Andrew Heenan wrote:
For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts
behind
any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else, tell the
'facts' the public want to hear.
No, they tell the facts that are available to them. If the RMT did a
better job of explaining what really happened, instead of going on
strike ostensibly because LU haven't fitted a safety feature to
42-year-old trains that are about to be replaced, then we would have a
better chance of understanding the "true facts". But then the RMT
aren't really interested in us.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

And I'm not making it up; this is normal press, tv and BBC behaviour, and
it's been well documented in published papers.

Next time you see a strike reported, time the management side, and time the
union side - the score is usually about 4-0 on the BBC, 3-0 on ITV and
something like 5 - -4 (dissenting union side voice/carefully selected vox
pop) on Sky.

Surely four times longer than nothing is exactly the same as three times
longer than nothing, and suggests all are given equal time anyway...?

On a good day it'll be 4-1, 3-1 and 3-0 (BBC, ITV,Sky).

The only exception is when unions strike against a Labour council (Tories
when in office), when the score may be as high as 3-5.

As for press releases, they very rarely tell the truth, never the whole
truth, and rarely 'nothing but the truth'. Believe them at your peril.

But it is all us members of the public have to go on from the horses'
mouths. The "management" often put their side on websites etc (maybe
they contact the BBC, ITV and Sky as well). The "union" side often
doesn't, or if it does it is an unconvincing mix of shroud-waving and
Dave Spart.

And
no-one reading the Daily Mail can seriously expect to get more than one side
to *any* story. It just doesn't happen.

In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

Why should anyone expect the Daily Mail (or whatever) do the unions'
public relations work for them?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK