314,072 research outputs found

    Political and Economic Factors Influencing Strike Activity during the Recent Economic Crisis: A Study of the Spanish Case between 2002 and 2013

    Get PDF
    The Great Recession and the upsurge of widespread social movements in various crisis-ridden countries have given new impetus to the debate on the relationship between economic breakdown and the occurrence of collective action. I revisit the issue by examining strike activity in Spain between 2002 and 2013. For a better understanding of the continuities and changes, I contrast two sets of literature on industrial conflict. The first deals with economic factors influencing strikes or, in other words, with the question of whether and how fluctuations in manpower supply and demand account for continuities and changes in strike activity. The second advocates for a look beyond the economy, towards the political exchange that takes place between unions and state actors and which, depending on its positive or negative nature, leads to shifts of the distributional struggle away from the marketplace towards the public arena or vice versa. The findings reveal that, rather than exclusive, the two perspectives prove to be mutually conducive and are most significant when they are combined. The political exchange model is helpful for understanding the rather stable or even declining strike frequency prior to the economic crisis but also the three nationwide general strikes in 2010 and 2012, which represented a rupture in the social consensus. If the general strikes are left aside, the economic variables come into play: an increased strike frequency during the economic crisis is in fact accompanied by a shift towards smaller strikes related to a single workplace, and to so-called “defensive” strikes. This indicates that an actual decrease in workers’ bargaining power was overcompensated by a growing number of circumstances in which the recourse to strike action became a means of last resort

    Strike Ballot Law and Practice in the United States: Order without Law in Labour Relations?

    Get PDF
    The labour relations system in the US is often characterized by its exceptionalism from other national systems. The US is the paradigmatic liberal market economy, with weakly regulated labour markets, poorly institutionalized unions, and an attenuated voice for labour in the political realm. Even as other English speaking countries have moved towards models emphasizing decentralized private economic ordering with a more limited role for collective bargaining and an emphasis on employment law as providing minimum standards, the US has retained its distinctiveness compared to other countries following this Anglo-American model due to its strongly pro-employer and weak labour approach. Strike law provides one of the signature elements of the American employer-favourable model of labour law. The Wagner Act model of labour law in the US establishes the strike as the primary mechanism for resolving bargaining impasses and explicitly recognizes the right to strike. Some of the limitations on the right to strike in US labour law, such as the ban on secondary boycotts, parallel provisions found in the labour laws of other countries. Where American strike law diverges from other countries is in its much more pro-employer treatment of strike breakers or replacement workers

    The Right to Strike as Customary International Law

    Get PDF
    There has been a dramatic recent resurgence of strike activity in the United States. From auto plants to supermarkets to public schools to fast food outlets, workers around the country have recognized the fundamental importance of strikes—in economic, political, and dignitary terms. Still, judges and legal scholars have had a difficult time establishing that the right to strike, which exists at a statutory level with substantial qualifications, should receive constitutional recognition. There have been isolated instances or hints of judicial support, as well as scholarly contentions that the right may exist in some dormant form. But arguments to federal courts have regularly come up short, whether based on withholding labor as a due process liberty right; as resisting involuntary servitude; or as engaging collectively in freedom of association. While high profile strikes have become more visible around the world as well as in this country, labor law scholars have acknowledged, at times reluctantly, that the right to strike is not protected under well-settled U.S. constitutional standards

    The Right to Strike as Customary International Law

    Get PDF
    There has been a dramatic recent resurgence of strike activity in the United States. From auto plants to supermarkets to public schools to fast food outlets, workers around the country have recognized the fundamental importance of strikes—in economic, political, and dignitary terms. Still, judges and legal scholars have had a difficult time establishing that the right to strike, which exists at a statutory level with substantial qualifications, should receive constitutional recognition. There have been isolated instances or hints of judicial support, as well as scholarly contentions that the right may exist in some dormant form. But arguments to federal courts have regularly come up short, whether based on withholding labor as a due process liberty right; as resisting involuntary servitude; or as engaging collectively in freedom of association. While high profile strikes have become more visible around the world as well as in this country, labor law scholars have acknowledged, at times reluctantly, that the right to strike is not protected under well-settled U.S. constitutional standards

