Join the Labour Party and save your country!

briantrumpet

Interesting statistics - strike days per year at record low levels
Average number of working days lost per year through strikes

1980-1989: 7,213,000
1939-1945: 1,894,000
2010-2014: 647,000

...which puts into context today's DT headline "Christmas strike chaos: 100,000 extra days lost to industrial action this year as Theresa May says unions have 'contempt' for passengers", taking the total to 281,000 for 2016.

I wish I could find the clip somewhere of Arthur Scargill, in the 1970s, I think, being perfectly plain that he would use the NUM's power to try bring down the government of the day. Or Denis Healey admitting that the Labour government was unable to contain the unions, and that 'someone like Margaret Thatcher' (I paraphrase, as my memory might be slightly wonky) had to happen sooner or later.

Sorry not to be spouting leftiebollox for you, Stevo. I know you'll be disappointed.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?

For your analogy to be accurate, the whole country would need to vote on whether a union was to call a strike.
A more accurate analogy would be the union members, eligible to vote, all face any legal consequences or penalty for disruption caused.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?

For your analogy to be accurate, the whole country would need to vote on whether a union was to call a strike.
A more accurate analogy would be the union members, eligible to vote, all face any legal consequences or penalty for disruption caused.

so your now saying that if the country goes down the pan due to Brexit, then Gove, BJ May etc should all go to jail? yay!!!

Interesting thought there, i could live with that lol!

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?

For your analogy to be accurate, the whole country would need to vote on whether a union was to call a strike.
A more accurate analogy would be the union members, eligible to vote, all face any legal consequences or penalty for disruption caused.

so your now saying that if the country goes down the pan due to Brexit, then Gove, BJ May etc should all go to jail? yay!!!

Interesting thought there, i could live with that lol!

Sometimes I wonder if English is your first language.

mamba80

Point that you an stev0 fail to get is that any group of workers, should they go one strike, are going to cause disruption, cleaners, dustmen, office admin workers etc etc.

So, i presume you d want no strike clauses for ALL workers.

bobmcstuff

briantrumpet wrote:

Interesting statistics - strike days per year at record low levels
Average number of working days lost per year through strikes

1980-1989: 7,213,000
1939-1945: 1,894,000
2010-2014: 647,000

...which puts into context today's DT headline "Christmas strike chaos: 100,000 extra days lost to industrial action this year as Theresa May says unions have 'contempt' for passengers", taking the total to 281,000 for 2016.

I wish I could find the clip somewhere of Arthur Scargill, in the 1970s, I think, being perfectly plain that he would use the NUM's power to try bring down the government of the day. Or Denis Healey admitting that the Labour government was unable to contain the unions, and that 'someone like Margaret Thatcher' (I paraphrase, as my memory might be slightly wonky) had to happen sooner or later.

Sorry not to be spouting leftiebollox for you, Stevo. I know you'll be disappointed.

No-one cares about your statistics when there's sensationalist headlines.

Next you will be quoting experts!

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?

For your analogy to be accurate, the whole country would need to vote on whether a union was to call a strike.
A more accurate analogy would be the union members, eligible to vote, all face any legal consequences or penalty for disruption caused.

so your now saying that if the country goes down the pan due to Brexit, then Gove, BJ May etc should all go to jail? yay!!!

Interesting thought there, i could live with that lol!

In this analogy if the country (union) voted for Brexit (strike) then the entire country (union) would pay a penalty for disruption caused.

Would seem to be only fair that only the disruptive malingering tw4ts who voted to strike should pay the penalty.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Point that you an stev0 fail to get is that any group of workers, should they go one strike, are going to cause disruption, cleaners, dustmen, office admin workers etc etc.

So, i presume you d want no strike clauses for ALL workers.

Do any workers actually 'win' by going on strike?

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?

For your analogy to be accurate, the whole country would need to vote on whether a union was to call a strike.
A more accurate analogy would be the union members, eligible to vote, all face any legal consequences or penalty for disruption caused.

so your now saying that if the country goes down the pan due to Brexit, then Gove, BJ May etc should all go to jail? yay!!!

Interesting thought there, i could live with that lol!

In this analogy if the country (union) voted for Brexit (strike) then the entire country (union) would pay a penalty for disruption caused.

Would seem to be only fair that only the disruptive malingering tw4ts who voted to strike should pay the penalty.

..and with Mays awful performance at PMQ's, Joel can stand for PM and it ll get to happen lol!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

I think that's a loaded and misleading question.

I don't, but I don't think it's relevant to the debate, bluntly.

I think we need to be careful about reactionary legislation against collective action because it may have unintended consequences.

It may very well stop things like Southern Rail happening (though, as some would suggest, the operator is quite comfortable to have the strikes since they make money either way, and if they get the public on their side they can have the gov't legislate further against the workers), but there are increasing numbers of instances where workers are being abused and taken advantage of, and, I would argue, part of that is down to the difficulties of arranging collective action.

I feel it quite keenly in my industry. There is no TU, there is no co-ordinated action, and there are absolutely firms, and firms I have worked for, who take advantage of that. I don't think, in the instances I've seen in my own industry, that it's been beneficial to anyone apart from the short term bank balances of the bosses.

So I think we need to be very careful before restricting the rights for collective action further.

Some have quite convincingly argued that the lack of bargaining power on behalf of workers has reduced the general income and quality of life, and, from my own experience, I have some sympathy for that.

It's very relevant to the issue of unions abusing their power.

I am only talkimg about legislating to stop this sort of abuse by union bosses, not clamping down on strike action over genuine grievance. Nobody but the most rabid leftie is going to claim that manufacturing strikes to bring the government down is a genuine grievance.

In these cases peoples pay and livelihoods are being put at risk becuase of the political agendas of union bosses.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Interesting statistics - strike days per year at record low levels
Average number of working days lost per year through strikes

1980-1989: 7,213,000
1939-1945: 1,894,000
2010-2014: 647,000

...which puts into context today's DT headline "Christmas strike chaos: 100,000 extra days lost to industrial action this year as Theresa May says unions have 'contempt' for passengers", taking the total to 281,000 for 2016.

I wish I could find the clip somewhere of Arthur Scargill, in the 1970s, I think, being perfectly plain that he would use the NUM's power to try bring down the government of the day. Or Denis Healey admitting that the Labour government was unable to contain the unions, and that 'someone like Margaret Thatcher' (I paraphrase, as my memory might be slightly wonky) had to happen sooner or later.

Sorry not to be spouting leftiebollox for you, Stevo. I know you'll be disappointed.

Interesting stats and good progress. Just need to make it harder for hard line union bosses to use union members as pawns in their little game.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Interesting statistics - strike days per year at record low levels
Average number of working days lost per year through strikes

1980-1989: 7,213,000
1939-1945: 1,894,000
2010-2014: 647,000

...which puts into context today's DT headline "Christmas strike chaos: 100,000 extra days lost to industrial action this year as Theresa May says unions have 'contempt' for passengers", taking the total to 281,000 for 2016.

I wish I could find the clip somewhere of Arthur Scargill, in the 1970s, I think, being perfectly plain that he would use the NUM's power to try bring down the government of the day. Or Denis Healey admitting that the Labour government was unable to contain the unions, and that 'someone like Margaret Thatcher' (I paraphrase, as my memory might be slightly wonky) had to happen sooner or later.

Sorry not to be spouting leftiebollox for you, Stevo. I know you'll be disappointed.

Interesting stats and good progress. Just need to make it harder for hard line union bosses to use union members as pawns in their little game.

A trumpeter I sometimes play with worked in the West End back in the 70's, and the show he was playing in almost stopped when he had the temerity to move one of the music stands out of the pit: the stands have an electric light in, and therefore it was the job of the electricians to move the stands.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

A trumpeter I sometimes play with worked in the West End back in the 70's, and the show he was playing in almost stopped when he had the temerity to move one of the music stands out of the pit: the stands have an electric light in, and therefore it was the job of the electricians to move the stands.

Nearly as trivial as who opens and closes train doors.

Garry H

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

A trumpeter I sometimes play with worked in the West End back in the 70's, and the show he was playing in almost stopped when he had the temerity to move one of the music stands out of the pit: the stands have an electric light in, and therefore it was the job of the electricians to move the stands.

Nearly as trivial as who opens and closes train doors.

Eh? I thought they opened by magic. Are you saying that someone has to actually press a button? If so, no wonder they are striking. Power to the people!

Stevo_666

Garry H wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

A trumpeter I sometimes play with worked in the West End back in the 70's, and the show he was playing in almost stopped when he had the temerity to move one of the music stands out of the pit: the stands have an electric light in, and therefore it was the job of the electricians to move the stands.

Nearly as trivial as who opens and closes train doors.

Eh? I thought they opened by magic. Are you saying that someone has to actually press a button? If so, no wonder they are striking. Power to the people!

Needs a lot of skill and training apparently and could never be done by just anyone. That's why it pays so well.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

I think that's a loaded and misleading question.

I don't, but I don't think it's relevant to the debate, bluntly.

I think we need to be careful about reactionary legislation against collective action because it may have unintended consequences.

It may very well stop things like Southern Rail happening (though, as some would suggest, the operator is quite comfortable to have the strikes since they make money either way, and if they get the public on their side they can have the gov't legislate further against the workers), but there are increasing numbers of instances where workers are being abused and taken advantage of, and, I would argue, part of that is down to the difficulties of arranging collective action.

I feel it quite keenly in my industry. There is no TU, there is no co-ordinated action, and there are absolutely firms, and firms I have worked for, who take advantage of that. I don't think, in the instances I've seen in my own industry, that it's been beneficial to anyone apart from the short term bank balances of the bosses.

So I think we need to be very careful before restricting the rights for collective action further.

Some have quite convincingly argued that the lack of bargaining power on behalf of workers has reduced the general income and quality of life, and, from my own experience, I have some sympathy for that.

It's very relevant to the issue of unions abusing their power.

I am only talkimg about legislating to stop this sort of abuse by union bosses, not clamping down on strike action over genuine grievance. Nobody but the most rabid leftie is going to claim that manufacturing strikes to bring the government down is a genuine grievance.

In these cases peoples pay and livelihoods are being put at risk becuase of the political agendas of union bosses.

Are we still talking about just ASLEF/RMT or are we now including postal workers, baggage handlers, pilots and cabin crew? You seem to be lumping everyone in with the Southern dispute. The latter well be a rail union/DfT power struggle, but the others seem to pass the genuine grievance test. Suggesting that any of them are specifically trying to engineer a change of government (much as some might welcome it) seems a bit hysterical Stevo. Something which I'm sure you wouldn't condone

cycleclinic

While strikes maybe less frequent the current crop have a very 70's feel to them. I love 70's music and car design but the politics can stay history. Just as the unions are trying to preserve pay comditons and jobs for a dwindling union memenership the world of work is changing beyond recognition.

It does seem to me the unions are fighting battles of past thinking they are the battles of the future. However the nature of work is changing and this is technology driven (IT, transport, communications e.t.c) so the jnumber of people employed by big companies on fixed hours for a fixed sum is decreasing as a percentage of the workforce. That maybe something unions dont like but trying to stop work patterns and work roles changing like in the train strikes is like trying to hold back flood waters, you may suceed for a while and hold the line but somewhere a breach will happen. Better to try to figure out what work is going to look like and use political means rather strikes to change employment conditions for the better rather than trying to protevt individual causes. Strikes have never worked in the long run the change ends up happening. The post office workers may not like the fact that some branches need to close but they do and in the end branches will close and jobs will be lost.

I was a member of the nut once but they annoyed with yet another strike on pay. My pay was good at the time and imcreasing. There were strikes over pensions again i thought i thought pensions where good under the goverment proposals so i did not strike even though a strike was called (i thought and still think massive pension reform is needed for them to be sustainable in the long term so fighting to keep what we had was pointless to me). Train drivers dont have a bad deal i would like there pay so get back to work. If they think there job becomes unfsafe they can leave but if they choose to stay it says something about the pay and conditions doesn't it. I suspect train drivers if southern gets its way will stay. It is prison officers that face real dangers at work and they are not allowed to strike. So instead they voted with there feet and leave and this has caused more alarm bells in government than any strike they could have called. Pay and conditions are not good enough to keep them.


I may seem a bit tory here but i am not, i just have dislike of union poltics from those few years i was a member. No matter gievance if you get to the point that the only course of action is a strike you have lost. I'd like to know a strike which has had a benefical effect on that sector 20 years hense.

tangled_metal

Well put. I like your argument and it's based at least partly on personal experience of a union.

As a university student I got taken to a chemical plant. We got split into small groups led by a manager/engineer in the company. I got shown around by an engineer who had risen into a more senior managerial role. He said something in response to a question on unions. "You don't need unions with strong management".

That led to further questions. What he meant was a strong and capable management gave people little reason to complain. The company was well.run for shareholders and employees. There was no guaranteed job security but everyone knew what was happening in the company. Good communication and strong leadership. There was no union presence at that company. Why join a union when there was no need for one.

So that makes me think that a lot of issues with unions come from two fronts. Union barons making a political point and historically weak leadership / bad decision-making from the senior management. The former issue can only be solved by control of union activity. The latter is probably hard to remedy.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

they are not, the airline baggage handlers have agreed to a revised pay offer, calling off their strike over the xmas period, with good will on all sides, almost any industrial disagreement can be resolved

where is there any evidence for your claims? an individual claiming he is going to do x y or z isnt evidence, it is hearsay.

rjsterry

thecycleclinic wrote:

It is prison officers that face real dangers at work and they are not allowed to strike. So instead they voted with there feet and leave and this has caused more alarm bells in government than any strike they could have called. Pay and conditions are not good enough to keep them.

Seems pretty clear that government has just ignored the issue until the problems got so bad that they can't be hidden (suicide, violence riots and drug use in prisons all on the increase). I was going to say until they are forced to take action, but it's obviously not quite bad enough yet, as there are just a few vague mumbling about increased recruitment. And how would this strategy - effectively mass resignations - produce a useful result in other industries?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

I think that's a loaded and misleading question.

I don't, but I don't think it's relevant to the debate, bluntly.

I think we need to be careful about reactionary legislation against collective action because it may have unintended consequences.

It may very well stop things like Southern Rail happening (though, as some would suggest, the operator is quite comfortable to have the strikes since they make money either way, and if they get the public on their side they can have the gov't legislate further against the workers), but there are increasing numbers of instances where workers are being abused and taken advantage of, and, I would argue, part of that is down to the difficulties of arranging collective action.

I feel it quite keenly in my industry. There is no TU, there is no co-ordinated action, and there are absolutely firms, and firms I have worked for, who take advantage of that. I don't think, in the instances I've seen in my own industry, that it's been beneficial to anyone apart from the short term bank balances of the bosses.

So I think we need to be very careful before restricting the rights for collective action further.

Some have quite convincingly argued that the lack of bargaining power on behalf of workers has reduced the general income and quality of life, and, from my own experience, I have some sympathy for that.

It's very relevant to the issue of unions abusing their power.

I am only talkimg about legislating to stop this sort of abuse by union bosses, not clamping down on strike action over genuine grievance. Nobody but the most rabid leftie is going to claim that manufacturing strikes to bring the government down is a genuine grievance.

In these cases peoples pay and livelihoods are being put at risk becuase of the political agendas of union bosses.

Are we still talking about just ASLEF/RMT or are we now including postal workers, baggage handlers, pilots and cabin crew? You seem to be lumping everyone in with the Southern dispute. The latter well be a rail union/DfT power struggle, but the others seem to pass the genuine grievance test. Suggesting that any of them are specifically trying to engineer a change of government (much as some might welcome it) seems a bit hysterical Stevo. Something which I'm sure you wouldn't condone

Nope, just targeted action against cases such as the recent one where there is video footage of union bosses stating they are calling strikes to bring about regime change. Clear abuse of rights/power, exploiting union employees and causing misery for the general public. Common sense really.

Would you disagree with that?

mamba80

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

He is the only one who is stupid enough to have spoken about it publically. No smoke without fire as they say. Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

He is the only one who is stupid enough to have spoken about it publically. No smoke without fire as they say. Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

So we are going with hysteria.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

He is the only one who is stupid enough to have spoken about it publically. No smoke without fire as they say. Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

So we are going with hysteria.

