On 29 May, 13:24, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:
Nonsense. *RMT would be striking because management were unilaterally
imposing an unacceptable form of wage negotiation. *That's a fundamental
issue and one that would form a perfectly legal basis for industrial
action. *Comrade Crow would have no problem rustling up a vote against,
so all requirements of the industrial relations legislation would have
been complied with. *

Please read what I said - *"legislation to remove the right to
strike ....and [enforce compulsory arbitration]"

This would be nothing to do with the management and the RMT. If the
RMT launches a strike then would be striking about Government
legislation - i.e striking against a third party which is illegal
under the 1984 act (I think - I studied it 20 years ago - but
certainly one of them)

So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? *;-)

I'm sure some legislation regarding strikes in essential services will
come in if the Conservatives win.

There'll need to be general acceptance of this and making binding
arbitration more accessible will be welcomed by sectors which, for
professional reasons, don't like striking, or have been exploited by
having a monopoly employer (e.g. nurses).

The TGWU would complain about any restriction of strike action but
wouldn't strike because to do so would be illegal under the 1982
legislation, and if sold correctly the new legislation would have
broad support.

David Cameron is a master at selling things, and in this instance he
would have the full help of Bob Crow and the RMT, who have spent much
of the last decade trying to convince the public that such legislation
is required.