|
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 13:51, wrote:
On May 29, 1:04*pm, MIG wrote: Cite a successful strike or an example of workers getting what they ask for? *The management invariably hold all the cards and always get what they want. Sorry, how much do tube workers get paid again? How much does the average skilled manual worker get paid again? Claiming that their industrial militancy hasn't paid off, whether you approve of it or not, is just odd. Senior bankers must have gone on strike an awful lot then. Strikes result from fear and desperation and are a failure for both unions and management. Good contracts result from organisation and negotiation. I'd say that good union organisation results in better contracts and working conditions. Union organisation is also a prerequisite for a strike, but I don't think that strikes have resulted in better contracts and working conditions. They are just a symptom of conditions getting worse, for economic or political reasons. However, even when negotiation is taking place, it's the employer that holds all the cards. My experience is that they'll, for example, propose new contracts containing one or two outrageous proposals. The unions will then effectively proof-read the document for the management and point out the bits that are totally silly. The management then issues the corrected version with the really silly bits left out, and gets through the real change that they wanted to make. |
Another Tube strike announced
MIG wrote:
Dem narstee bossiz hav got braynz in dez heads en uss wurkas azzunt so we is orlwaze da undadog |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 14:57, "John Rowland"
wrote: MIG wrote: Dem narstee bossiz hav got braynz in dez heads en uss wurkas azzunt so we is orlwaze da undadog- No I didn't write anything of the sort. |
Another Tube strike announced
On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote: Strikes result from fear and desperation and are a failure for both LOL! Fear and desperation , give us a break! Opportunistic bully boy tactics more like. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 15:18, wrote:
I have watched this discussion with interest and can only suggest the following:- Offer a wage rise of inflation + a small amount and as a condition impose a solution to any outstanding more minor issues, such as the Sunday working problems with some TOC's. If they do not agree sack those that do not turn up for work. *There are now plenty of unemployed to fill the vacancies. Manage with a reduced underground service for the time it takes to train new staff. *After all we will be without the underground during a strike. If existing legislation does not permit this then change it. *That threat may well worry other unions who may put pressure on the black Crow. That's the bare bones. *I will leave others to fill the gaps. Malcolm Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any work. Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour. With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses. With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses. I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a better situation. I really doubt it. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 29, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:
Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any work. Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour. With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses. With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses. I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a better situation. *I really doubt it. There are |
Another Tube strike announced
Recliner wrote:
Earlier LU had said it believed the issues with the RMT could be resolved without a strike. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8071423.stm Maybe LU should sack everyone who likes football... the real cause of the strike is obviously the England Andorra match at Wembley on the 10th. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 29, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:
Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any work. Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour. With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses. With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses. I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a better situation. *I really doubt it. Agreed, and there are some people on this group who do believe that, and they're wrong. However, there is surely a reasonable case to be made that LU, which is a public sector operation not an evil den of fatcattery, is closer to Extreme 1 than Extreme 2. If that's true, then legislation that shifted the balance slightly closer towards Extreme 2 wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. My wider perspective is that unions are overly powerful in the public sector and insufficiently powerful in the private sector, presumably reflecting the fact that in the public sector the chances of everyone being thrown out of a job due to bankruptcy if you impose unrealistic demands are somewhere between low and zero. Not *completely* zero though: the UK would still have a coal mining industry today had Scargill taken the 'nuclear' scenario seriously... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 29, 4:11*pm, "John Rowland" wrote: Recliner wrote: Earlier LU had said it believed the issues with the RMT could be resolved without a strike. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8071423.stm Maybe LU should sack everyone who likes football... the real cause of the strike is obviously the England Andorra match at Wembley on the 10th. Ha ha, yes, in the football world that's one of the clashes of the titans that can't be missed! |
Another Tube strike announced
In message , at 14:13:54 on
Fri, 29 May 2009, Tony Polson remarked: David Cameron is completely untested - he hasn't managed to sell anything to anyone yet. He sold someone the idea he should be leader. -- Roland Perry |
Another Tube strike announced
In message , at
20:48:47 on Thu, 28 May 2009, Richard J. remarked: Generally some sort of service, with a published timetable, operates from Gare du Nord to CDG airport so as not to make life too difficult for the tourists. SNCF even have a dedicated interactive website for such occasions, www.abcdtrain.com, where you can find out the temporary timetable for any journey in Ile de France ("Greater Paris"). Somehow I don't see our strikes becoming that tourist-friendly. But you don't *need* the Underground to get from London's airports[1] to the centre. If all else fails there is Heathrow Connect, and buses to several railheads. A recent survey claimed that only 18%(?) of passengers use rail (from airports) anyway [I've temporarily mislaid the link] although this may be higher for Heathrow. [1] Except perhaps City, if the DLR is also on strike. But there are buses there too, I'm sure. -- Roland Perry |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 14:52, MIG wrote:
On 29 May, 13:51, wrote: On May 29, 1:04*pm, MIG wrote: Cite a successful strike or an example of workers getting what they ask for? *The management invariably hold all the cards and always get what they want. Sorry, how much do tube workers get paid again? How much does the average skilled manual worker get paid again? Claiming that their industrial militancy hasn't paid off, whether you approve of it or not, is just odd. Senior bankers must have gone on strike an awful lot then. "Over-payment" or "under payment" would typically result from a market failure, or a winner takes all system. The over payment of tube drivers is caused by a market failure, in itself caused by excessive negotiating power of the unions. A classic winner takes all system is the market for football players. There are about 400 premiership places in England and clubs are desperate for the best. Banking is a little bit in between the two. Same with senior executive pay. |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 14:20, wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:39:05 +0100 Tony Polson wrote: disgoftunwells wrote: Indeed, and Mrs Thatcher laid the groundwork carefully. 1980: First legislation 1982: 2nd legislationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1982 1983: Build up coal reserves 1984: Miners strike So using that as a basis, how should TPTB engineer a confrontation with Comrade Crow's mob, and achieve total victory? Simple. With the majority she enjoyed in the commons she could push through the sort of legislation that I mentioned in another post legally limiting the number of strike days per year to a rather low number. Wait for morons in RMT to break the law then inflict massive fines on said union until they capitulate or even better it goes broke and is dissolved. Just say, "if customers are unable to procure similar services at similar prices elsewhere, then they may collectively sue which ever party (the company, or the unions) has refused binding arbitration, since said party is responsible for the strike." A nice balanced piece of legislation that is aimed at both management and unions. who could object? |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
Mizter T wrote:
Ha ha, yes, in the football world that's one of the clashes of the titans that can't be missed! True! It cannot even begin to compare with the pleasure of watching (on Wednesday) the sheer artistry of FC Barcelona's players running rings round Manchester United players, with the Mancs completely unable to take the ball off them. Priceless! ;-) |
Another Tube strike announced
"Recliner" wrote in message
... About 10,000 Tube workers have voted to strike on two separate disputes over pay deals and proposed job losses. The vote, by members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union, was rerun after London Underground (LU) legally challenged a previous ballot. Workers will go on a 48-hour strike which will begin at 1859 BST on 9 June and end on 11 June. The strike is expected to bring havoc to the Tube network, used by more than three million passengers a day. The RMT said the ballot result was "overwhelmingly" in favour of strike action with 2,810 voting for and 488 against. Earlier LU had said it believed the issues with the RMT could be resolved without a strike. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8071423.stm Send for Margaret.......... |
Another Tube strike announced
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Recliner
gently breathed: 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. True. But the current government is about to get spectacularly booted out by the Conservatives, who might be more minded (especially if they thought they had the support of ordinary Londoners, some of whom might think that strike-caused disruption was putting their own jobs at risk) to smash RMT's ability to cause utter chaos in the capital once and for all. It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. Lets just hope this time it doesn't lead to a re-run of the Major period ten years later. NP: Cybercide - Further. -- - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net - Wisefire Promotions, Goth & Metal. http://www.wise-fire.com - http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
Pyromancer wrote:
It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate, privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the purposes of getting elected. |
Another Tube strike announced
Tony Polson wrote in
: Pyromancer wrote: It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate, privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the purposes of getting elected. That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in 1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now. This surely cannot be coincidental. |
Another Tube strike announced
James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote in : Pyromancer wrote: It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate, privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the purposes of getting elected. That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in 1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now. This surely cannot be coincidental. That most certainly was *not* my intention. |
Another Tube strike announced
On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51-bbda- : Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any work. Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour. With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses. With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses. I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a better situation. *I really doubt it. Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers". (Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an individual. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 30, 2:57*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Pyromancer wrote: It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate, privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the purposes of getting elected. Haha, win! -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 30, 4:42*pm, James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote : Pyromancer wrote: It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external, soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate, privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the purposes of getting elected. That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in 1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now. Please explain how? I'll accept "Because I'm a Tory, and hence am incapable of rational thought", if you can't come up with anything else. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Another Tube strike announced
On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:27:25 +0100
Tony Polson wrote: or even better it goes broke and is dissolved. I asked how it could be done now, in the 21st century. I'm really not interested in your fantasies about Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, as she is no longer relevant. So you ask how it could be done, I present a perfectly workable answer and caught on the hop thats the best response you can come up with? Oh dear, C- I'm afraid, do try a bit harder. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
"James Farrar" wrote in message
. 4... (BTW, I'm not a Tory.) Well, you should be! Ian |
Another Tube strike announced