    Trade unions as political actors

    Full text link
    "Modern trade unions act in two arenas: the state and politics on the one hand, and the labour market and collective bargaining on the other. The relative importance of their economic and political activities differs between countries and world regions, as well as historically and between types of unions. So do the way and the extent to which union action in the two arenas is coordinated. The dominant kind of trade union as it emerged from the second postwar settlement after 1945 no longer claimed a right or reserved the option to overthrow the governmnt of the state through a political strike. In this they paid tribute to the superior legitimacy of free elections as compared to 'direct action' of the organized working class. Today more or less explicit constitutional law makes it illegal for unions - within the limits of usually complex legal rules - to strike in the context of disputes with employers and in pursuit of collective agreements on wages and working conditions." (excerpt

    The effect of the Marikana events on the collective bargaining process in South Africa

    Get PDF
    The basic structures of collective bargaining in South Africa have evolved since industrialisation, through the Wiehahn-Commission era until the Farlam one and beyond, resulting in a number of legislative changes from 1924 to 2014. While dealing with collective bargaining, it is not possible to divorce the powerful history of mining from the South African story, from the diamond fields in Kimberley to the discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand in 1886, where the mine employees’ focused on cheap, unskilled labour and migrant system in the 1900s to the tragic events at Marikana in 2012. In the advent of the industry revolution, employment relationships changed as competitive demands placed a great need for advancing economic developments which are often expressed through collective-bargaining. The objective of collective bargaining is to arrive at an agreement between the employer and employees to determine mutually beneficial terms and conditions of employment such agreement may prohibit unions to embark on an industrial action for as long as it is in place. Strikes became important during the Industrial Revolution, when many worked in factories and mines. Often when employees’ demands are not met, they resort to strike action. Strike action is when a number of employees stop rendering their service in protest to express their grievances. These strikes are usually led by labour unions to get better pay, working hours or working conditions during collective bargaining as a last resort. While trade union leadership fails to advance employees’ cause, employees resort to informal alternative structures to negotiate on their behalf. South Africans have a tradition of taking to the streets in protest when unhappy about issues and this tradition did not spring up during the apartheid era but has been around from as early as 1922 to date. Protests in South Africa today draw from past repertoires and at the same time push for new political practices and directions. Strikes are often used to: Pressure governments to change its policies like in the Rand Revolt; Strikes can destabilise the rule of a particular political party like a series of strikes by blacks in the 1970s and 1980s including the 1973 Durban dockworkers and the 1987 miners’ strikes; Strikes are often part of a broader social movement taking the form of a campaign of civil resistance like Treatment Action Campaign and community struggles such Abahlali Base Mjondolo. On the strike issues in South Africa, the researcher draws from the terrible incident that transpired in August 2012 at Lonmin Mine-Marikana and how it has affected the collective bargaining landscape in South Africa. The first real and significant labour unrest, the Witwatersrand miner strike rocked South Africa to the core in 1922 and in 2012, ninety years later the violent strike by the Rock Operational Drillers at Lonmin following the Marikana massacre and as such did not enjoy statutory protection under the LRA because was classified as wildcat strike. Normally, a wildcat strike constitutes a violation of a collective bargaining agreement in place and as such is not protected unless a union joins it and ratifies the protest. The union may, however, discipline its members for participating in a wildcat strike and impose fines. Among other things miners mainly demanded a wage increment of R12500 per month. The fight between AMCU and NUM for organisational rights also found its way into the equation. A strike wave, not only linked to the mining sector, made 2012 the most protest filled year since the end of apartheid, rolled out across South Africa, closing some industrial operations and crippling others. Commentators argue that the strike wave emerged from a landscape of extreme inequality and poverty, made intolerable by the additional financial burdens arising from the migrant labour system. These factors influenced the industrial action and institutions of collective bargaining comprising of both company and union structures and processes, were found wanting in their ability to address the root causes of the crisis. The post-Marikana strike wave made a mark in the workers struggle movement as it drew in thousands of workers to join AMCU and at the same time weakening NUM, the then majority union. The strike led to the rise and growth of AMCU which was seen by miners as the driver for change. The 2012 strike wave and the Marikana massacre not only changed the balance of forces on the ground against the NUM, but also generated divisions within COSATU. The divisions were between those who decided to remain deaf to the workers’ call for transformation and those who had already realised that a decisive turn in economic policy was needed to avoid a social, economic and political crisis. In the aftermath of the strike, a number community struggles increased as 2012 began and on the other side, a number of splinter groups from COSATU mushroomed which was hobbled by in fights. NUM’s collapse is indeed part of a series of recent failures for COSATU

