Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

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?

The link I posted was from the Independent...

Think about this mamba; if a union boss says that he is coordinating strikes to achieve an aim the logically he has to be coordinating with others - who in reality would need to be other union bosses, wouldn't they. :roll: Sorry if my use of the plural annoys you so much but its not unreasonable.

Now, got any evidence that he is lying as I asked you before?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

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?

They're not under the bed, they're on strike.

There is evidence that they are being coordinated that you have done nothing to refute. I said above a law change to stop this specific abuse would be useful : you seem bet keen to let the unions carry on like this?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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?

They're not under the bed, they're on strike.

There is evidence that they are being coordinated that you have done nothing to refute. I said above a law change to stop this specific abuse would be useful : you seem bet keen to let the unions carry on like this?

If you look at the BBC's report you'll see that he has denied the comments. As far as the report is 'evidence' that he was coordinating strikes (which ones, with whom?), then the denial can be considered evidence to the contrary. If we want to talk about avoiding questions, please explain in detail how we get from the Southern dispute to a forced GE. You appear to be saying that the law should be changed to prevent union leaders from doing something that they already don't have the power to do.

I think I've already posted that I think the Southern dispute is six of one and half a dozen of the other. On the plus side, at least we know there are definitely no Southern trains running, rather than the previous uncertainty of whether one would turn up or not.

tangled_metal

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

tangled_metal

One thing though, i don't trust train driver's motives. Transport unions are too strong for my liking. As a grandson of two railwaymen and others worked their life in the business I am confident in saying unions do not make railways better.

My late grandfather, a driver his working life, was very much a union socialist. I had one political conversation with him and subject closed. I think even mambo would look to his left politically to see him. I learnt the depth of union in railwaymen from that conversation. Union above all else is how I see the core of rail unions.

mrfpb

So Jamie Reed MP (Copeland, LAbour) is leaving Parliament 18months into his first five year term. (I think they need to relook at the rules about MPs quitting mid term, as this has happened a lot since they relaxed the rules).

Anyway, he has a traditionaly Labour safe seat where there was a 13% swing to UKIP in 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/cons ... /E14000647

The constituency voted 62% leave

So could be a good indicator for Labour's popularity. They are defending a majoirty of 2,564 votes.

tangled_metal

Can't wait for next GE. Labour seat next to my constituency was carried by 2015 new intake, female and a 336 or so majority. Good pressure point on her to be a good constituency MP not Westminster politico. Drop her majority into conversation and her schedule will suddenly include time for you. Cruel entertainment should be had next GE.

Still it's so far off she could leave before then. Although i don't think she's the type to go against the shadow chancellor so could last 5 years.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

They would have be a crime though lol!
Stop digging Steve, your sounding ridiculous ..... yet again

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

They would have be a crime though lol!
Stop digging Steve, your sounding ridiculous ..... yet again

Have a look here - seems it is pretty well known what the hard left union bosses are up to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/trade-unions-are-undergoing-corbynisation--but-their-golden-age/

Quote from the article:
"Next month Mr McDonnell will address a rally organised by the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), a UK-wide band of disgruntled trade union activists whose primary aim is to coordinate strike action between different unions. Its website states that “organising mutual solidarity when trade unions are in dispute is at the heart of [NSSN’s] work”. It aims to “build a movement that can help sweep the anti-union laws off the books and make them inoperable in the meantime.”

“Organising mutual solidarity”, for those unfamiliar with modern LeftSpeak, is code for secondary industrial action – going on strike and harming your employer for no other reason than to support someone else’s complaint against theirs. This is the stuff men like McDonnell and Corbyn have campaigned for throughout their lives. "

Funny how all the lefties 'don't notice' this sort of thing

Do you really want the unions screwing thing up for us like they used to? You're old enough to remember the havoc they caused when they were let out of their box.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

They would have be a crime though lol!
Stop digging Steve, your sounding ridiculous ..... yet again

Have a look here - seems it is pretty well known what the hard left union bosses are up to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/trade-unions-are-undergoing-corbynisation--but-their-golden-age/

Quote from the article:
"Next month Mr McDonnell will address a rally organised by the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), a UK-wide band of disgruntled trade union activists whose primary aim is to coordinate strike action between different unions. Its website states that “organising mutual solidarity when trade unions are in dispute is at the heart of [NSSN’s] work”. It aims to “build a movement that can help sweep the anti-union laws off the books and make them inoperable in the meantime.”

“Organising mutual solidarity”, for those unfamiliar with modern LeftSpeak, is code for secondary industrial action – going on strike and harming your employer for no other reason than to support someone else’s complaint against theirs. This is the stuff men like McDonnell and Corbyn have campaigned for throughout their lives. "

Funny how all the lefties 'don't notice' this sort of thing

Do you really want the unions screwing thing up for us like they used to? You're old enough to remember the havoc they caused when they were let out of their box.

Clearly the next October Revolution is just around the corner
I've no doubt there are a fair few hard left union members who would love to bring down the government. But you still haven't explained how this would happen. Secondary industrial action is already illegal but supposing enough separate disputes could be manufactured, those workers balloted for strike action and then enough strikes called to generate enough public bad feeling that Theresa May decides the only way to settle it is to break the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a snap election. Are you seriously suggesting in that (extremely unlikely) scenario everyone would flock to Corbyn's Labour?

rjsterry

Double post

rick_chasey

Would be ironic given how the thread started.

rick_chasey

Dupe

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

They would have be a crime though lol!
Stop digging Steve, your sounding ridiculous ..... yet again

Have a look here - seems it is pretty well known what the hard left union bosses are up to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/trade-unions-are-undergoing-corbynisation--but-their-golden-age/

Quote from the article:
"Next month Mr McDonnell will address a rally organised by the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), a UK-wide band of disgruntled trade union activists whose primary aim is to coordinate strike action between different unions. Its website states that “organising mutual solidarity when trade unions are in dispute is at the heart of [NSSN’s] work”. It aims to “build a movement that can help sweep the anti-union laws off the books and make them inoperable in the meantime.”

“Organising mutual solidarity”, for those unfamiliar with modern LeftSpeak, is code for secondary industrial action – going on strike and harming your employer for no other reason than to support someone else’s complaint against theirs. This is the stuff men like McDonnell and Corbyn have campaigned for throughout their lives. "

Funny how all the lefties 'don't notice' this sort of thing

Do you really want the unions screwing thing up for us like they used to? You're old enough to remember the havoc they caused when they were let out of their box.

Nothing to notice steve0, you dont appear to know how difficult it to go on strike and any strike has to have a democratic mandate....... learn the deference between fact and supposition.

Give it rest, your flogging a dead horse.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Would be ironic given how the thread started.

Deliciously so.

tangled_metal

This rightie can even see how irrelevant a bunch of lower level union members meeting in an unsanctioned organization to discuss how to coordinate action is.

They're not the leadership of any union only the foot soldiers and probably not even the majority of them

They don't dictate union policy.

They don't make the decisions in negotiations, disputes, strike action or anything. They're not coordinating anything. Well they might be involved in the Labour party trying to subvert it, using momentum and the new classes of membership to get their guys into the Labour leadership. Didn't Stevo contribute to getting their guy into the top Labour post? Are you one of those shop stewards Stevo?

Seriously, as a right of centre sort I'm missing the old levels of quality that the Torygraph once had. It feels like they've gone a bit far. Becoming the daily mail every year. That article seems like it's clutching at straws to make a case for a new winter of discontent coming.

briantrumpet

Tangled Metal wrote:

Seriously, as a right of centre sort I'm missing the old levels of quality that the Torygraph once had. It feels like they've gone a bit far. Becoming the daily mail every year. That article seems like it's clutching at straws to make a case for a new winter of discontent coming.

That's my own sadness about the DT. It's been something I've read off and on since I was born (well, shortly after) - I can remember the moment I read about Elvis's death, in the Late News panel. And yet now it reads like a shouty right rag with an agenda, with a distinctly unpleasant edge.

joelsim

Tangled Metal wrote:

This rightie can even see how irrelevant a bunch of lower level union members meeting in an unsanctioned organization to discuss how to coordinate action is.

They're not the leadership of any union only the foot soldiers and probably not even the majority of them

They don't dictate union policy.

They don't make the decisions in negotiations, disputes, strike action or anything. They're not coordinating anything. Well they might be involved in the Labour party trying to subvert it, using momentum and the new classes of membership to get their guys into the Labour leadership. Didn't Stevo contribute to getting their guy into the top Labour post? Are you one of those shop stewards Stevo?

Seriously, as a right of centre sort I'm missing the old levels of quality that the Torygraph once had. It feels like they've gone a bit far. Becoming the daily mail every year. That article seems like it's clutching at straws to make a case for a new winter of discontent coming.

Exactly that. Steve can't see this Govt wanting a snoopers charter, stopping any strikes, talking about a tax haven, allowing the complete p!ss take of workers and their rights, cosying up to big business, refusing to refer Murdoch's Sky bid to Ofcom...and the rest, is basically a gross dereliction of duty and care. And that's before we consider an extra £220bn borrowing vs forecast at the very minimum.

A Britain that works for everyone.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Let me get this straight. Union boss said something which was recorded and that's evidence? IIRC the standard to be able to call that evidence is at least one form of corroboration. Such as another union boss being recorded or even some other person acknowledging that said union boss is part of a conspiracy.

Until there is some form of corroboration this does not count as evidence only one idiot spouting off. BTW I would love to see unions being legislated against but i can see no justification for it based on that one set of comments from one union baron.

So if I had been caught on video confessing to committing a crime, you don't think the prosecution would use that as evidence?

They would have be a crime though lol!
Stop digging Steve, your sounding ridiculous ..... yet again

Have a look here - seems it is pretty well known what the hard left union bosses are up to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/trade-unions-are-undergoing-corbynisation--but-their-golden-age/

Quote from the article:
"Next month Mr McDonnell will address a rally organised by the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), a UK-wide band of disgruntled trade union activists whose primary aim is to coordinate strike action between different unions. Its website states that “organising mutual solidarity when trade unions are in dispute is at the heart of [NSSN’s] work”. It aims to “build a movement that can help sweep the anti-union laws off the books and make them inoperable in the meantime.”

“Organising mutual solidarity”, for those unfamiliar with modern LeftSpeak, is code for secondary industrial action – going on strike and harming your employer for no other reason than to support someone else’s complaint against theirs. This is the stuff men like McDonnell and Corbyn have campaigned for throughout their lives. "

Funny how all the lefties 'don't notice' this sort of thing

Do you really want the unions screwing thing up for us like they used to? You're old enough to remember the havoc they caused when they were let out of their box.

Clearly the next October Revolution is just around the corner
I've no doubt there are a fair few hard left union members who would love to bring down the government. But you still haven't explained how this would happen. Secondary industrial action is already illegal but supposing enough separate disputes could be manufactured, those workers balloted for strike action and then enough strikes called to generate enough public bad feeling that Theresa May decides the only way to settle it is to break the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a snap election. Are you seriously suggesting in that (extremely unlikely) scenario everyone would flock to Corbyn's Labour?

I never said they could - just that they were trying to. But in the process causing misery and major inconvenience for large numbers of people who have nothing to do with the unions dispute.

And good point - what better way for unions to circumvent secondary picketing rules than by coordinating to stir up separate disputes.

I am not worried about people turning to Labour, Corbyn has seen to that.

briantrumpet

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.

Oh dear, seems like the coordinated attack is falling apart already. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -christmas

These reds-under-the-bed aren't what they used to be.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet 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.

Oh dear, seems like the coordinated attack is falling apart already. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -christmas

These reds-under-the-bed aren't what they used to be.

They have suspended the strike. Whoopee.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet 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.

Oh dear, seems like the coordinated attack is falling apart already. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -christmas

These reds-under-the-bed aren't what they used to be.

They have suspended the strike. Whoopee.

Glad to make you so happy. Woohoo.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet 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.

Oh dear, seems like the coordinated attack is falling apart already. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -christmas

These reds-under-the-bed aren't what they used to be.

They have suspended the strike. Whoopee.

Glad to make you so happy. Woohoo.

Not so much me as people who have booked holidays over Christmas. Likely others will suffer if they reinstate the strike at another quiet time of year.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

This rightie can even see how irrelevant a bunch of lower level union members meeting in an unsanctioned organization to discuss how to coordinate action is.

They're not the leadership of any union only the foot soldiers and probably not even the majority of them

They don't dictate union policy.

They don't make the decisions in negotiations, disputes, strike action or anything. They're not coordinating anything. Well they might be involved in the Labour party trying to subvert it, using momentum and the new classes of membership to get their guys into the Labour leadership. Didn't Stevo contribute to getting their guy into the top Labour post? Are you one of those shop stewards Stevo?

Seriously, as a right of centre sort I'm missing the old levels of quality that the Torygraph once had. It feels like they've gone a bit far. Becoming the daily mail every year. That article seems like it's clutching at straws to make a case for a new winter of discontent coming.

