Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

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.

Good news for people who will no longer be affected.

mamba80

Uniongate .... here are the latest outlandish theories by our investigative forum member.... Steve0

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Uniongate .... here are the latest outlandish theories by our investigative forum member.... Steve0

But still no evidence that he was lying

Alain Quay

This thread should be in another forum e.g. Chewing the fat.

Most reasonable people know that the Labour leadership is diabolical, nonetheless Brexit was the misselling* of a dodgy portfolio and the Tories are getting an easy ride while Jeremy and co. re-play the 1970s. Why repeat it endlessly?

* Misselling is the deliberate, reckless, or negligent sale of products or services in circumstances where the contract is either misrepresented, or the product or service is unsuitable for the customer's needs.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

I am a Southern customer.l - in as much as you can be a customer of Southern when they don't provide a service. I said before that the strike is a pain but it's actually easier to plan for a total lack of trains than the daily cancellations and delays that were all Southern's fault.
I know Sean Hoyle is not a shop steward - I think you posted the article blaming the NSSN. Having read round their website and Sean's RMT profile, I'm sure they would like to coordinate strikes, I just don't see how they can practically achieve this. As you keep dodging the question, I assume you aren't sure either.
To answer your other question, the RMT website has a list of ballots; I presume the CWU and others will do likewise.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

I am a Southern customer.l - in as much as you can be a customer of Southern when they don't provide a service. I said before that the strike is a pain but it's actually easier to plan for a total lack of trains than the daily cancellations and delays that were all Southern's fault.
I know Sean Hoyle is not a shop steward - I think you posted the article blaming the NSSN. Having read round their website and Sean's RMT profile, I'm sure they would like to coordinate strikes, I just don't see how they can practically achieve this. As you keep dodging the question, I assume you aren't sure either.
To answer your other question, the RMT website has a list of ballots; I presume the CWU and others will do likewise.

I've posted the evidence that I can find - although as I mentioned the union bosses would have had these meetings/conversations in private/off the record if they had any sense. But the RMT president saying that it is happening on video is pretty good evidence as far as I'm concerned.

Then and add to that the fact that there a number of fairly high profile strikes going on at the same time, at a time of year when it causes major inconvenience...I think it is likely that they are being coordinated, wouldn't you?

briantrumpet

Ah, Stevo's right. It's co-ordinated. Three school cleaners went on strike, to bring the country to its knees. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -christmas

Anyway, they've been sacked.

mamba80

briantrumpet wrote:

Ah, Stevo's right. It's co-ordinated. Three school cleaners went on strike, to bring the country to its knees. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -christmas

Anyway, they've been sacked.

from the article.....
In one email seen by the Guardian, the company’s head of human resources, Stephen Stevo, replied to Unison: “I understand … the impact for you as an organisation when members realise that we are no longer living in the 1980s and they question the actual value of union membership when you have no say, power or influence over their employer.”

Pretty much sums up why i and millions of others dont belong to a union anymore.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Ah, Stevo's right. It's co-ordinated. Three school cleaners went on strike, to bring the country to its knees. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -christmas

Anyway, they've been sacked.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate...being sarcastic seems to be your default. Try harder.

BTW they are daft, they should have just waited until the higher minimum wage kicks in.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate...being sarcastic seems to be your default. Try harder.

Mark Steel's made a career out of it. Obviously one of your heroes.

Damn, there I go again.

rick_chasey

Stevo likes to spend a lot of time commenting on the victims of strike action, but I've never seen him comment on the victims of employers exploiting their workforce.

Both happens - there needs to be a mechanism to balance both.

Collective bargaining is a way to do that from the employees' perspective, but the threat to the employer has to be real.

In the same way the employer needs to threaten its employees with losing their jobs - which they often do.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo likes to spend a lot of time commenting on the victims of strike action, but I've never seen him comment on the victims of employers exploiting their workforce.

Both happens - there needs to be a mechanism to balance both.

Collective bargaining is a way to do that from the employees' perspective, but the threat to the employer has to be real.

In the same way the employer needs to threaten its employees with losing their jobs - which they often do.

Nothing wrong with looking at what see to be an abuse by the unions - just because some other employers abuse their workforce does not mean that what the unions are doing here is OK.

Feel free to start a debate about employer abuses if you want.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate...being sarcastic seems to be your default. Try harder.

Mark Steel's made a career out of it. Obviously one of your heroes.

Damn, there I go again.

Your choice. Personally I prefer not to make being a smartarse my default position

Never heard of Mark Steel.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ah, Stevo's right. It's co-ordinated. Three school cleaners went on strike, to bring the country to its knees. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -christmas

Anyway, they've been sacked.

from the article.....
In one email seen by the Guardian, the company’s head of human resources, Stephen Stevo, replied to Unison: “I understand … the impact for you as an organisation when members realise that we are no longer living in the 1980s and they question the actual value of union membership when you have no say, power or influence over their employer.”

Pretty much sums up why i and millions of others dont belong to a union anymore.

Good point - what is the point of unions in that case?

I never have and never will belong to a union - never needed to or seen the need.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo likes to spend a lot of time commenting on the victims of strike action, but I've never seen him comment on the victims of employers exploiting their workforce.

Both happens - there needs to be a mechanism to balance both.

Collective bargaining is a way to do that from the employees' perspective, but the threat to the employer has to be real.

In the same way the employer needs to threaten its employees with losing their jobs - which they often do.

Nothing wrong with looking at what see to be an abuse by the unions - just because some other employers abuse their workforce does not mean that what the unions are doing here is OK.

Feel free to start a debate about employer abuses if you want.

a) it is part of the debate. One is the other side to the other. You can't fully discuss TUs without it. It's like discussing stocks going up without discussing stocks going down.

b) I did mention it previously - you just ignored it: viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&p=20028052&hilit=sports+direct#p20028053

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo likes to spend a lot of time commenting on the victims of strike action, but I've never seen him comment on the victims of employers exploiting their workforce.

Both happens - there needs to be a mechanism to balance both.

Collective bargaining is a way to do that from the employees' perspective, but the threat to the employer has to be real.

In the same way the employer needs to threaten its employees with losing their jobs - which they often do.

Nothing wrong with looking at what see to be an abuse by the unions - just because some other employers abuse their workforce does not mean that what the unions are doing here is OK.

Feel free to start a debate about employer abuses if you want.

a) it is part of the debate. One is the other side to the other. You can't fully discuss TUs without it. It's like discussing stocks going up without discussing stocks going down.

b) I did mention it previously - you just ignored it: viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&p=20028052&hilit=sports+direct#p20028053

I can consider one side it and I just have. Stopping the sort of abuses I am referring to does not take away from employers rights on the other side. Just stops unions abusing their power.

rick_chasey

Making it harder to strike directly reduces the power employees have.

Employees with less power are easier to be exploited.

If you can't get your head around it, it explains why you're constantly arguing with everyone on the thread on it.

briantrumpet

Oh, I'd missed the other good news of the baggage handlers' dispute being called off. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... called-off

Seems like the threat of a strike led to Swissport agreeing to talks at Acas, and like the BA dispute, the talks led to improved offers that the union recommended accepting. If this is a co-ordinated plot by the unions to bring about revolution, they're not following the script very well.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Never heard of Mark Steel.

Really? He's been around for some time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steel

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ah, Stevo's right. It's co-ordinated. Three school cleaners went on strike, to bring the country to its knees. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -christmas

Anyway, they've been sacked.

from the article.....
In one email seen by the Guardian, the company’s head of human resources, Stephen Stevo, replied to Unison: “I understand … the impact for you as an organisation when members realise that we are no longer living in the 1980s and they question the actual value of union membership when you have no say, power or influence over their employer.”

Pretty much sums up why i and millions of others dont belong to a union anymore.

Good point - what is the point of unions in that case?

I never have and never will belong to a union - never needed to or seen the need.

Well you say that, but you were boasting of your solidarity with your comrades in rural France on the EU thread.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo likes to spend a lot of time commenting on the victims of strike action, but I've never seen him comment on the victims of employers exploiting their workforce.

Both happens - there needs to be a mechanism to balance both.

Collective bargaining is a way to do that from the employees' perspective, but the threat to the employer has to be real.

In the same way the employer needs to threaten its employees with losing their jobs - which they often do.

Nothing wrong with looking at what see to be an abuse by the unions - just because some other employers abuse their workforce does not mean that what the unions are doing here is OK.

Feel free to start a debate about employer abuses if you want.

a) it is part of the debate. One is the other side to the other. You can't fully discuss TUs without it. It's like discussing stocks going up without discussing stocks going down.

b) I did mention it previously - you just ignored it: viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&p=20028052&hilit=sports+direct#p20028053

I can consider one side it and I just have. Stopping the sort of abuses I am referring to does not take away from employers rights on the other side. Just stops unions abusing their power.

But you have claimed at several points that they don't have any real power. Which is it?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

But you have claimed at several points that they don't have any real power. Which is it?

Power as in government toppling power - no
Power to make life shyte for people who have nothing to do with their disputes - yes

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Well you say that, but you were boasting of your solidarity with your comrades in rural France on the EU thread.

I'm a generous soul really

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Making it harder to strike directly reduces the power employees have.

Employees with less power are easier to be exploited.

If you can't get your head around it, it explains why you're constantly arguing with everyone on the thread on it.

Not making it harder to hold any individual strike for its own reasons - just making it to link strikes together to achieve a purpose other than the benefit of the union members. The latter being the objective stated by the President of the RMT.

tangled_metal

Any whiff of another union boss talking about coordinated action? RMT need to coordinate with another union.

Stevo_666

Do pay attention at the back...

Stevo 666 wrote:

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:

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

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do pay attention at the back...

Stevo 666 wrote:

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:

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

And a difficult question for teacher Stevo at the front. Where is the evidence of coordination? Which other union decision maker has been caught out mentioning coordination other than the known idiot leading RMT? It takes two to tango as the saying goes.

Easy to deflect from weak "evidence" by putting the burden of proof on the opposing viewpoint, but if you make a statement it is on you to prove it. I think the consensus among posters from the left and right do not see the recorded, ramblings (probably private) of one union boss doesn't pass as good evidence.

ballysmate

Coordinated strike action? Perish the thought.
After Jezza's election last year the TUC was all about coordinated action. Last years conference, I grant you, but do you think these union leaders have changed their minds and are willing to give TM the benefit of the doubt?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... le-UK.html

Following this Autumn's statement

Mark Serwotka, Public and Commercial Services union general secretary:
"It is pure hypocrisy for the chancellor to talk about wanting to help struggling families but continue to hold down the wages of the government's own workforce who have suffered years and years of pay cuts. We will be talking to other unions in the coming weeks about taking action together to bring the pay freeze to an end, so we can put money back in people's pockets and help revive our flagging economy."


Serwotka is still singing the same tune about coordination.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do pay attention at the back...

Stevo 666 wrote:

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:

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

And a difficult question for teacher Stevo at the front. Where is the evidence of coordination? Which other union decision maker has been caught out mentioning coordination other than the known idiot leading RMT? It takes two to tango as the saying goes.

Easy to deflect from weak "evidence" by putting the burden of proof on the opposing viewpoint, but if you make a statement it is on you to prove it. I think the consensus among posters from the left and right do not see the recorded, ramblings (probably private) of one union boss doesn't pass as good evidence.

See above from Bally. Now show they are lying

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Coordinated strike action? Perish the thought.
After Jezza's election last year the TUC was all about coordinated action. Last years conference, I grant you, but do you think these union leaders have changed their minds and are willing to give TM the benefit of the doubt?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... le-UK.html

Following this Autumn's statement

Mark Serwotka, Public and Commercial Services union general secretary:
"It is pure hypocrisy for the chancellor to talk about wanting to help struggling families but continue to hold down the wages of the government's own workforce who have suffered years and years of pay cuts. We will be talking to other unions in the coming weeks about taking action together to bring the pay freeze to an end, so we can put money back in people's pockets and help revive our flagging economy."


Serwotka is still singing the same tune about coordination.

You need to read around a bit.
He's been in hospital since August and has just undergone a heart transplant, so I would guess that he isn't taking an active role in singing or any other union business right now. In any case, it is only secondary strike action that is illegal; unions would quite obviously coordinate other activity - lobbying, rallies, etc. - where they share a common goal - relieving public sector pay freeze in this case.