On 28 May, 18:46, "Recliner" wrote:
"disgoftunwells" wrote in message





Strikes are the result of strikers knowing that they can extract more
by threatening to strike or by actually striking.

In general, tube drivers can extract a lot because management is in a
very weak position.

Normally, if you end up with an intransigent work force, you could
build up stock, determine that strikers have resigned, and recruit new
staff. You can't build stock in a service industry so it's not an
option. So management have no choice but to give in to ever more
extreme demands.

Yes, there's a long tradition in Britain and elsewhere of producers of
highly perishable goods (newspapers, trains, airlines, etc) being held
to ransom in this way. But such strikers can be defeated, as Murdoch and
Reagan (with air traffic controllers) showed. However, it's much harder
for a public transport organisation like TfL to stand up to such
demands. And MEP candidate Brother Crow has no love for either Labour or
the Tories, so he'll be delighted if either/both of them are damaged by
the strike.


A strike in the rail sector damages employers, causes huge disruption
for the public, and provides an unpaid holiday for the employees.
Hardly a balanced sharing of pain.

The legislation of the 80s pretty much levelled the playing field in
most industries, but not in essential services.

Where you have an essential service, how about legislation to remove*
the right to strike and replace it with compulsory pendulum
arbitration. This has worked well at many companies, where a strike
would damage employees and employers. It could work in the public
sector as well.

*Or limit, by giving the public the right to sue strikers who deny
them service. (This may have to be via the employer, with whom the
public have a contract).