On being ‘in it for the long haul’
The UK is experiencing the most significant upsurge in industrial action for a number of years. Serious disputes over pay and employers’ attempts to level down working conditions have broken out across the public, private, and voluntary sectors.
Some of the most high profile of these disputes have now been going on for months. Royal Mail workers held their first strike action at the end of August and are shortly re-balloting for further action. On the railways, the first national strike in the current dispute was undertaken on 21 June. Half a year later, it is still far from clear that these disputes are any closer to a resolution.
Trade union officers in the media, and in comms to their own members, have consistently stated their willingness to keep the disputes going for as long as necessary. ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan, announcing the results of the union’s re-ballot, stated: “A 93% ‘Yes’ vote — up on the very high figure last time — on an average turnout of 85% shows that our members are in this for the long haul. It shows just how angry — and determined — we are.”
CWU leaders were warning before the Royal Mail strikes began that the dispute “is widely expected to be a long haul.” The phrase is echoed by, for example, the Royal College of Nursing in Wales. It appears that the likelihood of the long haul is agreed upon by everyone from lay officials and grassroots members to the General Secretary of the UCU.
On the face of it, from the point of view of partisans of the trade union movement, surely this is a good thing. It is certainly a refreshing change from the trade union orthodoxy of a few years ago whereby one or two 24 hour strikes, followed by a few weeks of negotiation or stasis, more or less represented the pinnacle of industrial tactics. No doubt the sentiment is sincere, and in many ways a rational response in the face of a hostile government and intransigent employers who are often not inclined to negotiate, let alone acquiesce.
But is preparing the membership for “the long haul” necessarily the best way of approaching a dispute? And what does it actually mean?
The strikes in rail, mail, and public services have no doubt been effective and disruptive. It is however instructive to compare these disputes to others in 2022 that have not been as long running. Many of these “short haul” strikes have resulted in significant victories for the workers involved. Liverpool dockers won a pay rise of between 14% and 18% after taking two two-week long strikes. A similar settlement was reached at Felixstowe after two 8-day strikes. Scottish refuse workers won a deal amounting to up to 10% after a 12-day walkout. Bus drivers in several locations have won significant rises after undertaking or threatening to undertake indefinite action, for example at Stagecoach South Yorkshire.
Of course not every indefinite strike wins quickly, the landscape of each industry is different and indefinite strikes may not always be the best tactic. Based on these figures, though, there is surely something to be said for considering the indefinite strike as opposed to launching an escalating (or non-escalating) programme of action over weeks and months.
The danger of preparing members for “the long haul” is that it appears to preclude any consideration of any other tactics. The ideal strike, surely, is one in which the employer capitulates in the shortest possible amount of time. Talking up “the long haul” sends a signal that the union considers a quicker victory to be difficult if not impossible.
Of course unions should prepare their members for the possibility of a protracted dispute — including putting into place adequate strike funds and fundraising strategies — but talking up the long haul as inevitable or even desirable is arguably counter-productive. Ultimately, a successful shorter strike may well involve less financial sacrifice from members than a prolonged dispute involving sporadic days of action over many months.
Every single industrial dispute should be entered into on the basis of the simple question “How do we win what we want in the shortest possible period of time?” Making a virtue of “the long haul” potentially stymies attempts to answer this question, by demobilising the necessary discussion of industrial tactics between the union’s centre and the rank-and-file that is key to winning any dispute.
