Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

If these latest strikes (some of which have now been called off) were coordinated, why have none of Southern, BA, Swissport and the Post Office raised this in court? It's not as though they haven't been trying other legal options to stop the strike action. Querying whether the strike ballot has been carried out properly is fairly standard.

I'm sure some would dearly love to try and recreate the 1926 General Strike, but that sort of thing is now illegal so how would it happen?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

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

You r the one who raised the issue of coordinated strike action... no one else, back it up or shut up.

briantrumpet

Well, the National Shop Stewards Network, in fighting spirit last week, says it "has a proud record of calling for the maximum joint action by the unions", but it reminds me a bit of Saddam Hussein and his claim about WMDs. They seem to want to present a fearsome face, but, given that three out of the four strikes they quote have been settled (at least for now), their claim seems, well, a bit pants. And if that's all the co-ordination they can manage it's unlikely that the country will be brought to a standstill just yet.

tangled_metal

Coordinating strikes or coordinating policy towards lobbying? What was serotka meaning or talking about when he mentioned coordination?

Employers have various organizations representing them from CBI to EEF for example. These organizations sometimes work together or coordinate to lobby government. Unions do the same. Both legal and TBH expected of them in the interests of their members. Anything illegal could easily be challenged.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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

You r the one who raised the issue of coordinated strike action... no one else, back it up or shut up.

Let's have a look at the evidence:
1. RMT president caught on video saying they will coordinate strikes - See my previous link - and taking action regardless of the law - See link below
2. PCS general secretary making a public statement about coordinating action - See Ballys post above
3. A number of strikes coincidentally called at Christmas - fact
4. NUT and BMA unions stating that they are plotting to coordinate strikes - see link below.
5. NSSN Secretary saying 'the govt has to be changed. The first step is action which link up all the disputes...' - see link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752116/Union-barons-strike-plot-topple-Tories-Junior-doctors-rail-guards-teachers-ordinate-walkouts-increase-chaos.html

So maybe you should shut up, stop ignoring the evidence and find some of your own that somehow demonstrates that all of these hard left union bosses are coincidentally telling the same lies

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's have a look at the evidence:
1. RMT president caught on video saying they will coordinate strikes - See my previous link - and taking action regardless of the law - See link below
2. PCS general secretary making a public statement about coordinating action - See Ballys post above
3. A number of strikes coincidentally called at Christmas - fact
4. NUT and BMA unions stating that they are plotting to coordinate strikes - see link below.
5. NSSN Secretary saying 'the govt has to be changed. The first step is action which link up all the disputes...' - see link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752116/Union-barons-strike-plot-topple-Tories-Junior-doctors-rail-guards-teachers-ordinate-walkouts-increase-chaos.html

So maybe you should shut up, stop ignoring the evidence and find some of your own that somehow demonstrates that all of these hard left union bosses are coincidentally telling the same lies

I'm not sure why you're getting in a stew though, even if the Daily Mail is telling the 100% truth in a story involving unions.

Leaving aside the RMT and Southern (which does look like a political dispute from both sides, with neither of the main players having a particular interest in settling early, and both wanting to make political points), all the other actions have fizzled/been settled. Both management and unions will talk tough when they are trying to defend their corner, so let's not be surprised when they do make, er, exaggerated claims about their potency. It's the way it's always been, though, of course, in the past, we knew the unions had the might and legal leeway to follow it through.

And, in any case, you should be happy if they did manage to 'topple the government', as, if the polls are to be believed, TM would be returned with a bigger majority. Perhaps you should even be encouraging the unions to try it on, for that very reason. This, perhaps, is the coup de grace to follow your strategy of getting Corbyn elected as Labour leader. What's not to like?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's have a look at the evidence:
1. RMT president caught on video saying they will coordinate strikes - See my previous link - and taking action regardless of the law - See link below
2. PCS general secretary making a public statement about coordinating action - See Ballys post above
3. A number of strikes coincidentally called at Christmas - fact
4. NUT and BMA unions stating that they are plotting to coordinate strikes - see link below.
5. NSSN Secretary saying 'the govt has to be changed. The first step is action which link up all the disputes...' - see link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752116/Union-barons-strike-plot-topple-Tories-Junior-doctors-rail-guards-teachers-ordinate-walkouts-increase-chaos.html

So maybe you should shut up, stop ignoring the evidence and find some of your own that somehow demonstrates that all of these hard left union bosses are coincidentally telling the same lies

I'm not sure why you're getting in a stew though, even if the Daily Mail is telling the 100% truth in a story involving unions.

Leaving aside the RMT and Southern (which does look like a political dispute from both sides, with neither of the main players having a particular interest in settling early, and both wanting to make political points), all the other actions have fizzled/been settled. Both management and unions will talk tough when they are trying to defend their corner, so let's not be surprised when they do make, er, exaggerated claims about their potency. It's the way it's always been, though, of course, in the past, we knew the unions had the might and legal leeway to follow it through.

And, in any case, you should be happy if they did manage to 'topple the government', as, if the polls are to be believed, TM would be returned with a bigger majority. Perhaps you should even been encouraging the unions to try it on, for that very reason. This, perhaps, is the coup de grace to follow your strategy of getting Corbyn elected as Labour leader. What's not to like?

Not in a stew, but if somebody tells me to shut up without good reason then they should expect a certain amount of rudeness back.

The point about the union's inability to topple governments has already been made clearly. But they will IMO only hasten their own demise with this attempted course of action and the impact it has on people who are not involved.

pblakeney

Some people appear to be overly concerned about something they think is in the bag.
Hmmmmmm.

mamba80

Paranoid:
:feeling extremely nervous and worried because you believe that other people do not like you or are trying to harm you

:Stev0 started feeling paranoid and was convinced the union bosses were plotting against him.

.....ring any bells?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Paranoid:
:feeling extremely nervous and worried because you believe that other people do not like you or are trying to harm you

:Stev0 started feeling paranoid and was convinced the union bosses were plotting against him.

.....ring any bells?

Found any of that evidence? Go on, give it a try...

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Some people appear to be overly concerned about something they think is in the bag.
Hmmmmmm.

If you read the relevant part of the thread you'd know that's not the issue. There's nothing like an ill informed trolling attempt

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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

You r the one who raised the issue of coordinated strike action... no one else, back it up or shut up.

Let's have a look at the evidence:
1. RMT president caught on video saying they will coordinate strikes - See my previous link - and taking action regardless of the law - See link below
2. PCS general secretary making a public statement about coordinating action - See Ballys post above
3. A number of strikes coincidentally called at Christmas - fact
4. NUT and BMA unions stating that they are plotting to coordinate strikes - see link below.
5. NSSN Secretary saying 'the govt has to be changed. The first step is action which link up all the disputes...' - see link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752116/Union-barons-strike-plot-topple-Tories-Junior-doctors-rail-guards-teachers-ordinate-walkouts-increase-chaos.html

So maybe you should shut up, stop ignoring the evidence and find some of your own that somehow demonstrates that all of these hard left union bosses are coincidentally telling the same lies

Love that the BMA are now pitched as part of the hard. So everyone is talking about it, but hardly anyone is following through.

Zooming out a bit, the main gripe seems to be that strikes affect those not involved in the dispute. Suppose there were no TUs and one's employer proposed an unacceptable change to one's employment contract. Aside from asking nicely, one's only option would be to resign and find other employment. That would still unavoidably affect the employers customers if only through delayed service as a replacement was found. In other words, there is no form of withdrawal of labour which does not affect those outside the dispute.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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

You r the one who raised the issue of coordinated strike action... no one else, back it up or shut up.

Let's have a look at the evidence:
1. RMT president caught on video saying they will coordinate strikes - See my previous link - and taking action regardless of the law - See link below
2. PCS general secretary making a public statement about coordinating action - See Ballys post above
3. A number of strikes coincidentally called at Christmas - fact
4. NUT and BMA unions stating that they are plotting to coordinate strikes - see link below.
5. NSSN Secretary saying 'the govt has to be changed. The first step is action which link up all the disputes...' - see link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3752116/Union-barons-strike-plot-topple-Tories-Junior-doctors-rail-guards-teachers-ordinate-walkouts-increase-chaos.html

So maybe you should shut up, stop ignoring the evidence and find some of your own that somehow demonstrates that all of these hard left union bosses are coincidentally telling the same lies

Love that the BMA are now pitched as part of the hard. So everyone is talking about it, but hardly anyone is following through.

Zooming out a bit, the main gripe seems to be that strikes affect those not involved in the dispute. Suppose there were no TUs and one's employer proposed an unacceptable change to one's employment contract. Aside from asking nicely, one's only option would be to resign and find other employment. That would still unavoidably affect the employers customers if only through delayed service as a replacement was found. In other words, there is no form of withdrawal of labour which does not affect those outside the dispute.

Knowing a few medical types they are not on the whole a militant bunch, especially when they get to consultant level However the BMA union rep quoted in the article is bit more of a traditional left wing union type. To quote Yannis Gourtsoyannis from that aticle:
"Building links between our unions is vital. Now is the time to ramp things up. We need to defend Corbyn and show the Government the door."
No further explanation needed.

As far as resigning and finding another job concerned, that is what they should do if they aren't happy - and give a chance to someone who wants to work. It's what I have always done. That said they're hardly likely to all resign at once so not the same effect as a strike at all.

tangled_metal

BMA young doctors committee had its leader resign IIRC earlier this year during the previous round of their dispute. Something to do with not agreeing with the committee's decision to end the strikes. Was that the same person referenced in the link and quoted by Stevo? Whatever the situation in the heat of that period of strikes (that did not coordinate with any other union's actions) they ended after a majority vote by this very junior doctors committee. Followed by a resignation of a more militant member. Since then what has been happening with them? No strikes or coordinating with other unions. I think you can write off the comments of that one militant doctor, he's no longer influential in the BMA junior doctors decision making process.

Really must ask the question, what hierarchy of evidence do posters on here work to?

My opinion is that visible action by unions clearly coordinating actions is at the top. Right down the bottom is hearsay and certain union characters "talking tough". Especially old comments by a union member who's left the union decision making committee as in the BMA case.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Knowing a few medical types they are not on the whole a militant bunch, especially when they get to consultant level However the BMA union rep quoted in the article is bit more of a traditional left wing union type. To quote Yannis Gourtsoyannis from that aticle:
"Building links between our unions is vital. Now is the time to ramp things up. We need to defend Corbyn and show the Government the door."
No further explanation needed.

Again, one gobby socialist mouthing off about coordinated action is not evidence that two or more strikes actually were coordinated. The junior doctors strike was months ago, so even you would agree that it was a stretch to say it was coordinated with, say, the Southern dispute in December.

As far as resigning and finding another job concerned, that is what they should do if they aren't happy - and give a chance to someone who wants to work. It's what I have always done. That said they're hardly likely to all resign at once so not the same effect as a strike at all.

Well that is what happened with the prison officers over a relatively short period of time: a lot of them did leave and look at the state of prisons are in now. Prisoner safety has been very directly affected by a dispute that was nothing to do with them.

The idea that people can withdraw their labour - temporarily or permanently - without effect on the employer's customers is nonsense.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Knowing a few medical types they are not on the whole a militant bunch, especially when they get to consultant level However the BMA union rep quoted in the article is bit more of a traditional left wing union type. To quote Yannis Gourtsoyannis from that aticle:
"Building links between our unions is vital. Now is the time to ramp things up. We need to defend Corbyn and show the Government the door."
No further explanation needed.

Again, one gobby socialist mouthing off about coordinated action is not evidence that two or more strikes actually were coordinated. The junior doctors strike was months ago, so even you would agree that it was a stretch to say it was coordinated with, say, the Southern dispute in December.

As far as resigning and finding another job concerned, that is what they should do if they aren't happy - and give a chance to someone who wants to work. It's what I have always done. That said they're hardly likely to all resign at once so not the same effect as a strike at all.

Well that is what happened with the prison officers over a relatively short period of time: a lot of them did leave and look at the state of prisons are in now. Prisoner safety has been very directly affected by a dispute that was nothing to do with them.

The idea that people can withdraw their labour - temporarily or permanently - without effect on the employer's customers is nonsense.

One gobby socialist? I gave you 4 examples, some of them being statements by senior union figured, all saying the same thing - and that is just from a quick trawl of the internet. Why would they all say these things if that was not their aim?

As I said, that's enough evidence for the onus being on you to demonstrate why this is not the aim of a number of unions. I am still seeing no verifiable evidence to discredit the evidence from anyone on here. Why not have a go, as several others have dodged the question.

Prison officers looks to be an isolated case. Any normal organisation recruits to replace on a Tim basis.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

BMA young doctors committee had its leader resign IIRC earlier this year during the previous round of their dispute. Something to do with not agreeing with the committee's decision to end the strikes. Was that the same person referenced in the link and quoted by Stevo? Whatever the situation in the heat of that period of strikes (that did not coordinate with any other union's actions) they ended after a majority vote by this very junior doctors committee. Followed by a resignation of a more militant member. Since then what has been happening with them? No strikes or coordinating with other unions. I think you can write off the comments of that one militant doctor, he's no longer influential in the BMA junior doctors decision making process.

Really must ask the question, what hierarchy of evidence do posters on here work to?

My opinion is that visible action by unions clearly coordinating actions is at the top. Right down the bottom is hearsay and certain union characters "talking tough". Especially old comments by a union member who's left the union decision making committee as in the BMA case.

Visible evidence? Such as several strikes being called at the same time? Or a number of union figures all saying the same thing - as reported in the press.

And as mentioned above, I've shown enough evidence to back my point, you have produced nothing tangible to refute it. Give it a go...

tangled_metal

To use a Stevo tactic, I don't have to prove anything because you have no valid evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence. Prove your point with documented cases of coordinated strike action. Action that is carried out by more than one union with the aim of toppling the government.

I'm waiting Stevo. Give us evidence.

I think others have raised the disputes that got settled or postponed as verifiable evidence that those disputes don't count as coordinated action.

briantrumpet

We're going round in circles, gents, in case you haven't noticed.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

We're going round in circles, gents, in case you haven't noticed.

Very true. I've produced some evidence on my side. Now all they need to do is ATFQ

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

We're going round in circles, gents, in case you haven't noticed.

Very true. I've produced some evidence on my side. Now all they need to do is ATFQ

Or you're ignoring the answer that has been given. Nobody's claimed that these comments weren't made, but words aren't coordinated strikes. Several were threatened, but most have failed to occur. I think it's just Southern and some Post Office counters.

Lookyhere

Maybe these people could up sticks and find another job?
the Tories have cut funding on top of an already poorly funded and unreported sector of our community, leaving even more children to pick up the pieces of failed adult social care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... land-study

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe these people could up sticks and find another job?
the Tories have cut funding on top of an already poorly funded and unreported sector of our community, leaving even more children to pick up the pieces of failed adult social care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... land-study

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

Our Tory lord and masters? :? Never used that phrase or even thought it.

As regards these latest few pages, they have been about about the unions behaviour not the Tories.

I haven't posted much on the subject, save the quotes from union leaders, calling for coordinated action, as such a call is unremarkable and I thought was a given.
What I do find remarkable is people not accepting that trade unions who created the Labour Party and, with a few exceptions, are affiliated to it, would not do all in their power to bring down a Tory government to replace it with a Labour one.
It would be bizarre would it not for them not to do so wouldn't it?
Unless of course you are suggesting that even the unions think that Labour has completely lost the plot...

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

Unless of course you are suggesting that even the unions think that Labour has completely lost the plot...

Well, Obama thinks they've lost the plot. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ct-reality

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

What are you talking about?

Apart from maybe another attempt to divert from the issue. Wonder why that would be?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe these people could up sticks and find another job?
the Tories have cut funding on top of an already poorly funded and unreported sector of our community, leaving even more children to pick up the pieces of failed adult social care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... land-study

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

Our Tory lord and masters? :? Never used that phrase or even thought it.

As regards these latest few pages, they have been about about the unions behaviour not the Tories.

I haven't posted much on the subject, save the quotes from union leaders, calling for coordinated action, as such a call is unremarkable and I thought was a given.
What I do find remarkable is people not accepting that trade unions who created the Labour Party and, with a few exceptions, are affiliated to it, would not do all in their power to bring down a Tory government to replace it with a Labour one.
It would be bizarre would it not for them not to do so wouldn't it?
Unless of course you are suggesting that even the unions think that Labour has completely lost the plot...

As I have said before, it is naturally what they would try to do.

However lefties conveniently ignore the blindingly obvious and try to divert by saying that any attempt to stop these politically motivated abuse of workers rights by the union bosses is is somehow an attack on the employees rights themselves. Either that or they cannot tell the difference.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe these people could up sticks and find another job?
the Tories have cut funding on top of an already poorly funded and unreported sector of our community, leaving even more children to pick up the pieces of failed adult social care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... land-study

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

Our Tory lord and masters? :? Never used that phrase or even thought it.

As regards these latest few pages, they have been about about the unions behaviour not the Tories.

I haven't posted much on the subject, save the quotes from union leaders, calling for coordinated action, as such a call is unremarkable and I thought was a given.
What I do find remarkable is people not accepting that trade unions who created the Labour Party and, with a few exceptions, are affiliated to it, would not do all in their power to bring down a Tory government to replace it with a Labour one.
It would be bizarre would it not for them not to do so wouldn't it?
Unless of course you are suggesting that even the unions think that Labour has completely lost the plot...

As I have said before, it is naturally what they would try to do.

However lefties conveniently ignore the blindingly obvious and try to divert by saying that any attempt to stop these politically motivated abuse of workers rights by the union bosses is is somehow an attack on the employees rights themselves. Either that or they cannot tell the difference.

You don't think it's possible that some union bosses are attempting to capitalise on legitimate greivances in order to further their own ideology? Rather than what you are suggesting which seems to be the reverse, i.e., the bosses are fabricating the greivances to further their own ideology.

Given they need to get a vote through their members in order to get the strike to happen it seems that the former is at least plausible. I don't see how the quotes that have been put in this thread can prove the latter.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Maybe these people could up sticks and find another job?
the Tories have cut funding on top of an already poorly funded and unreported sector of our community, leaving even more children to pick up the pieces of failed adult social care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... land-study

as for the co-ordinated strike action, Bailly and Stevot are doing what they always do... failing to ever dare criticise their tory lord and masters.

Our Tory lord and masters? :? Never used that phrase or even thought it.

As regards these latest few pages, they have been about about the unions behaviour not the Tories.

I haven't posted much on the subject, save the quotes from union leaders, calling for coordinated action, as such a call is unremarkable and I thought was a given.
What I do find remarkable is people not accepting that trade unions who created the Labour Party and, with a few exceptions, are affiliated to it, would not do all in their power to bring down a Tory government to replace it with a Labour one.
It would be bizarre would it not for them not to do so wouldn't it?
Unless of course you are suggesting that even the unions think that Labour has completely lost the plot...

we ve gone as far as we can go with the union debate.

yep exploitation of children as a direct result of spending cuts doesnt get a mention......

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

You don't think it's possible that some union bosses are attempting to capitalise on legitimate greivances in order to further their own ideology? Rather than what you are suggesting which seems to be the reverse, i.e., the bosses are fabricating the greivances to further their own ideology.

Given they need to get a vote through their members in order to get the strike to happen it seems that the former is at least plausible. I don't see how the quotes that have been put in this thread can prove the latter.

I haven't commented specifically on whether this is capitalising on genuine grievances or stirring up disputes. They are certainly in a position to do both given that they are in a position to tell members whether they believe there is an issue. My gut feel is a mixture of both given certain union bosses stated political aims.