I'm a union man!
Comments
-
I guess that no one knows the answer then.When does demonstrating end and picketing begin?
Serious question as it seems a grey area to me.
its just a choice of wording, but laws have been passed to prevent workers from being stopped from working (by the pickets) if they want too and rightly so.
Any union leader/s organising a strike/picketting which isnt lawful, will find themselve personally liable for damages, contrast this with the banking industry, where the regulator will fine the organisation with perhaps the top guys leaving with a golden handshake. Laws having not been passed to make, what most people would consider corrupt practice, illegal.0 -
I guess that no one knows the answer then.When does demonstrating end and picketing begin?
Serious question as it seems a grey area to me.
I'm no expert but I'd have said a Pickett line stops anyone else working on or in the building/mine/train about which the strike is about
A protest is "just" standing outside with signs and shouting slogansWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19677974#p19677974]anonymousblackfg[/url] wrote:I thought a good part of the issue here is excess supply, if they produced less the price would rise due to scarcity, I have little sympathy for them complaining that they should be able to produce as much as they can and then get a high price for it all.
Also, on the RMT how is there not yet a crowd funding campaign for driverless train infrastructure or for all people on a platform to always give the train driver the bird?
RMT and farmers are very different.
Tube has a monopoly on London underground travel (unsurprisingly), and so a strong union for those firms only works in the employees interest.
Dairy market doesn't quite suffer from a monopsony but it's not far off, with a handful of buyers from hundreds or even thousands of producers, so the buyers can strong arm farmers beyond the point where they are profitable.
That's why the action is happening and that's fair enough.
Reductions in farming have broader long term consequences that the short termist market doesn't always account for, so it makes sense to have a more balanced (and perhaps fractionally less Laissez-faire) policy.
Strike is an attempt to redress some of that balance, so I can't see the problem.0 -
I guess that no one knows the answer then.When does demonstrating end and picketing begin?
Serious question as it seems a grey area to me.
I'm no expert but I'd have said a Pickett line stops anyone else working on or in the building/mine/train about which the strike is about
A protest is "just" standing outside with signs and shouting slogans
That was outlawed years ago.
the terminology has just stuck though.0 -
Which would suggest that the farmers are protesting while the train drivers are picketing.
I guess that no one knows the answer then.When does demonstrating end and picketing begin?
Serious question as it seems a grey area to me.
I'm no expert but I'd have said a Pickett line stops anyone else working on or in the building/mine/train about which the strike is about
A protest is "just" standing outside with signs and shouting slogans
A small difference maybe but legally entirely different.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Which would suggest that the farmers are protesting while the train drivers are picketing.
I guess that no one knows the answer then.When does demonstrating end and picketing begin?
Serious question as it seems a grey area to me.
I'm no expert but I'd have said a Pickett line stops anyone else working on or in the building/mine/train about which the strike is about
A protest is "just" standing outside with signs and shouting slogans
A small difference maybe but legally entirely different.
for the final time, pickets cannot stop any worker from carrying on into work if they want too - the law is very specific and penalties high.
aside from the penalties, they are prettymuch the same thing.
https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing0 -
There was a farmer interviewed on local BBC Oxford this morning; got farmers round these pa-arts, doing alright judging by the massive quad track tractor with its triple prairie plough in tow making its way down the A34 this evening. Might have been a contractor of course, but even if means someone is paying him enough to make it worthwhile. Anyway I digress.
Just thought I would point out that it is possible the farmer with the expensive looking tractor with its triple prairie plough could just possibly be an arable farmer or indeed a farm worker for an arable farming company. They can be very rich and profitable businesses either family owned or as part of an agri-business that can be truly quite big and international. As such they are not the same species as a dairy farmer.
As for selling land or other assets that is problematic. Imagine you were a family owned microbrewery and you were struggling, Could you sell the main bottling plant? The answer is only if you were shutting down. The farmer is using the land to produce the product same with other assets like milking equipment. Selling them or even selling off part of his/her land would make the farm even less productive. That would spell doom just that bit quicker.
On paper farmers can be rich, live in quite big houses even, but they can not access that wealth without bailing from the industry they often feel a great deal of emotional attachment to. Could you give up on your family farm if you were the 5th generation working it? This is part of what some farmers are having to do and it is rough no matter what way you look at it. Talking about the technicalities of union law is nice for an internet forum but this is serious issues for a lot of farmers that go right through so many issues. I am sorry but it has no relation to the tube strike IMHO for so many reasons that to bring this up as an example of one rule for hard working train drivers/working class and another for (most likely Tory) rich farmers is just class war/union idiocy.
