YES: Bob Crow General secretary of the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers)

“Being able to choose to go on strike is a human right and an important tool in a union’s armoury. It is one of the only means that workers have to put any pressure at all on employers to negotiate fairly when it comes to improving conditions – whether that is in the public or the private sector.

If employers had their way they would offer their staff only the bare legal minimum – though even those minimums have generally been won by political pressure from unions or negotiations that are backed up by the possibility of strike action. We are not simply talking about demands for extra pay here, either; very often the issues at stake relate to working conditions and basic health and safety in the workplace.

While some employers’ groups accuse unions of being too ready to move to strike action, this is not the case at all. No one wants to come to work to go on strike – they want to work and earn their money. But when it comes to negotiations, the ability to withdraw their labour is the biggest bargaining chip that workers have. If we started discussions by promising that we would not go on strike whatever the outcome, there would be little incentive for employers to listen to our demands, let alone accede to them.

Employers are perfectly capable of withdrawing work from their employees without any notice. We have to follow a lengthy balloting and notification process designed to make it as difficult as possible for workers to take strike action, but businesses can shut down at the drop of a hat – XL is a good example. Some could argue that it was forced to shut as it ran out of money but this is often the situation facing workers who decide to strike.

Our first approach to any problem is to sit at a table with the employer and negotiate. We don’t say, “We will go on strike if you don’t give us exactly what we want” – we understand that we have to reach a compromise, but that means that the employer has to be willing to meet us in the middle.

We know perfectly well that strikes are not popular with the general public if their services are affected; people who use the trains or public transport get very unhappy when those services are withdrawn or disrupted – but that unhappiness will in turn place more pressure on the employer to negotiate terms reasonably.

Arbitration has its place in resolving some disputes, but it also has potential disadvantages for employers and employees. In negotiations, each side can work together to reach a compromise that satisfies both. It can be a long and painful process, but it can be done. With arbitration, however, a binding decision is made for you by a third party which might suit neither workers nor employers.”

NO: Mick Brookes General secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers

“Strike action is almost always damaging and counter-productive. I cannot think of any circumstances that would make our members, who are mainly school leaders, walk away from their jobs and leave children and families in the lurch. Our ethos is entirely focused on improving the opportunities that pupils have through our schools; anything that threatened that would be anathema.

It is also important for us to take hearts and minds with us in any campaign. We are on the side of parents and children and we want them to support us, not resent us. This persuasive approach has also proved successful when lobbying ministers for changes on education strategy.

Most importantly, however, our unwillingness to strike does not mean that we are either unwilling or unable to negotiate effectively on pay, conditions and education strategy.

For example, at the moment we are operating under a pay award that offers members increases that are significantly less than inflation. If this continues, we may be forced to take action. However, this does not have to mean going on strike. One approach could be to refuse to return the reams of paperwork that local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families expects head teachers to complete. Given the weight the Government places on form-filling and the extent to which politicians like to be able to wave statistics around to demonstrate that their policies are working, this is a tactic that will annoy the right people without affecting children or families.

The most effective negotiations, however, are those in which both sides are able to approach the issue as a transaction between adults. It is not a matter of a parent offering something to a child and the child threatening to throw a tantrum if it is not happy. It is about the Government recognising that we are professionals with expertise in our area and us having faith in its willingness to listen to us.

Fortunately, we have a great deal of faith in the statutory body that reviews pay. It is made up of professionals who understand that schools are already struggling to recruit and retain head teachers and that if salaries are not set at a reasonable level this will become ever harder. If the Government does not get pay and conditions right, eventually there will barely be any head teachers left to go on strike.

While I do not believe that the threat of strike action is the right negotiating tool for our union, I am prepared to accept there might one day be situations so dire, so extreme, that it has to be brought back to the table. It is simply that I cannot imagine what those circumstances might be.”

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive