unsatisfactory state of the law, is another matter.
What I am saying is that the unions, some of which are very rich indeed, should top up the income of strikers from their strike funds. I see no very obvious reason why you, Sir, and I should meet this responsibility when we are among those who suffer as a result of strike action, official or unofficial.
Brian Crozier 112 Bridge Lane, Temple Fortune, London NW11
Previous page