Also, I think it has been said before these farmers are not in a union in the same way as the tube workers. They are likely to be self employed people (farm owners/business owners). Also they are doing these action as part of an independent direct action/lobby group (farmers for action http://www.farmersforaction.org/index.html). As such they probably have more in common in terms of how they operate and in terms of laws that apply to Greenpeace than RMT, ASLEF, etc. Different laws apply.0 -
For your benefit I'll say againSo even the champion left wing poster ignores the serious point of the protest and just whinges that he isnt allowed to play...
sigh
The point is let's see the law applied in a fair and equal manner.
The railway workers' union will have to jump through hoops to legally take industrial action which they have done. I have a lot of time for farmers and I'm on their side, but demonstrating in/at supermarkets is in effect secondary picketing and illegal.
And I'll say again I'm on the farmers side I happen to think we do actually need a farming industry.
As for champion left wing poster on here,thanks, but there are others of the left (not many mind) who post/debate far more than I.
You're not comparing apples with apples though. As others have pointed out the NFU isn't a trade union as such, it's more of a co-operative / trade body that looks to get the best deal for the industry.0 -
Also how about let them strike but hold them accountable for any financial losses suffered by businesses or commuters affected by their actions? That might make them think twice before trying to hold a City to ransom and get them to realise that it's not just about them.
Amazing!
So let me get this straight? You regularly absolve morally dubious wealth accumulation practices of guilt with the carte blanche, 'within the law' irrespective of any broader social consequences there may be.
But conversely, you want to hold a unionised group responsible for all outcomes / impacts of their actions despite it being a legal strike.
Personally, I hate militant unions equally as much as I hate the socially irresponsible end of capitalism. Both are repugnant, selfish patterns of behaviour. Your view appears slightly one sided.0 -
Well IMO unions are a bit like religions, all nice and cosy in their own little world. I wish I could be part of them all nice and cosy in their flawed ideology and their belief that the world owes them more than those outside of their gang, but I can't.0
-
Maybe not but they can be bloody awkward at the time, and make the consequences clear.for the final time, pickets cannot stop any worker from carrying on into work if they want too - the law is very specific and penalties high.
aside from the penalties, they are prettymuch the same thing.
https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing
I have witnessed this first hand.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Arthur Scargill.
Started the strike with a big union and a small house.
Finished the strike with a small union and a big house.
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/5-common-myths-about-arthur-scargill-that-simply-arent-true"A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
Maybe not but they can be bloody awkward at the time, and make the consequences clear.for the final time, pickets cannot stop any worker from carrying on into work if they want too - the law is very specific and penalties high.
aside from the penalties, they are prettymuch the same thing.
https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/going-on-strike-and-picketing
I have witnessed this first hand.
I am betrayed!
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19679052#p19679052]ShockedSoShocked[/url] wrote:Arthur Scargill.
Started the strike with a big union and a small house.
Finished the strike with a small union and a big house.
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/5-common-myths-about-arthur-scargill-that-simply-arent-true
Call me cynical but I think that that site may have an agenda....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
"Wrong! You’re thinking of the other fella; Neil Greatrex, former Nottinghamshire working miner, UDM President and convicted thief and fraudster, jailed for stealing over £140,000 from sick miners."[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19679052#p19679052]ShockedSoShocked[/url] wrote:Arthur Scargill.
Started the strike with a big union and a small house.
Finished the strike with a small union and a big house.
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/5-common-myths-about-arthur-scargill-that-simply-arent-true
Ah well, that makes it all right then.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
r.e. "picket" vs "protest" - there's cross-over but the former is by definition event-specific and intended to discourage/encourage involvement in that event.
As an example of non-union picketing religious types might picket the first screening of a film they deem blasphemous. If they were just banging on about blasphemy, even outside a movie theatre, that would be a protest.
Bear in mind the military origins of the term - more to do with keeping watch and intercepting would-be infiltration than anything akin to protest.0 -
No.Also how about let them strike but hold them accountable for any financial losses suffered by businesses or commuters affected by their actions? That might make them think twice before trying to hold a City to ransom and get them to realise that it's not just about them.
Amazing!
So let me get this straight? You regularly absolve morally dubious wealth accumulation practices of guilt with the carte blanche, 'within the law' irrespective of any broader social consequences there may be.
But conversely, you want to hold a unionised group responsible for all outcomes / impacts of their actions despite it being a legal strike.
Personally, I hate militant unions equally as much as I hate the socially irresponsible end of capitalism. Both are repugnant, selfish patterns of behaviour. Your view appears slightly one sided.
Read my post above in reply to Mamba80's point about chief execs."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sorry, but that doesn't help.As an example of non-union picketing religious types might picket the first screening of a film they deem blasphemous. If they were just banging on about blasphemy, even outside a movie theatre, that would be a protest.
Would the religious types be picketing as stated, or protesting as stated?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Also how about let them strike but hold them accountable for any financial losses suffered by businesses or commuters affected by their actions? That might make them think twice before trying to hold a City to ransom and get them to realise that it's not just about them.
Amazing!
So let me get this straight? You regularly absolve morally dubious wealth accumulation practices of guilt with the carte blanche, 'within the law' irrespective of any broader social consequences there may be.
But conversely, you want to hold a unionised group responsible for all outcomes / impacts of their actions despite it being a legal strike.
Personally, I hate militant unions equally as much as I hate the socially irresponsible end of capitalism. Both are repugnant, selfish patterns of behaviour. Your view appears slightly one sided.
No.
Read my post above in reply to Mamba80's point about chief execs.
My point about CEO's (and others running banks credit agencies etc) that these people almost destroyed our capitalist economy and it was only a socialist style bail out of historic proportions that prevented a total and disastorous melt down - no let the market decide argument from you?
You want unions and their relatively poor workers to pay compensation for their lawful and very short term actions BUT i ve never read that you suggest Fred Goodwin (and many others) should pay back some of his considerable fortune back to the tax payer?
Double tory standards yet again.0 -
Greatorex is a scab and a crook and desereves to rot. If only the heads of all organisations that have robbed and defrauded ordinary people were in clink aye!
"Wrong! You’re thinking of the other fella; Neil Greatrex, former Nottinghamshire working miner, UDM President and convicted thief and fraudster, jailed for stealing over £140,000 from sick miners."[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19679052#p19679052]ShockedSoShocked[/url] wrote:Arthur Scargill.
Started the strike with a big union and a small house.
Finished the strike with a small union and a big house.
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/5-common-myths-about-arthur-scargill-that-simply-arent-true
Ah well, that makes it all right then.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
DesB3rd wrote:
As an example of non-union picketing religious types might picket the first screening of a film they deem blasphemous. If they were just banging on about blasphemy, even outside a movie theatre, that would be a protest.
Sorry, but that doesn't help.
Would the religious types be picketing as stated, or protesting as stated?
First screening of blasphemous film = specific event + trying to discourage participation = picketing.
(Hint - it's something really quite specific.)
Banging on generally, even if the location is selected for effect (when isn't it?) = protest.0 -
Remember the farmers claiming to be distraught when their cattle had to be culled and the farmers compensated following foot and mouth?
They seem to have gotten over it, when their pockets are threatened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-338602630 -
You're putting words info my mouth - but for the second time, I have said above what should happen if individuals were acting in bad faith. Nice try to distract from union blackmail and selfishness thoughAlso how about let them strike but hold them accountable for any financial losses suffered by businesses or commuters affected by their actions? That might make them think twice before trying to hold a City to ransom and get them to realise that it's not just about them.
Amazing!
So let me get this straight? You regularly absolve morally dubious wealth accumulation practices of guilt with the carte blanche, 'within the law' irrespective of any broader social consequences there may be.
But conversely, you want to hold a unionised group responsible for all outcomes / impacts of their actions despite it being a legal strike.
Personally, I hate militant unions equally as much as I hate the socially irresponsible end of capitalism. Both are repugnant, selfish patterns of behaviour. Your view appears slightly one sided.
No.
Read my post above in reply to Mamba80's point about chief execs.
My point about CEO's (and others running banks credit agencies etc) that these people almost destroyed our capitalist economy and it was only a socialist style bail out of historic proportions that prevented a total and disastorous melt down - no let the market decide argument from you?
You want unions and their relatively poor workers to pay compensation for their lawful and very short term actions BUT i ve never read that you suggest Fred Goodwin (and many others) should pay back some of his considerable fortune back to the tax payer?
Double tory standards yet again.
And lets not pretend that unions leaders only reason for pushing for strikes is to protect their members' interests. There are almost certainly political and idealogical agendas being pursued here by union barons with the members being used as pawns in their game.
All I want is the law to be applied evenly. If anyone takes an action that causes me financial loss then generally I have the right to sue them for compensation. Why should the unions be exempt from this? Although given the point above about union leaders agendas, I can see a case for the unions themselves and maybe leaders being held responsible rather than the individual members."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Union leaders do not push for strikes no more than their members do, striking loses you money. Stevo666 you obviously have a different view to mine. I don't know what you do for a living (frankly I'm not bothered) but I will say "wage slaves" in this day and age only ever take any kind of industrial action when they feel totally threatened one way or another. Holding people to randsom is not on the agender.However IF you are pushed down the track of industrial action you will endevour to use it to cause maximum damage to your employer. I'm sure you understand that.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Union leaders do not push for strikes no more than their members do, striking loses you money. Stevo666 you obviously have a different view to mine. I don't know what you do for a living (frankly I'm not bothered) but I will say "wage slaves" in this day and age only ever take any kind of industrial action when they feel totally threatened one way or another. Holding people to randsom is not on the agender.However IF you are pushed down the track of industrial action you will endevour to use it to cause maximum damage to your employer. I'm sure you understand that.
Cause maximum damage? How does that safeguard jobs after any industrial action is over? Usually nobody wins following a strike. The tube drivers may win in the short term by holding people to ransom but it will just bring driverless trains forward. Pricing themselves out of a job. They are not the first and won't be the last group to do so.0 -
This was my experience of unions at work.Cause maximum damage? How does that safeguard jobs after any industrial action is over? Usually nobody wins following a strike. The tube drivers may win in the short term by holding people to ransom but it will just bring driverless trains forward. Pricing themselves out of a job. They are not the first and won't be the last group to do so.
Strangely enough none of the union reps were made redundant, including known shirkers and recent starts.
I was hit due to last in, first out.
Bitter? You bet.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Frank, if you really think that that the likes of say Bob Crow or Arthur Scargill never had as a partof their game plan a desire to 'stick one on the tories', show who was really in power or push the hard left cause, then you're very naive.Union leaders do not push for strikes no more than their members do, striking loses you money. Stevo666 you obviously have a different view to mine. I don't know what you do for a living (frankly I'm not bothered) but I will say "wage slaves" in this day and age only ever take any kind of industrial action when they feel totally threatened one way or another. Holding people to randsom is not on the agender.However IF you are pushed down the track of industrial action you will endevour to use it to cause maximum damage to your employer. I'm sure you understand that.
You at least are honest enough to admit wanting to cause damage by striking.
Tell you what, try coming down to London the week after next when one of the two tube strikes are on and putting your point across to anyone of the million or so public transport users. Suggest you wear some padding if you do, mind. Or at least be prepared to be laughed at.
What I do is not really relevant here but I have never even thought about striking when unhappy about my pay or conditions. Instead I retrained, changed jobs, worked hard and got on. Without harming anyone else."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Attended a function to mark the 25 th anniversary of the miners strike. The guest speaker was Dave Nellist. No political agenda to the strike, yeah, Frank, right. :roll:0
-
CWhat f++ks me off is I made a really long eloquent post and some how it's not appeared and I can't be @rsed to post it again 'cos I wouldn't do it justice. :evil:Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Stevo666 If you're fortunate enough to be able to leave your current employer and go elsewhere great, most "wage slaves" are not in that position.
I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years. During that time my employment has been threatened on numerous occasions and it has only been down to the negotiational skills of the union and the fortitude of its members that I have retained my job. I'm talking highly skilled blue collar work. The last time my job was under really serious threat was when a eastern european company wanted to buy us out. Even though they had no technical know how and couldn't manufacture the parts my job/livelihood +200 others was saved by the men standing as one and the trade union putting forward a good argument.
Had this been unsuccessful perhaps the engine on the aircraft taking you and your loved ones on holiday could have been nailed together by Igor and Demitri, but they'd have been cheap and the shareholders could have had an extra 10p on their divi.
But Capitalism, PROFITS before PEOPLE that's what it's all about.
Not actually a stab at you Stevo , why I don't know 'cos I'm sure you would quite happily see me out of a job (I cost too much) People get tie up in their own worlds (me included) and they either don't or refuse to see the perspective of others.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Wow! :shock:I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years.
I have not worked at any one place for more than 4 years over a 35 year span.
Half the changes have been choice, half were forced. Getting paid off has become just one of these things.
A job for life sounds like hell on earth. I like variety.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
