|
Another Tube strike announced
"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. |
Another Tube strike announced
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). |
Another Tube strike announced
"disgoftunwells" wrote in message
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). Somehow, I can't see Brother Crow agreeing to pendulum arbitration, and it's hard to see the current government agreeing to anything that could hurt their union paymasters. |
Another Tube strike announced
disgoftunwells wrote:
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. The first reaction to such a suggestion would be for the RMT to call an all-out strike. |
Another Tube strike announced
....Do not take me down that road, bruvvers!
|
Another Tube strike announced
In message
, Mizter T writes Assuming the BBC have got the facts correct I can't see any union going for a 5 year deal in the current situation. *The other side is that a 5% pay claim is also unrealistic. *Sounds like both sides need their heads banging together. I believe the current pay deal is a 5 year one which is coming towards an end. I'm not sure of the history of LU pay deals and how long they have run for in the past, but that's surely where the notion of a new 5 year deal has come from. The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set at RPI + 0.6% in its final year. The current offer is generally (from those I've spoken to) deemed ok as a one year deal but years 2 - 5 are in contention. We are now 2 months after the start of the current pay year and still negotiating. FWIW, I disagree with calling this ballot by the RMT (those who know me know that I am not an RMT member) before negotiations have reached a point of impasse, which they haven't as they are still ongoing. The business about job losses is a bit of a red herring IMO as it's mostly removing duplication after Metronet was brought in house which any well run business would endeavour to do. Many of those losing jobs are not even RMT members and are currently being placed into other roles within LU and TfL as far as they can. The breakdown of relationships with management seems to be a few local issues being thrown into the pot for good measure. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 28, 9:29*pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , Mizter T writes Assuming the BBC have got the facts correct I can't see any union going for a 5 year deal in the current situation. *The other side is that a 5% pay claim is also unrealistic. *Sounds like both sides need their heads banging together. I believe the current pay deal is a 5 year one which is coming towards an end. I'm not sure of the history of LU pay deals and how long they have run for in the past, but that's surely where the notion of a new 5 year deal has come from. The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set at RPI + 0.6% in its final year. Thanks for correcting me Steve - just goes to show that no-one should pay any attention to what I say, it's all huff and bluster! When you say it expired in 2008, does that actually mean in ran up to the end of the financial year in April '09? Any idea where the idea that this upcoming deal should last for 5 years originated from - i.e. LU or the RMT? The current offer is generally (from those I've spoken to) deemed ok as a one year deal but years 2 - 5 are in contention. *We are now 2 months after the start of the current pay year and still negotiating. That's not that unusual though, or is it? FWIW, I disagree with calling this ballot by the RMT (those who know me know that I am not an RMT member) before negotiations have reached a point of impasse, which they haven't as they are still ongoing. The business about job losses is a bit of a red herring IMO as it's mostly removing duplication after Metronet was brought in house which any well run business would endeavour to do. *Many of those losing jobs are not even RMT members and are currently being placed into other roles within LU and TfL as far as they can. The breakdown of relationships with management seems to be a few local issues being thrown into the pot for good measure. Thanks for your input - it's good to hear a view from the 'inside'. |
Another Tube strike announced
In message
, Mizter T writes The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set at RPI + 0.6% in its final year. Thanks for correcting me Steve - just goes to show that no-one should pay any attention to what I say, it's all huff and bluster! When you say it expired in 2008, does that actually mean in ran up to the end of the financial year in April '09? Yes, any new deal will commence from the 2009 financial year. Any idea where the idea that this upcoming deal should last for 5 years originated from - i.e. LU or the RMT? LU. I understand it's one of Boris's things - as close to a no strike deal as he can realistically get. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Another Tube strike announced
On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote: 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. The first reaction to such a suggestion would be for the RMT to call an all-out strike. That would of course be a political strike which is banned under the 80s legislation, so the RMT could then be stripped of its assets. But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning has to arrive. I just hope I don't need to commute when it does. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk