The United Kingdom is in a tricky situation. The upcoming wave of strikes in many key industries, from ambulance staff to teachers to train drivers, will cause major disruption around the country. On one hand, it’s unfair to the workers who have seen their wages decrease in real terms. On the other, it’s unfair to the public who are unable to work and survive without these key services and will have to pay through taxes if public sector wages go up. This has caused a divide between workers and consumers.
It is difficult not to be sympathetic towards the strikers. The vast majority of people in the country have friends or family who work within these sectors. The NHS, for example, is the biggest employer in the country. Despite the inconveniences of the strikes, the public still holds a lot of sympathy towards the strikes – especially with the nurses and ambulance strikes. The public recognises that many NHS staff are overworked and underpaid. It is not an unreasonable argument that the hard workers who are the backbone of this country should receive better pay.
However, raising the wages of those in the public sector would increase public spending, causing a burden to the British people. The public are already suffering due to the cost-of-living crisis and an already unprecedentedly high tax burden. The extra-spending to increase workers’ pay could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the British economy.
Whether the government gives the workers a pay rise or not, people will suffer either way. Surely, there’s another villain in this story other than the strikers, who want better pay, or the public, who want services to run?
There is a reason why the majority of the disruption is caused by those in the public sector. If a worker believes that their pay is under representative of their abilities, they do not have much choice over their employment if the state dominates their industry through creating a monopoly or imposing heavy regulations.
This means that their wages are determined by politicians rather than the market. Since they don’t have the flexibility of those in the private sector, workers in the public sector have very little choice other than striking to protest low pay.
However, the consequence of this is that the public, rather than the boss, is punished when public sector workers strike. For example, if a supermarket’s workers go on strike, the owner has an incentive to find a solution to avoid losing money.
Furthermore, even if that particular chain is closed for a few days then consumers are able to go to other stores and are only mildly impacted.
This compares to the NHS, where if workers go on strike, there is a detrimental impact on patients since they depend on its services. Meanwhile, those who control the pay of the workers don’t need to worry about the losses that come from the strike and don’t have as big of an incentive since the service is propped up by the taxpayer regardless of its outcomes.
Unless they can afford to go private, patients have to depend on the inefficient service of the NHS that they’ve been forced to pay for through national insurance. Therefore, strikes also punish the consumer who has little choice other than the state healthcare monopoly.
The public sector clearly needs downsizing and rethinking in order to stop workers feeling trapped and taxpayers’ money being wasted. We are stuck in a repetitive cycle of workers striking for better wages because they have little choice and consumers getting frustrated with the strikes because they also have little choice. Market-based reform in areas like healthcare and transport would provide more options for both workers and consumers as businesses would have to compete for their money and labour.
