So, just came across this shite piece of news: UK worker strike total falls to lowest level since 1893.
The number of workers who went on strike in Britain last year fell to the lowest level since the 1890s, when Queen Victoria was on the throne.Figures from the Office for National Statistics show 33,000 workers were involved in labour disputes in 2017, down from 154,000 a year earlier. This is the lowest number since records began in 1893, the year of Britain’s first national coal strikes, when the figure was 634,000.
While the previous record low came in 2015, when 81,000 workers went out on strike, there have only been four other occasions over the past 120 years when fewer than 100,000 employees went on strike.
Is it really as bad as all that? Or is there some statistical massaging going on that I'm missing? Like, I didn't expect the situation to be particularly good but I didn't think it would be the worst on record!
I suppose this is the issue with focusing, as we/I do, on micro-level struggles: you can sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. For instance, as heartening as all the UVW, IWGB and cinema workers' strikes have been, I suppose they only represent a small number of workers (and all largely London-based). I guess the UCU strike has been the only recent national dispute, and the RMT guards dispute as well to an extent.
Is this the effect of the Trade Union Act? Or something else? And to what extent do people think the disputes mentioned above point towards a way out of this?
I think it gives an impression that's not very accurate. I mean it is accurate if you are just talking about last year but then the article should say something like 'fell but are rising again'. I have seen figures (which I now can't find) saying that due to the UCU strike this year's strike days are already higher than for the last few years and we are not yet in June.