On 16 Oct, 20:38, Arthur Figgis wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 16 Oct, 12:41, John B wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:52 am, MIG wrote:

I can't watch it yet, but award for "most gratuitous abuse of RMT yet"
would seem to be in order.
Unions do not support abusive behaviour. *It might be their job to
ensure that a member got a fair hearing, but if the member was, for
example, racist, they might not even do that, and would probably expel
him/her.
Well, apart from the times, frequently documented on uk.r, where the
RMT has issued press statements in favour of staff members who've been
dismissed or disciplined for assaulting members of the public. And the
time *last month* where they went on strike to support one.

It's their job to represent someone sacked without a proper hearing,
not to condone what they are accused of (whether they did it or not).

I thought it was the staff member who was assaulted in that case.

In once recent case that appeared to be what they wanted the public to
think, but no details were made available to us. Did we ever hear the
outcome?

I don't know what union they might be, if any, but some DLR staff feel
able tell passengers that they can have passengers "done" simply by
making fictitious allegations of assault to the police, only to back
down when the customer mentions "CCTV"...

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

In the same way that a lawyer defending a murderer doesn't condone
murder, a union has to get its members a fair hearing without
condoning what they are accused of. That seems to me to be a Good
Thing, no matter what sh*ts some of them may be. In this case we
don't seem to know anything about the RMT's position or if the person
is a member. But let's stick in some abuse anyway.