On Dec 13, 9:51 pm, rcaetano <rafael.caet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 1:20 pm, Declan Murphy <declan_mur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 12:23 pm, Medgya <medgya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:45 pm, rcaetano <rafael.caet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I know a company where something like that happened. They wanted a
> > > > raise and decided to do a strike, but apparently didn't want to
> > > > anything as harsh as, er, not showing up to work. So they started
> > > > leaving on time.
>
> > > That's very clever! Something to keep in mind...
>
> > In the "heady days" when unions represented more than half the
> > participants in the full-time paid workforce of Australia, a campaign
> > like this was called "Work to rules". If it wasn't agreed to in
> > contract, you didn't do it. When time was up, you downed tools and
> > clocked off.
>
> I see. But in the company I mentioned, the problem was not unpaid
> overtime (apparently overtime is always paid there). They simply
> wanted a raise.

Even if overtime is paid, "work to rule" is still a pretty effective
way of campaigning for a raise. The problem in Australia was (is?)
that "work to rule" was mainly implemented by those who were paid
overtime, and not used by those who weren't.