Strikes and work stoppages are methods used by trade unions to showcase their strength and strive to promote the interests of workers by exerting pressure on employers or politicians to accept solutions that benefit workers. In an organized society, strikes and other industrial actions also have their own rules.
The collective agreement guarantees peace
Even in Finland, strikes are not an everyday phenomenon, but the number and frequency of strikes vary from year to year. Based on the annual statistics from Statistics Finland, there are around 50-100 different strikes in a typical year in Finland. However, there is a clear spike in the number of strikes every few years. During those years, the number of industrial actions rises to around one hundred and fifty per year. The variation is by no means random, but a natural outcome arising from the dynamics of the labor market.
The most common reason for industrial action is ongoing collective bargaining negotiations. The trade unions aim to expedite negotiations and convince the employers’ organization to accept modifications to the collective agreement by targeting the entire industry or influential companies within the employers’ organization with a strike. They promise to end the strike once the parties reach an agreement on a new collective agreement. This trade-off is, in a way, the basis of the entire collective agreement system. According to the Collective Agreements Act, the parties bound by the collective agreement are obliged to refrain from industrial actions related to the collective agreement during its validity period. By giving employees the wage increases or other benefits they demand, employers secure labor peace for the duration of the collective agreement.
Support for a comrade
Not all strikes aim to improve the strikers’ own working conditions. A trade union can also initiate a strike in the name of solidarity to support another trade union that is negotiating its own collective agreement. Since the Collective Agreement Act only prohibits industrial action against a valid collective agreement concluded by the striking union, the trade union is not prohibited from initiating a strike in support of another trade union, even if the trade union is currently bound by a valid collective agreement. In legal practice, support strikes have been accepted as long as the strike being supported is legal. It is also clearly stated in the international agreements to which Finland is a party that strikes supporting striking unions cannot be completely prohibited.
Petteri Orpo’s government has proposed limiting the right to support strikes to reduce the harm caused by support strikes to companies that are not directly involved in the primary industrial action. The proposed changes would extend the labor peace obligation that is in force during the validity of the collective agreement to include some support strikes. A trade union committed to maintaining industrial peace would not be permitted to conduct a support strike if the adverse impacts on third parties outweigh the effects of the support strike on the operations of the company involved in the primary industrial action. If the activities of the employer who is the subject of a support strike are related to the activities of an employer who is a party to the primary labor dispute, the support strike should be limited, as much as possible, to activities that impact the employer who is involved in the primary industrial action. If the company has no connection to the companies involved in the primary industrial action, it could still be subject to a support strike. However, the support strike should be organized in a way that prevents the targeted employer from suffering disproportionate harm.
If the trade union does not have a valid collective agreement, and thus is not bound by the labor peace obligation, the right to support strikes would be broader. In these situations, support strikes that disproportionately harm the target employer would be allowed if the supported trade union is striving to conclude a collective agreement for its sector. If the supported trade union is striking to pursue another goal, such as trying to influence the business management decisions of an individual company, a support strike should not cause disproportionate harm to the employer targeted by the support strike.
A strike is the continuation of politics by other means
Trade unions can also leverage their influence and power to try to sway political decision-makers. Political strikes are frequently utilized to influence legislation concerning working conditions and reforms, particularly those impacting pensions, have often been met with strikes globally. Political strikes can also be utilized to pursue political objectives beyond those directly associated with the workplace.
Perhaps the most significant political strike in the history of Finland was organized in the fall of 1905 when the strikes that started in Russia earlier the same year also spread to the Grand Duchy of Finland. A few demonstrations ultimately expanded into a general strike opposing Russian oppression and eventually led to the implementation of universal suffrage. Political strikes were also part of the toolbox in the 1970s when the working class was advocating for the interests of the workers against those of the capitalists. However, in the decades that followed, political industrial actions were a rare phenomenon until this spring.
In the past, there has been no regulation regarding political strikes in Finland. Since a political strike, by definition, is aimed at matters other than those agreed upon in collective agreements, the labor peace obligation has not affected political strikes. However, it has been possible to attempt to influence political decision-makers with strikes even when collective agreements are in force.
Petteri Orpo’s government has proposed that, in the future, a maximum duration of 24 hours will be set for political industrial actions that interrupt work. No matter whether the political strike takes the form of a strike, a series of walkouts, or other measures that interrupt work at the workplace, the industrial action must be completed in its entirety within 24 hours of the start of the industrial action. Industrial actions that indirectly affect work, such as prohibiting changes to work shifts or working overtime, should not exceed two weeks.
Result is a fine
The employers have long held the view that the sanctions imposed for prohibited industrial disputes are way too low. In accordance with the Collective Agreements Act, the sole consequence of prohibited industrial action is a fine for compensation. When the Act was enacted in the 1940s, the maximum fine was one million marks. Over the years, the fine amount has been revisited. However, employers consider the current maximum fine of 37,400 euros insufficient to deter illegal labor disputes. After all, the harm caused to an employer by a labor dispute is often several dozen times greater than the maximum amount of the compensation fine.
Despite the government’s proposed amendments, the compensation fine is intended to remain the primary and sole sanction imposed on employee organizations or employers for illegal industrial actions in the future. However, the government is increasing the maximum compensation fine to 150,000 euros while simultaneously setting the minimum compensation fine at 10,000 euros.
However, as a new measure, the government proposes that an individual employee can also be held accountable for participating in an illegal industrial action. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid by the employee would be 200 euros, and the compensation would be paid to the employer who is the subject of an illegal industrial action. The employee can only be obligated to pay compensation to the employer once the court has determined that the industrial action conducted by the trade union is unlawful, and the employee, despite being informed of this judgment, persists in the industrial action.
Subscribe to our newsletters here to stay up to date with our news and events.