Unions (Aslef)

StillGoing

You're wrong there. As long as a cause doesn't have public support, the government know they can see the strike out. The families of the strikers will reach the poverty line and need to return to work before the government need to crack. If they had public support all the pressure would be on the government to give in to the demands.

rick_chasey

philthy3 wrote:

You're wrong there. As long as a cause doesn't have public support, the government know they can see the strike out. The families of the strikers will reach the poverty line and need to return to work before the government need to crack. If they had public support all the pressure would be on the government to give in to the demands.

I don't think anyone with any sense of reality can see that occuring. 1905 Russia perhaps.

2011 London? No.

StillGoing

You don't have to look that far back. The winter of discontent in the 70's saw the unions cripple the country under Labour rule. The Conservatives redressed the balance in the 80's on the back of public opinion that was sick of the unions wrecking the lives of everyone else. If the public had to go through another load of strikes better that the unions were crushed to put an end to it once and for all than pander to their whims risking more strikes in the future. With so many people facing job losses, wage cuts and the knock on effects of the financial crisis, you can't expect the public to have any sympathy with a body that has a job but wants more. Their only chance of success is work to rule, but I very much doubt they're doing anything over and above what is required of them within their contract of employment.

rick_chasey

philthy3 wrote:

You don't have to look that far back. The winter of discontent in the 70's saw the unions cripple the country under Labour rule. The Conservatives redressed the balance in the 80's on the back of public opinion that was sick of the unions wrecking the lives of everyone else. If the public had to go through another load of strikes better that the unions were crushed to put an end to it once and for all than pander to their whims risking more strikes in the future. With so many people facing job losses, wage cuts and the knock on effects of the financial crisis, you can't expect the public to have any sympathy with a body that has a job but wants more. Their only chance of success is work to rule, but I very much doubt they're doing anything over and above what is required of them within their contract of employment.

But that's not what's going to happen.

You're going to get a day every fortnight of inconvenience, and that's it.

It's not going to be bodies piling up in the streets and police clashes.

Anyway, there are enough old farts who whinge on and on about the '70s that it's unlikely to repeat itself.

langster

My hart is pumping lumpy custard for those lazy LUL staff. Everytime you ask them anything they act like they are doing you a huge favour by doing what they are paid to do.

In New York when they strike on the tube they keep services running but open all the gates so everyone travels free and this way the public is on thier side and the company still loses income.

StillGoing

1 day action. Result naff all. Business will restructure themselves where they can to cope with the disruption.

The London underground system is archaic. A good opportunity to shut it down and build a modern day system with in-built safety features including automated trains so they can dispense with the drivers completely eh?

chunkytfg

langster wrote:

My hart is pumping lumpy custard for those lazy LUL staff. Everytime you ask them anything they act like they are doing you a huge favour by doing what they are paid to do.

In New York when they strike on the tube they keep services running but open all the gates so everyone travels free and this way the public is on thier side and the company still loses income.

Are you suggesting thats what LUL should do?

How would you suggest the trains get around with the drivers out on strike then? Or would you say they may aswell just use the tunnels as a big footpath due to there being no trains? :roll:

As for the Automated trains argument. Just how often do you think the trains with ATC actually use it? The slightest fault on the line and the trains become manually controlled. I would guess less than 50% of the time the trains are running they are automated!

chunkytfg

philthy3 wrote:

1 day action. Result naff all. Business will restructure themselves where they can to cope with the disruption.

The London underground system is archaic. A good opportunity to shut it down and build a modern day system with in-built safety features including automated trains so they can dispense with the drivers completely eh?

Now that I dont completely agree with! I used to spend 95% of my time trying to keep out dated equipment working!

However that is slowly changing as new equipment gets installed. I now spend probably a good 50% of my time dealing with badly installed equipment that doesnt live up to anywhere near how good it was supposed to be when LUL bought it! The recent upgrades are a complete shambles with LUL being so dependant on one company in particular who supply the old parts aswell as the new equipment that they get away with murder!

When they screwed up the installation at the site I worked at less than 2 weeks after the original handover I had to spend a week going round trying to find out where equipment had been placed due to not having any paper work for it and also finding out that out of 65 new systems that had been installed 17 of them were allready out of spec which is pretty bad when you consider they were sold to LUL as 'fit and forget'!

Then to top it all off the cabling they had installed was in such a state LUL has paid them over £5m to correct it!!! Why the hell didnt they do it right in the first place!!!!

On the bright side though even though I am not directly involved with the upgrade projects I am guaranteed work as I would stake my very fat pension on the fact the contractors used to install it will screw it up spectacularly leaving me more work than I know what to do with!!!

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for the public support - I didn't think the unions were concerned with public support? I thought they were interested in improved working conditions? It's a dispute between the workers and their employers.

Nope but the fact that they are unable to yield a shred of support from most of the general public indicates that they will have an extremely tough time attempting to garner support from their managers.

StillGoing

Alas the award of contracts is an endemic problem in both the public and private sectors. A little insentive to award a contract, which is inferior to the competition but yields more benefits for the management team or the government minister in charge, and it makes no difference which political party is in power at the time. My own line of employment experiences the same problem as do the military.

Stewie Griffin

How are we all going to get there now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12153653

daviesee

"The UK's major trade unions are planning major strikes in the spring around the time of the royal wedding. Union bosses are to meet early in the new year at a meeting aimed at delivering co-ordinated mass industrial action to oppose the Government's austerity measures.

TUC leader Brendan Barber predicted a "horrible" 2011, with increased unemployment and mass strikes, in his new year's message. He confirmed plans for concerted action this morning and predicted a rise in public discontent as the reality of austerity measures begin to bite."

Little mention of worker's rights, terms or conditions in there. They just seem to be getting a bit uppity on the political front. That is not what unions were formed for. That's all I have to say on the matter.

From here:-

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/12632/

Edit:- Someone will probably pick up on the increased unemployment part of it but they don't go on strike every time unemployment increases do they? Not all I had to say then

Pross

How can they mix in mass strikes and mass unemployment in the same sentence? All mass strikes will do is cause further unemployment surely :?

markos1963

Pross wrote:

How can they mix in mass strikes and mass unemployment in the same sentence? All mass strikes will do is cause further unemployment surely :?

If we move this statement on further how about bringing back slavery? Everyone has a job and nobody can go on strike so nobody can moan about the Unions every again.

Jez mon

markos1963 wrote:

Pross wrote:

How can they mix in mass strikes and mass unemployment in the same sentence? All mass strikes will do is cause further unemployment surely :?

If we move this statement on further how about bringing back slavery? Everyone has a job and nobody can go on strike so nobody can moan about the Unions every again.

You've lost me...

Perhaps if the unions wised up a bit and had better PR they might get more public support...or they could get on with their job/not moan about lack of support for strikes which don't appear particularly just...

StillGoing

Stewie Griffin wrote:

How are we all going to get there now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12153653

Actually, they just won my support with their attempt to scupper the royal wedding euphoria. Now if only they can televise it all and everyone stays indoors, I can go out on the bike in peace for a few hours.

daviesee

I will be cycling in Majorca so from a personal point of view they can do as they wish :twisted:

Pross

markos1963 wrote:

Pross wrote:

How can they mix in mass strikes and mass unemployment in the same sentence? All mass strikes will do is cause further unemployment surely :?

If we move this statement on further how about bringing back slavery? Everyone has a job and nobody can go on strike so nobody can moan about the Unions every again.

How do you work that out?

My biggest issue with strikes these days is that the Unions mainly try to hide the request for more money among other issues they feel will garner more support such as safety issues.

If you get rid of Unions what will happen is what happens in many small companies now, there will be a demand for services when the market is good and labour is in demand the workforce makes hay and gets a better job and when there's a downturn the company gets their own back. It's not ideal but a good employer realises that consistency of workforce is a benefit and tries to do their best in the bad times with the employees understanding that when things are tight they may have to work harder for their money. Bad employers will lose their better staff and won't survive. I'd rather that than pay some Union boss a five figure sum and his expenses to attend a conference where him and his colleagues will whinge about fat cat bosses!

markos1963

Pross, the problem of non unionised work is that it rarely leads to improved pay and conditions for the workers even in times of plenty. Take the retail industry where I used to work, pay rises never exceed the CPI figure so their lot stays the same usually on or near minimum wage, large supermarkets like Sainsburys only employ part timers on 12hr a week contracts so they can't claim a lot of benefits and will never get a state pension. Job security was non exsistant and this was when we were in boom times.

daviesee

The banking industry seems to be doing rather well :evil:

Is it unionised?

markos1963

daviesee wrote:

The banking industry seems to be doing rather well :evil:

Is it unionised?

Doesn't count, State funded industry

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

The banking industry seems to be doing rather well :evil:

Is it unionised?

It probably operates more like a Union than you'd first imagine!

carrock

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Push lever forward train moves, move lever back train stops. Push button open doors, push button shut doors. Give non feeling apology for when service isn't running properly. Go on strike at behest of fat union three car shunt who has long since forgotten what its like to actually have to work. Yes they are taking the wee wee again. Then again, fair play to them for getting so much for doing a job that a drunk monkey could do.

