Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

The whole 'prove they are lying' thing is a straw man. I'm sure the people that made those comments would dearly love to coordinate strikes, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, secondary action is already illegal so they can't follow through with their promises. We've now only got the ongoing Southern dispute and a few Post Office counters closed; it's not even a weekend of discontent. The actual evidence (as opposed to selected quotes from the last year or so) is that strike action is at a statistically low level. Sure some unions are capitalising on the opportunities that employers have given them, but that's hardly an abuse - just what you would expect from a politically active organisation on any side of the debate. There are much better targets if you are looking to criticise union behaviour.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

the report is in the Guardian linked in Lookies post above.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

There are much better targets if you are looking to criticise union behaviour.

Yeah, but conspiracies are so much more fun...

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

the report is in the Guardian linked in Lookies post above.

Fine, so make your point and off we go...

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

The whole 'prove they are lying' thing is a straw man. I'm sure the people that made those comments would dearly love to coordinate strikes, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, secondary action is already illegal so they can't follow through with their promises. We've now only got the ongoing Southern dispute and a few Post Office counters closed; it's not even a weekend of discontent. The actual evidence (as opposed to selected quotes from the last year or so) is that strike action is at a statistically low level. Sure some unions are capitalising on the opportunities that employers have given them, but that's hardly an abuse - just what you would expect from a politically active organisation on any side of the debate. There are much better targets if you are looking to criticise union behaviour.

Better targets such as?

You are not denying that the intent is there I see. One of the main underlying point I have been making is that they should only be looking after their member interests and not trying to achieve political aims - otherwise the temptation to use or even brew up the former to achieve the latter is an ever present temptation.

It is good that there are fewer strike than there used to be. Possibly a sign that we have to employer/employee balance somewhere in the right 'zone' - or maybe most people aren't actually that badly off overall.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

the report is in the Guardian linked in Lookies post above.

Fine, so make your point and off we go...

ignoring what the Tories are doing, with on going spending cuts, doesn't change the facts, distracting onto to a non existent union argument instead, there are far bigger issues that should concern us all, regardless of politics.

Failing children, be it in education or with social care is just creating further future generations without the skill sets and earning potential that this country is going to need post brexit.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

the report is in the Guardian linked in Lookies post above.

Fine, so make your point and off we go...

ignoring what the Tories are doing, with on going spending cuts, doesn't change the facts, distracting onto to a non existent union argument instead, there are far bigger issues that should concern us all, regardless of politics.

Failing children, be it in education or with social care is just creating further future generations without the skill sets and earning potential that this country is going to need post brexit.

It's not distraction - just because you that are concerned about a different issue doesn't take away concerns about union abuse of power that can directly affect me and many others.

Since when have you been judge and jury on what is a relevant issue for others?

mamba80

thats rich coming from Mr " i will dominate this forum with my hatred of the labour party"

the point is, you seem unable to comprehend that there is no plot to over throw the gov and that the only "evidence" exists in your warped mind.

For an apparently highly qualified accountant, you seem obtuse in the extreme, certainly nothing like any of the uni educated ones i ve spent some time around, perhaps in real life your different, lets hope so eh?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

thats rich coming from Mr " i will dominate this forum with my hatred of the labour party"

the point is, you seem unable to comprehend that there is no plot to over throw the gov and that the only "evidence" exists in your warped mind.

For an apparently highly qualified accountant, you seem obtuse in the extreme, certainly nothing like any of the uni educated ones i ve spent some time around, perhaps in real life your different, lets hope so eh?

Looking at posts like that, some people may question whose mind is warped

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

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......

Is that because you can't find any evidence to show that they are lying?

Feel free to start a new debate on child exploitation, but please try to link to some evidence as I do in my arguments

The whole 'prove they are lying' thing is a straw man. I'm sure the people that made those comments would dearly love to coordinate strikes, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, secondary action is already illegal so they can't follow through with their promises. We've now only got the ongoing Southern dispute and a few Post Office counters closed; it's not even a weekend of discontent. The actual evidence (as opposed to selected quotes from the last year or so) is that strike action is at a statistically low level. Sure some unions are capitalising on the opportunities that employers have given them, but that's hardly an abuse - just what you would expect from a politically active organisation on any side of the debate. There are much better targets if you are looking to criticise union behaviour.

Better targets such as?

You are not denying that the intent is there I see. One of the main underlying point I have been making is that they should only be looking after their member interests and not trying to achieve political aims - otherwise the temptation to use or even brew up the former to achieve the latter is an ever present temptation.

Possibly they think that their members interests will be best served by a change of government. I'm not particularly worried as I think there is sufficient legislation already in place to prevent such an event.

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

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

Blimey, the RMT is busy in balloting for strikes. I'm not sure how they have time to do any discussion with management at all about resolving issues. I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

cycleclinic

Rode on a train which driver only operated. I cant see why itmis problem

Stevo_666

thecycleclinic wrote:

Rode on a train which driver only operated. I cant see why itmis problem

I do that every week and can confirm that it is perfectly safe. It wasn't that long ago we had slam door trains and passengers used to do it

I've also ridden trains where there are no drivers (DLR) and that is as safe as houses as well. The way forward seems clear to me.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

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

Blimey, the RMT is busy in balloting for strikes. I'm not sure how they have time to do any discussion with management at all about resolving issues. I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Quite a major strike reason generation factory they have going there. The union ballots its members on the issue (some of which seem to be minor issues or related to individuals) and then asks them as a matter of course if they are prepared to strike or take other forms of industrial action.

Tells me what I need to know.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

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

Blimey, the RMT is busy in balloting for strikes. I'm not sure how they have time to do any discussion with management at all about resolving issues. I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Quite a major strike reason generation factory they have going there. The union ballots its members on the issue (some of which seem to be minor issues or related to individuals) and then asks them as a matter of course if they are prepared to strike or take other forms of industrial action.

Tells me what I need to know.

Well I think we all know what the RMT are like. They aren't generating the opportunities, though, just taking every opportunity given. The particularly interesting one was the number of votes cast for the Southern DOO strike ballot. As I said, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

What I did think that page indicated was a) strike action is tricky to organise, so they seem to be getting the ballot in early on every dispute to keep their options open; b) clearly there are nowhere near that many rail strikes, so some employers are canny enough to manoeuvre around the threat.

Would be interesting to compare with a rather less militant union.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

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

Blimey, the RMT is busy in balloting for strikes. I'm not sure how they have time to do any discussion with management at all about resolving issues. I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Quite a major strike reason generation factory they have going there. The union ballots its members on the issue (some of which seem to be minor issues or related to individuals) and then asks them as a matter of course if they are prepared to strike or take other forms of industrial action.

Tells me what I need to know.

Well I think we all know what the RMT are like. They aren't generating the opportunities, though, just taking every opportunity given. The particularly interesting one was the number of votes cast for the Southern DOO strike ballot. As I said, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

What I did think that page indicated was a) strike action is tricky to organise, so they seem to be getting the ballot in early on every dispute to keep their options open; b) clearly there are nowhere near that many rail strikes, so some employers are canny enough to manoeuvre around the threat.

Would be interesting to compare with a rather less militant union.

Agree with your second para.

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

On the first point, there has been a fair bit of commentary on how some unions are not that interested when it comes to individual members need their help. I would also recommend having a look at the RMT's ballot results page - I'm really surprised more hasn't been made of this in relation to the Southern dispute, which tends to confirm my suspicion that neither side is interested in settling.

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

Blimey, the RMT is busy in balloting for strikes. I'm not sure how they have time to do any discussion with management at all about resolving issues. I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Quite a major strike reason generation factory they have going there. The union ballots its members on the issue (some of which seem to be minor issues or related to individuals) and then asks them as a matter of course if they are prepared to strike or take other forms of industrial action.

Tells me what I need to know.

Well I think we all know what the RMT are like. They aren't generating the opportunities, though, just taking every opportunity given. The particularly interesting one was the number of votes cast for the Southern DOO strike ballot. As I said, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

What I did think that page indicated was a) strike action is tricky to organise, so they seem to be getting the ballot in early on every dispute to keep their options open; b) clearly there are nowhere near that many rail strikes, so some employers are canny enough to manoeuvre around the threat.

Would be interesting to compare with a rather less militant union.

Agree with your second para.

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

Finally! :P Rather backs up my point that neither side wants to end it or Southern/GTR/DfT would have pointed this out weeks ago. Difficult to know what to make of such a low turnout. Do Southern RMT members really support the strike? Did the they think it was a foregone conclusion (pretty much every ballot shows at most only a handful voting against action) Do they not care either way?

By the way, I've just had a quick scan of a couple of other union websites, and neither appear to be quite so rigorously balloting their members on each and every dispute.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Just click on any link on that page. One could sum it up as erratic. Some ballots have an alarmingly low turnout.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

I assume that the turnout is recorded somewhere, though not here.

Just click on any link on that page. One could sum it up as erratic. Some ballots have an alarmingly low turnout.

Sorry, I meant turn-out as percentage of members balloted. For instance the Southern/Gatwick one had just 7 responders, but maybe only 10 people work on those trains regularly (but that seems unlikely).

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

I'm a bit confused which is which though - the one on 21 April re Southern (Role of the guard/DOO) had 321 responses. Still not many for the impact of their action.

rick_chasey

Joins Labour, votes Corbyn in, gets upset some TUs use their power for political ends.

Great work Stevo.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Joins Labour, votes Corbyn in, gets upset some TUs use their power for political ends.

Great work Stevo.

It was a pre-existing problem. I think you're clutching at straws here.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

Finally! :P Rather backs up my point that neither side wants to end it or Southern/GTR/DfT would have pointed this out weeks ago. Difficult to know what to make of such a low turnout. Do Southern RMT members really support the strike? Did the they think it was a foregone conclusion (pretty much every ballot shows at most only a handful voting against action) Do they not care either way?

By the way, I've just had a quick scan of a couple of other union websites, and neither appear to be quite so rigorously balloting their members on each and every dispute.

Thanks for the tip Let's see if anything gets reported.

Although still cannot see why Southern/GTR wants it prolonged given the financial impact/possible knock on effect of franchise renewal?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

I'm a bit confused which is which though - the one on 21 April re Southern (Role of the guard/DOO) had 321 responses. Still not many for the impact of their action.

I'm sure the journos will make of it what they will. I dropped the Daily Fail a line just as a back up :twisted:

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although still cannot see why Southern/GTR wants it prolonged given the financial impact/possible knock on effect of franchise renewal?

Maybe there collusion between Southern and DfT for political ends

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Although still cannot see why Southern/GTR wants it prolonged given the financial impact/possible knock on effect of franchise renewal?

Maybe there collusion between Southern and DfT for political ends

Fighting fire with fire? It's all for a good cause...

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

I'm a bit confused which is which though - the one on 21 April re Southern (Role of the guard/DOO) had 321 responses. Still not many for the impact of their action.

I'm sure the journos will make of it what they will. I dropped the Daily Fail a line just as a back up :twisted:

You ought to try the leftiebollox Guardian. Seriously. If they took it up, it would have a greater effect than something in a rightiebollox rag, which you'd expect to want to bash unions anyway.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

I'm a bit confused which is which though - the one on 21 April re Southern (Role of the guard/DOO) had 321 responses. Still not many for the impact of their action.

I'm sure the journos will make of it what they will. I dropped the Daily Fail a line just as a back up :twisted:

You ought to try the leftiebollox Guardian. Seriously. If they took it up, it would have a greater effect than something in a rightiebollox rag, which you'd expect to want to bash unions anyway.

Why not...I see your point. The worst they can do is ignore it.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

On the number of votes cast in the door opening dispute - 5 ?! FFS. All this misery for hundreds of thousands of people over 5 votes. This really should be all over the news, so I've dropped a quick e-mail to the Telegraph

I'm a bit confused which is which though - the one on 21 April re Southern (Role of the guard/DOO) had 321 responses. Still not many for the impact of their action.

I'm sure the journos will make of it what they will. I dropped the Daily Fail a line just as a back up :twisted:

You ought to try the leftiebollox Guardian. Seriously. If they took it up, it would have a greater effect than something in a rightiebollox rag, which you'd expect to want to bash unions anyway.

Why not...I see your point. The worst they can do is ignore it.

Though don't forget that if you single-handedly manage to curb the actions of a rogue union, you'd also make the union movement in general appear more sensible and relevant, and therefore improve the chances of the other unions to be taken seriously...