I cannot understand all the fuss that is being made about the recent strikes in the country. Judging by the various statements made by responsible persons one would think that strikes are a totally new phenomenon. Strikes have taken place in our country from well nigh 50 years ago. I can recall the strike of public servants in 1947 when we were under British rule. It was after the famous public meeting held at Galle Face green that year, presided over by the late T.B. Illangaratne, who was then a clerk at the Kandy Kachcheri, and subsequently dismissed for his intrepid action. At that time, public servants were not allowed to participate in trade union activities and Mr. Illangaratne had to pay the penalty for defying the ban. The infamous section 168 B of the Public Service Procedure Code, was then in force, and anyone contravening its provisions, had short shrift.
In 1956 when the S.L.F.P., under the leadership of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike came into power, Mr. Illangaratne was appointed Minister of Labour. That Government passed legislation enabling public servants of certain categories to form trade unions. It also permitted the subscriptions of those public servants who were members of trade unions, to be deducted from their pay sheets. This was progressive legislation indeed. The trade unionists of today owe a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Bandaranaike and Mr. Illangaratne for granting these privileges.
The Marxist parties who then held sway over all the powerful trade unions in the country, quickly took advantage of these and commenced to create labour problems for the then Government. Strikes became the order of the day. I recall it being said that there was a strike every day in one part of the country or other. The harbour workers used to strike for the most frivolous reasons resulting in large numbers of ships awaiting outside the harbour, for unloading. For the first time in this country or any other, certain Army personnel went on a hunger strike. During that time, neither Mr. Bandaranaike nor his Government adopted any Draconian measures to counter or suppress these strikes. He even talked to the soldiers who were fasting and persuaded them to give it up. As far as I can remember, he served some orange juice on which to break their fast. That was the true democrat that Mr. Bandaranaike was.
The majority of these strikes were engineered by the Marxists, so much so that at a later date, Ms. Sirima Bandaranaike publicly announced that her husband was virtually killed by Dr. N.M. Perera and Co. by strike action.
All this is of course now history and whether we like it or not, the legacy of strikes became firmly established in this country.
Now, I wish to deal with some aspects of strikes. If it is argued that strikes cause inconvenience to the general public, then no strike can be launched, as a strike always causes some form of inconvenience. Generally, a strike is called when other sources for solving the issues, have failed. It is the experience in this country, that the powers that be, fail to listen and grant redress to the aggrieved party. A case in point is the recent strike by the G.M.O.A. They got what they asked for, after a strike which caused immense hardships to the people.
The basics of a strike are to force the authorities to pay attention to the grievances of a union. The authorities are compelled to pay heed to the demands of the striking union due to public pressure generated by the inconvenience caused them. Economic losses are another factor, as in the case of the recent strike by the C.E.B. workers.
A strike is a confrontation between the employed and employer, which almost always could be avoided by a fair and frank discussion of the issues involved. Whether a strike is fair and reasonable is a matter, in which there will be conflicting views. The strikers will maintain that it is justifiable, while the employer will say it is not. The public will generally be on the side of the employer, as no strike can ever muster public opinion due to the inconvenience caused to them.
However, it is established law that the worker has an inalienable right to withhold his labour. In order to deny him this right the Government may promulgate various orders under certain provisions of the law. How effective these have been can be judged by their application to strikes in the recent past. A new feature to break strikes is now discernible. This is holding public demonstrations against strikes. This is in effect, a form of intimidation and could be construed as going against the lawful rights of the workers. During the recent strike of the C.E.B. union, public demonstrations were staged. However one may ask why no such demonstrations took place when the G.M.O.A., which comprises a small group of medical men, struck work causing untold hardships to a large section of the people.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or is there any other undisclosed reason?
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk