3 ms·
> Note that a work-to-rule is a dispute escalation tactic, one step down from a full-on strike. This was not routine activity. In the period where the British
by mike_hearn 1y ago
> Note that a work-to-rule is a dispute escalation tactic, one step down from a full-on strike. This was not routine activity.
In the period where the British industries were wiped, that kind of tactic was being used routinely. The German unions were much less aggressively leftist than British unions.
- lmm 1y agoUK labour-management relations were bad in that period, worse than in Germany, resulting in high levels of conflict and escalation. I don't think it's because the UK's unions were more aggressive though.
- mike_hearn 1y agoBritish unions were so aggressive there was serious fear of a communist revolution in those times, or a military coup to prevent one. They forced a three day week, rolling blackouts and an IMF bailout. Management doesn't deserve blame here, they were trying to keep their companies afloat in the face of people who were outright promoting Marxism and a government sympathetic to that / weak in the face of it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41931869?seq=3 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41931869?seq=3 Sit-ins and factory occupations were inspired by the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS) work-in led by Jimmy Airlie, Sam Barr and Jimmy Reid, all leading [Communist Part] members.