    “Tout Travail Doit Nourrir Son Homme” The Dakar-Niger Railroad and the 1947-1948 Strike in the Political and Labor History of Senegal

    Get PDF
    This project examines the history of the Dakar-Niger railroad from its birth to its decline to illuminate the nature of the rail strike of 1947-1948 in French West Africa. The strike would prove to be a landmark in the continuous resistance of colonized peoples against the colonial state. The railroad was and is a physical as well as an invisible presence in the economic, political, and social history, and the connections that would form around this history of resistance and of colonialism from its earliest days would come to define not only the strike but the history of Senegal and of West Africa in general. In this endeavor, archival and secondary data collection formed the brunt of research, but interviews with historical witnesses and participant observation of ex-colonial railroad sites proved invaluable to the project. In analyzing the patterns of connection, coercion and and resistance that came out of this research, the project examines colonial policies and practices, individual and collective strikes, the community ties that solidified the unionism, and the politics and ideologies that shaped or attempted to shape the labor movement

    Causes and trends of strike action in European Union countries

    Get PDF
    In the daily reality of modern polycentric societies, strike action expresses the divergence of contrasting interest and expectations. It is "the morning lunch of Parliamentary Democracy" which the mass media frequently endeavours to make it look or sound frightening, especially if there are some violent and blood clashes related to the dispute. Tpe strike, however, is considered to be the most important source of organized labour in its struggle to win concessions. It is "a planned withholding of labour designed to impose union demands on the employer from the employee or to prevent the employer from imposing his demands on the union". Although, there are multiple economic, social, legal and political interpretations, strike action has been defined as "a temporary stoppage of work by a group of employees in order to express a grievance or enforce a demand". An attempt has been made in this paper to determine the dominant influences of unemployment upon industrial disputes, as well as to trace the causes and trends of strikes in Europen Union countries in recent years. The main source of data is from the LLD's "Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1994". The original source of this same data is mainly drawn by the LL.O. from goverment statistical services of the countries included in the study. For reasons of statistical comparability, the use of sources other than the LLD. (except in certain cases) has been avoided.peer-reviewe