Just asking for evidence. I take it you have none based on your attempt to divert

The attempted diversionary tactics of the leftiebollox brigade does smack of desperation

rick_chasey

It's a bit odd Stevo starts a thread about how him joining the party to vote Corbyn in would ruin labour and make them unelectable, while he quakes in fear at the meddling of the odd TU.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

He is the only one who is stupid enough to have spoken about it publically. No smoke without fire as they say. Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

So we are going with hysteria.

Just asking for evidence. I take it you have none based on your attempt to divert

The attempted diversionary tactics of the leftiebollox brigade does smack of desperation

Diverting? You mean ignoring a pointless question? Yes, guilty. Mick Cash reportedly made some comment about bringing down the government, and even though the idea is laughable, the various strikes are obviously not coordinated or even related, and Cash has denied the comments, you think a change in the law is necessary?
It's all getting a bit 'reds under the bed', don't you think?

cycleclinic

To answer the earlier question if train drivers think driver opperated trains are dangerous then striking is not the way to say it. Letting southern implement this then voting with your feet and leaving is. They would quickly see they have a real problem not enough drivers to run the trains and would think uhmm maybe we got this wrong.

Striking is about having your cake and eating it. Not possible I'm afraid. I supported relucantly an NUT strike once and regreted it. another reason why I left teaching, a profession riddled with unionism that acheives little except repeating the same old same old. the government have no clue on education so they piss off teachers. Unions go on strike about this that and the other but the government still has no clue. What exactly has been achieved. If teachers just went and did something else then maybe something would change until then the government see it can get away with having no clue. Of course mass resignations never happen but it is almost happening in the prison service. So many are taking early retirement it ammounts to the same thing. More officers leave than are recruited and the 2500 officers the justice secretary wants to recruit wont cover it.

Bad management leads to strikes. Striking does not make management better it makes it worse as the management has a crisis to deal with. If you feel you have to strike you have already lost, you just dont know it.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

ONE union boss steve, get your facts straight.

as i said though, hearsay, as he has nt the power to do anything of the sort.

He is the only one who is stupid enough to have spoken about it publically. No smoke without fire as they say. Do you have any evidence that he is lying?

So we are going with hysteria.

Just asking for evidence. I take it you have none based on your attempt to divert

The attempted diversionary tactics of the leftiebollox brigade does smack of desperation

Steveo, you stated union BOSSES ! ie more than one, where is YOUR evidence for this claim? no, you ve not got any have you? just spouting off what you ve read in the sun/Mail or Express.
the RMT president voiced his opinions, this isnt evidence of anything at all, it is classed as hearsay....

You seem to think that the unions can bring about a change of Government, how? they just do not have any really power these days, for starters we d need a GE (difficult due to the fixed term parliament)

the current Gov are far more likely be voted out at the next GE by Brexit, this is possibly what you are most worried about?

rjsterry

thecycleclinic wrote:

To answer the earlier question if train drivers think driver opperated trains are dangerous then striking is not the way to say it. Letting southern implement this then voting with your feet and leaving is. They would quickly see they have a real problem not enough drivers to run the trains and would think uhmm maybe we got this wrong.

Striking is about having your cake and eating it. Not possible I'm afraid. I supported relucantly an NUT strike once and regreted it. another reason why I left teaching, a profession riddled with unionism that acheives little except repeating the same old same old. the government have no clue on education so they wee-wee off teachers. Unions go on strike about this that and the other but the government still has no clue. What exactly has been achieved. If teachers just went and did something else then maybe something would change until then the government see it can get away with having no clue. Of course mass resignations never happen but it is almost happening in the prison service. So many are taking early retirement it ammounts to the same thing. More officers leave than are recruited and the 2500 officers the justice secretary wants to recruit wont cover it.

Bad management leads to strikes. Striking does not make management better it makes it worse as the management has a crisis to deal with. If you feel you have to strike you have already lost, you just dont know it.

It's the only option open to me if I had some grievance with my employer as there are no unions in my line of work. That said, I'm still not convinced it is an effective strategy. I know of a few examples where people do vote with their feet, but some employers seem happy to live with a high rate of staff turnover. This also supposes that resignation is a realistic option for people - in many cases that isn't the case.

I agree with your point about strikes being the result of bad management, possibly on both sides, but if both sides are prepared to talk (Swissport and their workers) then there is a way back from the brink.