At least lorry drivers change gear and murder the odd prositute occasionally

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The banking industry seems to be doing rather well :evil:

Is it unionised?

It probably operates more like a Union than you'd first imagine!

Three variables in there.

Probably - very variable.
More - than what?
imagine - you don't know what I can imagine

Not convinced

Pross

markos1963 wrote:

Pross, the problem of non unionised work is that it rarely leads to improved pay and conditions for the workers even in times of plenty. Take the retail industry where I used to work, pay rises never exceed the CPI figure so their lot stays the same usually on or near minimum wage, large supermarkets like Sainsburys only employ part timers on 12hr a week contracts so they can't claim a lot of benefits and will never get a state pension. Job security was non exsistant and this was when we were in boom times.

I'd have to dispute that, my salary double between 1998 and 2008 without me having to ask for a pay rise at any point. The company knew if they didn't treat their staff well there were plenty of others desperate to recruit people who were struggling to find anyone. I accept that this is not the case in all sectors and especially in areas where there is not a requirement for high skill levels. I don't know what part of retail you were involved in and not trying to insult or patronise but in areas such as warehouse work or till operation the companies know that it is pretty easy to find someone to replace any disgruntled staff. I suspect this is why most strike action is taken by people who require quite a few years of training including the Tube drivers as, although some think it's an easy job I'm sure it takes a while to learn the skills otherwise the employers would just repace staff with the thousands of others that apply for the job!

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The banking industry seems to be doing rather well :evil:

Is it unionised?

It probably operates more like a Union than you'd first imagine!

Three variables in there.

Probably - very variable.
More - than what?
imagine - you don't know what I can imagine

Not convinced

"Dear gov't. If you tax us (i.e. hurt our pay) we will leave and go to Switzerland, so you'll lose all of the tax revenue that you get now, and around 5-10% of GDP. Oh, and all that money we gave to your party? Err, that'll go too"

Given the oligopolistic nature of the industry too, I'd suggest that it's not too disimilar.

daviesee

The banks cannot move as the Government has a major share in them.
The employees, at any level, can leave as they wish. They can also be replaced.

We often hear the threats of all this "talent" leaving. Wasn't it this "talent" that got us in a mess in the first place? I would think replacing them would be rather easy :twisted:

Wandering well off topic now.................

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

The banks cannot move as the Government has a major share in them.
The employees, at any level, can leave as they wish. They can also be replaced.

We often hear the threats of all this "talent" leaving. Wasn't it this "talent" that got us in a mess in the first place? I would think replacing them would be rather easy :twisted:

Wandering well off topic now.................

No, the UK banks can't leave.

The rest of them can. That's the issue. People only discuss the UK banks because they're the banks the gov't has a claim in, but you can't discuss the city without including ALL other banks and financial institutions, hedge funds etc etc.

As for the 'talent'.

The trigger was something surprisngly specific. Say only 5% of your business actually crippled your business, but the other 95% met and exceeded their targets. You'd want to keep that 95% because they're keeping your business afloat. Meanwhile, your competitors are paying through the nose to keep their guys, so you need to pay up too or else your talent will leave. Etc etc.

Bankers don't do generic "banking". Banks are like massive organisations that do 100s of different products & sevices, that are all pretty specific. A guy doing FX Spot trades has nothing to do with structured credit, even though they both sit in the fixed income arm of a bank, so he feels, why should he be punished, when he made the bank a load of cash, which they desperately need?


It's a complex issue.

markos1963

If the 'talented' bankers are so important to their companies then why are they paid 'bonuses'? Surely a 'talented' employee should be encouraged to stay by providing a high enough basic wage. If they are 'talented' then they shouldn't need the incentive of 'bonuses' to work hard. If they fail to meet their targets or performance criteria then they could be released to the green pastures of Switzerland.

rick_chasey

markos1963 wrote:

If the 'talented' bankers are so important to their companies then why are they paid 'bonuses'? Surely a 'talented' employee should be encouraged to stay by providing a high enough basic wage. If they are 'talented' then they shouldn't need the incentive of 'bonuses' to work hard. If they fail to meet their targets or performance criteria then they could be released to the green pastures of Switzerland.

They look at it a different way.

They're happy to pay out if they hit their targets. They expect them to get big bonuses. If they don't hit their targets, they get paid an awful lot less. The word bonus distracts from the mentality.

Edit: It's a way of paying them less when they don't meet targets.

If anyone's been paying attention to renumeration in light of the FSA regulations, you'll see that the more senior people's salaries are being massively increased, so that their bonuses are reduced. What will happen now, is that because overheads will be so much bigger, the emplomyent market will become even more volatile.