I'm a bit disappointed with you. You ask for corroboration and I give it. You then ignore it, tut tut. You're acting like a leftie.

Do you not think these people might make the claims because their big bosses had decided to take this course of action? Do you think that there is no possibility of a link between strikes in the rail, post and airline sectors at the same time?

Bit suspicious really.

P.S. Sean Hoyle - who made the statement about coordinating action - is the RMT president. Just a lower level union member eh? Probably a good idea to check your facts before making claims like that

briantrumpet

Whether or not there's some flaky & shady union conspiracy going on, there's little to cheer Labour anyway, it seems: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... servatives

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

I never said they could - just that they were trying to. But in the process causing misery and major inconvenience for large numbers of people who have nothing to do with the unions dispute.

Southern have been doing quite well at inflicting misery and major inconvenience long before any industrial action started.

And good point - what better way for unions to circumvent secondary picketing rules than by coordinating to stir up separate disputes.

Sorry, you are still going to have to explain how we get from some bolshy shop stewards talking nonsense to coordinated strikes. In order for an industrial dispute to arise, the employer would first need to attempt to alter the terms of employment - say, some changes to pension arrangements - which a union with significant representation at that employer thought was unacceptable. If a negotiated solution to that dispute can't be reached, then the unions can ballot members on strike action, and only if members vote for that action can it go ahead. So how does the NSSN arrange for all these employers - BA, Swissport, GTR, Post Office, etc. - to coordinate some unacceptable changes to their terms of employment? Is it an inside job?

I am not worried about people turning to Labour, Corbyn has seen to that.

Well what are you worried about? We've already established that working days lost to strikes are fewer than average - a quick Google suggests fourth fewest since 2000 and between 30 and 100 times fewer than the late '70s. We've established that unions can't actually overthrow the government. Could this all be, ahem, rightiebollox?

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Sorry, you are still going to have to explain how we get from some bolshy shop stewards talking nonsense to coordinated strikes.

And so well co-ordinated that one of the three has been called off.

rjsterry

By the way, while reading up on Sean Hoyle - frankly you'd be surprised if he didn't say the things he is accused of - I spotted that the RMT are balloting for industrial action somewhere several times a month.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/about/ballot-results/

Given that outside Southern trains are more or less running, maybe rail workers aren't as intent on the downfall of capitalism as Stevo or Mr Hoyle thinks, and/or some employers are better at handling the RMT than others.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I never said they could - just that they were trying to. But in the process causing misery and major inconvenience for large numbers of people who have nothing to do with the unions dispute.

Southern have been doing quite well at inflicting misery and major inconvenience long before any industrial action started.

Southern's service was pretty crap but it was much better when their staff weren't striking over the major issue of who opens train doors.

rjsterry wrote:

And good point - what better way for unions to circumvent secondary picketing rules than by coordinating to stir up separate disputes.

Sorry, you are still going to have to explain how we get from some bolshy shop stewards talking nonsense to coordinated strikes. In order for an industrial dispute to arise, the employer would first need to attempt to alter the terms of employment - say, some changes to pension arrangements - which a union with significant representation at that employer thought was unacceptable. If a negotiated solution to that dispute can't be reached, then the unions can ballot members on strike action, and only if members vote for that action can it go ahead. So how does the NSSN arrange for all these employers - BA, Swissport, GTR, Post Office, etc. - to coordinate some unacceptable changes to their terms of employment? Is it an inside job?

You are a bit naive. First it wasn't a shop steward as I mentioned above - it was the RMT president. Then do you think it is really coincidence that these are all happening at the same time? Most of the union bosses will be clever enough to have these sorts of conversations in private/off the record - only one of them opened his mouth without thinking and then when he realised they had been rumbled he tried to retract what he said - presumably after a few angry phone calls from his peer group...

And can you show me that these are all changes that they are disputing - I thought some were just that they thought they were not getting paid enough. As you said yourself, some unions have been campaigning for ages over some issues so why all the strikes at the same time?

rjsterry wrote:

I am not worried about people turning to Labour, Corbyn has seen to that.

Well what are you worried about? We've already established that working days lost to strikes are fewer than average - a quick Google suggests fourth fewest since 2000 and between 30 and 100 times fewer than the late '70s. We've established that unions can't actually overthrow the government. Could this all be, ahem, rightiebollox?

Ask a Southern rail customer or someone else impacted by the strikes what they are worried about. I've said it before - by all means have a dispute with your employer but don't make others suffer to extort concessions.