Member Article

Making sense of the Gateshead Barbour strike

Staff at Gateshead clothing factory Barbour began a four week strike last monday (5 January) over pay and working hours, although action can be dated back to December last year when workers staged a six day walk out.

Barbour have been in consultation with workers union Unite since May 2014 yet it would seem relations between ownership and staff could not be further apart. As the strike continues and disputes remain unresolved, it seems difficult to predict how a return to normality will be achieved.

Reasons for the strike and escalation

Strike action began over plansto introduce shifts which would see staff working until 22:30, with proposed shift patterns being 07:00-15:00 and 14:30-22:30. Staff reacted negatively to Barbour’s plans, arguing that the shift change would adversely impact travel and childcare arrangements.

Barbour countered worker fears by offering what they deemed as a substantial increase in pay to compensate for the changes.

Business group The Institute of Directors (IoD) have entered the dispute urging Unite to end the strike. Unite’s response that the IoD’s intervention is misinformed further suggests that the group will not rest until worker demands are met.

Today (12 January) talks are set to take place between the union and Barbour management.

Analysis

Exercising the right to strike is an essential British value and for many working class Brits a cornerstone of our culture. Striking is a freedom which, when necessary, British people have the right to exercise. At first glance it might be easy to dismiss the situation at Barbour as a typical striking example, namely that of employees resisting change enforced by the power holding employer. However, the situation at Barbour holds its own complexities and intrigue.

Most importantly, the strike’s legitimacy comes from its demands. The demands are not outlandish, rather, most sensical and pragmatic. Workers simply do not want to finish working so late that the implications mean putting awkward pressures on their family lives. Barbour prides itself in being a family company; negating the family lives of its own employees is surely the antithesis of the ethos it promotes.

Such a viewpoint was echoed by media personality Janet Street-Porter who argued in her Independent column: ‘If you are the sole breadwinner, arranging childcare for these unsocial hours costs money, how can Barbour claim to be family friendly?’

Moreover, the new contracts proposed to workers have removed extra payment for working unsocial hours and, rather shockingly, it would seem workers ultimately face the sack if contracts aren’t signed.

Yet, Barbour are not villainous. Looking at the situation from the business’ point of view, there is logic in their proposal for extending working hours. The company are trying to maximise their production and to their credit they have offered workers a 10% increase in hourly pay in the new contracts.

Nonetheless a standoff situation is present and compromise must be reached to move things forward and prevent further escalation. A pragmatic and tailored route should be assumed. Barbour are not tyrannical, they are an honest British company who are performing well and whose workers have contributed greatly to this success. It seems it would be best if hours could be arranged in a bespoke manner, abandoning a one size fits all approach. Not all staff have children and are worried about the hours, certainly not every worker at the Gateshead factory is striking.

Barbour pride themselves as a premium, stylish brand pursued by valued consumers whilst the workers will surely take pride in their own hard work. Whilst we can debate the age-old argument of ‘who is in the right?’ the real question that matters is ‘how can this be resolved?’. Barbour do not need the negative publicity that an escalating strike inevitably brings and workers do not need such disruption and worry in their lives. Hopefully today’s talks are constructive and a swift solution can ensue.