    La grĂšve-sans-arrĂȘt-du-travail

    Get PDF
    Depuis longtemps on est Ă  la recherche d'un substitut Ă  la grĂšve traditionnelle qui sauvegarderait le recours Ă  l'utilisation de pressions Ă©conomiques dans les nĂ©gociations collectives et en mĂȘme temps Ă©viterait les inconvĂ©nients dont souffrent les consommateurs. Cette Ă©tude a pour but d'Ă©tudier l'origine, la nature, les avantages et les inconvĂ©nients d'une formule qui a Ă©tĂ© prĂ©conisĂ©e : la grĂšve-sans-arrĂȘt-de-travail (statutory strike).The search for a means to eliminate the impact of a strike on the public without weakening the bargaining power of both management and union at the bargaining table gave rise to the statutory strike formula, also known as the non-stoppage strike formula.ORIGINThe idea was first suggested in 1949 by two Harvard professors : LeRoy Marceau and Richard A. Musgrave. (1) The following year, Professor George W. Goble (2) defined a concrete way to use the idea and in 1953, Neil W. Chamberlain (3), the well-known Yale economist, approved the principles of the formula, defining his personal view on the way to use it. In 1959, David B. McCalmont (4) published several articles on the subject without knowing at that time that the idea was not a new one.NATUREDespite these different approaches, one can draw up a profile of the Non-Stoppage Strike Formula, taking into account the four given sources :— there is no work stoppage;— the public does not have to suffer any production or service interruption;— the parties are supposed to be in the same relative bargaining positions as if the workers had walked out;— the parties are supposed to impose on each other the same economic burden as if they were involved in a regular strike.The basic hypothesis of that formula is as follows :« Aside from the inconvenience which the public suffers, the only direct result of a strike is to inflict an economic loss on both the company and the workers. It costs them both money » (...) « If therefore a system could be devised which would permit the union to inflict the identical loss upon the company without a work stoppage, the bargaining function of the strike would be preserved, yet the conflict with the public interest would be avoided. » (5)ELEMENTSSetting up of the FormulaMarceau and Musgrave as well as Chamberlain propose the use of the formula when a conflict between management and the union is judged by the State as being an emergency dispute. The law would then force the parties to use the non-stoppage strike formula.Goble suggests the existence of a law defining the method of application of the system, available on a voluntary basis to the parties involved in the conflict.Finally, McCalmont thinks that there is no need for any legislation concerning the non-stoppage strike formula. The system could be used following the will of the parties. However, the State or any public intervention would be avoided except where agreed upon by the parties.It would be more appropriate to name the first case « statutory strike » and the two others, « non-stoppage strike ». We will use that latter term.Economic PenaltiesDuring a work stoppage, the workers are willing to give up their income in order to force the employer to accept their demands. The strike without work stoppage takes that fact into account. The workers keep on working though they receive only a part of their income. On the other hand, the employer gives up a part of the company's earnings. They negotiate under that pressure until they reach an agreement. There is no work stoppage. The same economic pressure as in a regular work stoppage forces the parties towards an agreement. How can it be done ?Marceau and Musgrave recommend requiring the company « to pay out (for all work performed) at a rate so high that the company would stand in the same profit and loss position in which it would have stood, had the work stoppage gone ahead » and the workers would receive « a rate so low that, in actual fact, they would be under the same economic pressure that a strike would exert ». (6) Since they keep on working, they must receive a little more than that if one is to avoid placing the parties in a worse position than if the workers had really walked out.Goble would prefer to retain 25 per cent of the workers' income and 25 per cent of the managers' income plus the net profits of the company operating during a non-stoppage strike.In order to maintain the relative bargaining power of the parties, Chamberlain proposes the retention of 50 per cent of the workers' income and 50 per cent of the fixed costs of the company during the non-stoppage strike. Taking into account the fact that the employer does not lose his market and that the workers have no equal advantage, another penalty would be added to the employer by retaining all his net profits.The penalties suggested by McCalmont are much alike those of Marceau and Musgrave. They would be as follows : 50 per cent of the owner's income and 50 per cent of the difference between the company's income with and without a work stoppage ; the latter amount being defined in the expired collective agreement to avoid the problems of setting it up.Use of the Trust Fund ReceiptsOn this specific point, Marceau and Musgrave, Chamberlain, and McCalmont suggest that these amounts be retained each week during the non-stoppage strike negotiations until the agreement is reached.Goble adds the possibility of the parties recovering all the money withheld if they settle within 90 days. If not, another period of the same length with the same penalties would begin until the agreement is reached.Musgrave, Chamberlain and McCalmont would use these amounts to finance public services in the community or to help finance the general needs of the government (strike tax).Marceau suggests using the money withheld to pay retroactive payments to the parties, hoping that this will bring them to agree upon the formula.EXPERIENCESAs far as we have been able to determine, there is only one collective agreement which includes a non-stoppage strike clause. It was signed by Dunbar Furniture Corporation (Indiana) and Local 222 of the Upholsterers International Union (AFL-CIO) on May 1, 1964.It can be described as follows :« The strike-work provisions are activated on receipt of written notice of a strike or lockout. The provisions immediately ban such action; reinstate the terms of the basic contract (whose expiration is a condition for a strike or lockout); and stipulate that the ban will continue during the first twelve payroll weeks after the notice is received. Until a settlement is reached within this period, if it is, half of the weekly earnings of bargaining unit employees (including holiday and vacation pay that may become due) is withheld by the company. This money is placed in a 'strike work trust fund', for which the First Bank of Berne is the fiduciary. The company also turns over to the fund an amount equal to the total withheld from the employees' pay ».When the basic contract dispute is settled, the company and its employees can regain the money turned over to the trust according to the following schedule :Settlement during the       proportion of money returned   first 6 weeks                        100%   7th — 9th week                     75%   10th — 11th week                 50%   12th week                        25%   After the 12th week               noneIf the twelfth week ends without a settlement, the basic contract can be terminated on written notice and a regular strike or lockout can begin. If such notice is not received by the end of the first following week (the thirteenth), the contract is renewed automatically and without change. In this case the contract is not terminable until a year from its original, pre-notice expiration date. (7)Since their agreement on that formula, the parties have renegotiated their contract but without having to use the strike-work provisions.There is another experience of non-stoppage strike which took place in Miami, Florida. It was not part of the agreement but was a decision taken by the parties after three days of regular strike. (8)The Miami Transit Company and its striking employees agreed to provide free bus service for the city. The bus drivers agreed to provide their services free and the employer was to pay for fuel and maintenance of the buses. The drivers were not to receive any subsidies during the period other than those payments authorized by the union.The system worked for only three days and ended because the bus company president charged that his investigators had found some drivers accepting tips from riders. They returned to a formal strike. (9)This case is so particular that it could not be extended to other sectors of our economy. It is presented for its originality rather than for its possible application elsewhere.PLAN ADVANTAGES AS ESTIMATED BY THE PROMOTORSThe great winner with the formula is the public because it does not have to change its practices as there is no work stoppage.However, in the opinion of the proposers, both the workers and management gain with the formula. Let us now turn to the advantages for them. (10)For the workers :— they receive a bigger pay during the non-stoppage strike than if they had walked out;— the demoralization which comes from being idle, as required by the regular strike, is not present;— the bad feeling and dangers of the picket line are eliminated;— the risk of the company beating the strike by employing strike breakers is avoided;— the bargaining power of the union is not weakened since they are supposed to maintain the same economic pressure as if they had gone on strike;— It is an excellent occasion for the union to improve its public image.For the employer :— the damage to property, which sometimes results from a picket line, are eliminated;— all expenses incidental to a shut down are eliminated;— the disruption which comes to the operation of the business, to its market position and to the satisfying of customers is prevented;— the temptation to resort to unpopular methods for breaking the strike is not present;— the good reputation of the company is maintained since it is able to fulfill its obligations.It seems that each of the parties gains with the formula. Let us now take a look at its weaknesses.COMMENTS ON THE NON-STOPPAGE STRIKE FORMULAThe Nature of the FormulaInsufficient knowledge of the nature of the strike.The promotors of the formula postulate that the strike has only an economic finality and that the greatest damage inflicted on the employer during a work stoppage is the immediate loss of profit.So saying, they take into account only one dimension of the strike. They omit its social, psychological and political functions. The immediate loss of profit is not the worst thing that can happen to an employer during a work stoppage. The employer fears the long-run impact rather more than the « here and now » consequences of the strike. He fears, among other things, the loss of his market. On the side of the workers, sometimes the traditional strike plays an important role of defrustration.Insufficient knowledge of the nature of union activity.The non-stoppage strike formula ignores the role of unionism. The strike is the perfect way to enhance the workers' cohesion and solidarity. If one is to remove the right to walk out, then, by the same token, the union loses what makes its strength.Modified bargaining powerOne cannot know if the formula maintains the relative bargaining power of the parties. What makes the strength of a party at the bargaining table is a set of factors. Some can be expressed in money terms but others cannot. The formula fails by converting all of these factors into money terms. Moreover, it reduces the penalties for both parties compared to the traditional strike. The smaller the penalty, the greater the will to resist and the longer the conflict.Public opinion does not intervene since it is not disturbed by a work stoppage. Danger of bad consequencesThe authors agree on the fact that the right to strike is not permanently lost since the parties can remove such a no-stoppage clause from the agreement in later collective bargaining. Once agreed upon, however, it seems that it will not be removed. On the other hand, the workers have to use their right to strike if they wish to convince the employer and themselves of their strength. With the formula, it seems that they will lose their ability to walk out. Once embarked, it becomes a vicious circle.Such a formula can incite the rank and file workers to slow down if they are not convinced of the pressure they exert during a non-stoppage strike.Also, the company would be attracted by the idea of cutting its product prices since it has to give up all its net profits.There would be, finally, the possibility that the workers would quit their jobs as they would receive only « a half day's pay for a full day's work ».Problems emerging from the implementation of the formulaDuring a strike without work stoppage, the workers are willing to renounce a part of their income. What happens to the workers hired once it has begun ? If they receive full pay, it will affect the moral of the other workers. If they receive only a part of it, they will not accept work there.Since the Marceau and Musgrave article in 1949, there has been only one agreement containing such a clause. Moreover, according to the views of the president of the company, sooner or later, industrial and union leaders are going « to have to find a better way to resolve industrial disputes ».Details of ApplicationSetting upThree means of setting up the formula are proposed : a coercive law, a permissive law and a decision of the parties without any legislation. The first would be effective in avoiding the appearance of the strike but the conflict would remain. The two others leave the parties free to choose the formula or not. By doing so, one can be sure that it will not be very useful since nobody believes in its effectiveness.Determination of the penaltiesThe penalties imposed on the parties should be determined by public referees (Marceau and Musgrave, Chamberlain, Goble). The employers will resist such intrusions in their private affairs.What about the determination of the net profit ? What will motivate the employer to operate efficiently if he is to give up all his net profit ?Goble proposes retaining 25 per cent of the manager's income. Will they accept a worse situation than during a regular strike ? What is to prevent the company from distributing at the end of the year a bonus covering that lost income ?As far as the Dunbar Formula is concerned, it is simple, but its equity is doubtful.Use of the trust fund receiptsThe Dunbar formula seems to encourage the parties to settle early (within six weeks) since they would then recover all the money withheld. In the other case, there is no such pressure. Marceau's idea of using the money to make retroactive payments is not valuable as there would no longer be a penalty.To sum up, let us say that if we stick to the idea, we give an unworkable means of imposing penalties, and if we define easy means of imposing penalties, we stand away from the formula.AnnexeDUNBAR FURNITURE STRIKE WORK AGREEMENTThis Strike Work Agreement, made and entered into 20th day of May, 1964, by and between the Dunbar Furniture Corporation of Indiana, Berne, Indiana, its successors or assigns, hereinafter called the company.andthe Upholsterers' International Union of North America affiliated with the AFL-CIO, hereinafter designated as the Union acting through its agency, Upholsterers' Furniture and Novelty Workers' Local Union No. 222, and under charter from the said Union, for itself and in behalf of the employees now employed and hereinafter employed by the company and collectively designated herein as the employees, hereinafter called the union.LABOR AGREEMENTThe company and the union have a Collective Bargaining Agreement and it is agreed that this Strike Work Agreement and the attached Fiduciary Agreement are subsidiary agreements to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.PROCEDURENOTICEIn case the union decides to strike or the company decides to have a lockout after a collective bargaining agreement expires it is agreed that the Strike Work procedure as outlined in the agreement will be in effect.The union will send official written notice of the decision to strike to the company or the company will send official written notice of the lockout to the local union.Starting with the first payroll week after the notice is received the Strike Work procedure will be in effect as outlined in this agreement.The collective bargaining agreement is reinstated and will continue; in force for the entire Strike Work period.WORK DEDUCTIONSThere will be no stoppage of work.All employees will continue to work during the Strike Work period.Onehalf of the earnings of all employees in the unit will be