Should employees have the right to strike?

by Kumaravel Jagasivamani (written for editorial in Sage newspaper)

Over the last few weeks, workers at the three major grocery chains in San Diego have been picketing in front of the stores. The primary reason for the strike is the increased health costs for employees. Health coverage costs have increased astronomically over the past few years. The major grocery store chains – Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons – have also been facing intense competition from Wal-Mart and other multifaceted stores. To cope with these problems, the grocery stores want to reduce their contributions towards employee benefits to maintain their high profitability. Instead, they want workers to bear the increase in coverage costs. The United Food and Commercial Workers union, representing grocery store workers at the three chains, fear that this is just the first step towards further reduction in benefits. When negotiations between the stores and the union failed, the union asked its members at Vons to strike. Ralphs and Albertsons retorted by locking out the union workers at their stores.
With both sides locked into their positions, the end to the crisis does not appear to be near. What is clear, however, is that both sides are using the ordeal to flex their muscles. The grocery stores showed their ability to get replacement workers to keep their stores running. Moreover, by locking out the union workers at all the chains, the stores are intent on using public inconvenience to turn public opinion against the strikers. On the other hand, the union wants to show their collective power and the impact of a strike on the stores’ bottom dollar.
There may not be clear winners at the end of the strike, but the clear loser in the affair is the public. They are forced to endure the inconveniences without any say in the matter. The blame should not be laid on the strike itself. The problem is the inability of the two sides to compromise. It is the short-sighted attitude of the two sides thinking that they could achieve their goals by simply exercising their power instead of co-operation.
Corporations and some politicians would like to see strikes to be ruled illegal. However, if strikes were declared illegal, it would tilt the scales clearly to one side. Without the ability to organize and strike, workers would not have a bargaining chip to back their side of the case. As long as employers have the ability to lay-off workers and reduce benefits, the workers should possess the counter-active measure of strike.
The solution lies in mediation. If the two sides can agree upon a neutral mediator, they should be willing be abide by the decision of the mediator. A more comprehensive solution would also address the non-standard worker benefits prevalent in today’s business world.