withheld and placed in the Strike Work Trust Fund in the custody of the Bank named in the Fiduciary Agreement.The company will place in the fund each week an amount of money equal to the total amount paid by all employees that week.PERIODS — REFUNDSFIRST PERIOD — SIX WEEKS — ALL MONEY RETURNEDIf the Strike Work is settled inside of six weeks, all of the money will be returned to the employees and the company. The bank will donate its services.SECOND PERIOD — THREE WEEKS — 75% RETURNEDIf the Strike Work is settled in the next three weeks, 75% of the money paid will be returned to the employees and the company, less 10c per check issued in the distribution process.THIRD PERIOD — TWO WEEKS — 50% RETURNEDIf the Strike Work is settled in the next two weeks, 50% of the money will be returned to the employees and the company, less 10c per check issued in the distribution process.FOURTH PERIOD— ONE WEEK — 25% RETURNED If the Strike Work is settled in the next one week, 25% of the money will be returned to the employees and the company, less 10c per check issued in the distribution process.OLD FASHIONED STRIKE OR LOCKOUTIf the Strike Work has not been settled by the end of the fourth period (12th week) then no money will be refunded.The Strike Work Agreement and the Collective Bargaining Agreement may then be terminated and also there may be an old fashioned strike or lockout by written notice of either party to the other.AGREEMENT RENEWEDIf no such notice has been received by either party at the end of the 13th week after the Strike work started then the last agreement will be automatically renewed without change for one year.The expiration date will then be one year from the written date of expiration in the last written agreement.ARBITRATIONAny dispute as to the meaning or application of the agreement between the company and the union or with the fiduciary that cannot be settled otherwise will be arbitrated except only as is provided in Article IX of the fiduciary agreement, if either party to the dispute so requests.The arbitration will be under the rules and procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement.RULESThe following rules will be in effect with the start of the first payroll week of a strike or lockout under this Strike Work Agreement.RETIREESIn case an employee is eligible to retire and does retire, then the money that he has paid into the fund will be refunded to him when he retires. Written proof and authorization will be given to the Fiduciary in jointly signed statement.SICK OR INJUREDIf an employee is sick or injured and received benefits under the UIU Health and Welfare Fund or Workmen's Compensation or other statutory industrial compensation funds, the benefits so received will not be considered as wages.The money that he has paid into the fund will remain there pending his return.In case it is proved that he is totally disabled then the money that he has paid into the fund will be returned to him when he retires. The Fiduciary will be given proof and authorization as outlined in A above.When an employee that has been sick or injured returns to work, then he will receive a refund or will additional money so that he will pay the same percent of his wages as other employees. The payments, if any, can be divided into four weekly instalments.QUITSIn case an employee quits or is discharged during the time a Strike Work is going on, he will forfeit and lose all claim to any money that he has paid into the fund. If he should be rehired, he will start as a new employee without seniority.If the amount that he had paid into the fund was a smaller percent of his weekly wage than others paid, he will pay the difference before starting to work, to the company and the company will deposit the money so received in the fund.NO STRIKE OR SLOW DOWNIt is agreed that there will be no strike stoppage or slow down or restrictions of output during the time that the Strike Work is in effect.In case any such action should occur the company may at its option discipline or discharge any or all of the people taking part in a strike, stoppage, slow down or restriction of output.In case such action by the company is taken to arbitration to sustain its action it shall only be necessary for the company to prove that the employees so dealt with did actually take part in the above strike, stoppage, slow down or restriction of output.NO LAW SUITIt is agreed that the International Union or the Local Union or any of its agents or officers, or any employees will not bring any legal action against the company or the fiduciary. The company will not bring any legal action against the International or Local Union or any of their officers or members or against the fiduciary.NO CONTRIBUTIONS1 — During the Strike Work period it is agreed that the International Union and its affiliates shall not directly or indirectly render financi

    Income volatility in New Zealand

    Get PDF
    ‘Economic risk is a lot like a hurricane. Hurricanes strike powerfully and suddenly. They rip apart what they touch; property, landscape and lives â€Š And although they can be prepared for, they cannot be prevented.’ These sentiments, from Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, explain why economic risk is a concern for households, and why the extent of that concern depends a great deal on how well households are protected against risk. The potential for individual bad luck to lead to hardship has meant that society has, in many instances, determined that individual risk should be borne collectively through systems of social welfare or social insurance (Hacker, 2008, p.5)
    • 

    corecore