On 3 June, 07:38, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:3729ffc2-18f8-4f56-9b25- : On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote: MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51- bbda- : Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any work. Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour. With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses. With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses. I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a better situation. *I really doubt it. Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers". (Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an individual. OK then, defeating the trades unions != defeating the workers.- It's sadly true that more and more union officials are going for a kind of subscription model, where "the union" is a separate body from the workers and simply takes their money to donate to New Labour. A bit like a bank or insurance company that never pays out. However, that kind of union doesn't need to be defeated, because it isn't fighting. They way it should work is that the union IS the workers*, coming together for their common interests, as a balance to the business old- boys' networks that are working for a different bunch of common interests. Believe it or not, the RMT is far closer to the latter sort of model than the majority of unions these days. It may not be perfect, but it's still much much better. At least it does something other than give its members' money to a government that it working against their interests. *The number of people who say "... and the union did nothing" and I say "but you ARE the union". |
Another Tube strike announced
On Jun 3, 7:38*am, James Farrar wrote:
Please explain how? I'll accept "Because I'm a Tory, and hence am incapable of rational thought", if you can't come up with anything else. Given that second sentence, it's not worth the hassle. (BTW, I'm not a Tory.) Meh. "Please explain how Cameron is less bad than Tony Blair". I'd probably accept at this point that Brown is a worse party leader than Major. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Another Tube strike announced
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 04:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
wrote: Meh. "Please explain how Cameron is less bad than Tony Blair". I'd probably accept at this point that Brown is a worse party leader than Major. I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't just for his own ego that Blair kept Brown out of No10 for so long. Perhaps he realised just how truly bad he'd be for the labour party as leader. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
On Jun 4, 7:36*am, James Farrar wrote: wrote: On Jun 3, 7:38*am, James Farrar wrote: Please explain how? I'll accept "Because I'm a Tory, and hence am incapable of rational thought", if you can't come up with anything else. Given that second sentence, it's not worth the hassle. (BTW, I'm not a Tory.) Meh. "Please explain how Cameron is less bad than Tony Blair". He seems to have some idea of what he wants to do with power. Blair never did. That's just nonsense - I'm not going to wage some massive defence of Blair, but to say that he didn't have any idea of what he wanted to do in power is just plain ignorant. Of course it's possible that appearances are deceptive; only the event will prove it. I'd probably accept at this point that Brown is a worse party leader than Major. It would be difficult to argue the other way, quite frankly. I'm sure someone could come up with an argument, but I'm not going to waste my effort trying! The Tories problem in the 90's was Europe, and also that John Major wasn't Margaret Thatcher. The Labour Party's current problem is Gordon Brown himself. That, and the fact they're going to lose the next election, the two issues being rather fused together. |
Another Tube strike announced
Mizter T wrote:
That's just nonsense - I'm not going to wage some massive defence of Blair, but to say that he didn't have any idea of what he wanted to do in power is just plain ignorant. What Blair wanted to do was to modernise Labour so that, having obtained power thanks to John Major, it could retain it and gain the full second term Labour had never previously managed. And he achieved that. But where James is right is that, once in power, Blair didn't know what to do with it. He came to power promising that his top three priorities were "Education, education, education" then presided over the most rapid decline in educational standards in living memory. Labour doubled spending on the NHS in real terms only to squander the money on increasing the salaries of consultants, GPs and nurses and employing vastly more of them, to the point where there was hardly any money left for patient care. The doubling of spending (tripling in cash terms) led to an increase in procedures (the best available index of output) of only 17%. Now it's true that nurses needed to be paid significantly more after a decade of declining remuneration, but does your local GP really deserve to be paid £107,000 on average, or a consultant £170,000? This was the price Labour paid for getting them to agree to a modernisation that is far from the significant root and branch reform of the NHS that was needed. And then there was the illegal war(s). Blair cynically looked at them from a party political point of view, and realised that he would be toast with some of New Labour's new Middle England voters if he opposed the war(s). So he wrong-footed the Conservatives and joined up with some of the most repugnant war criminals that have enjoyed power since 1945 - Cheney, Rumsfeld and their idiot stooge, Bush, all for domestic party political gain. |
Another Tube strike announced
On Jun 4, 10:21*am, Tony Polson wrote:
But where James is right is that, once in power, Blair didn't know what to do with it. *He came to power promising that his top three priorities were "Education, education, education" then presided over the most rapid decline in educational standards in living memory. * Err, cite? Your own crazy rantings don't count. Labour doubled spending on the NHS in real terms only to squander the money on increasing the salaries of consultants, GPs and nurses and employing vastly more of them, to the point where there was hardly any money left for patient care. What exactly do you believe consultants, GPs and nurses do, if not patient care...? And then there was the illegal war(s). *Blair cynically looked at them from a party political point of view, and realised that he would be toast with some of New Labour's new Middle England voters if he opposed the war(s). *So he wrong-footed the Conservatives and joined up with some of the most repugnant war criminals that have enjoyed power since 1945 - Cheney, Rumsfeld and their idiot stooge, Bush, all for domestic party political gain. Can't disagree here. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
On Jun 4, 10:21*am, Tony Polson wrote: Mizter T wrote: That's just nonsense - I'm not going to wage some massive defence of Blair, but to say that he didn't have any idea of what he wanted to do in power is just plain ignorant. What Blair wanted to do was to modernise Labour so that, having obtained power thanks to John Major, it could retain it and gain the full second term Labour had never previously managed. *And he achieved that. But where James is right is that, once in power, Blair didn't know what to do with it. *He came to power promising that his top three priorities were "Education, education, education" then presided over the most rapid decline in educational standards in living memory. Proof? In the round, educational standards have improved. But we've been here before, and so I'll just repeat what I said then - "I suspect you have very little exposure to what goes on in education these days, and not enough to have a properly informed opinion on it." Labour doubled spending on the NHS in real terms only to squander the money on increasing the salaries of consultants, GPs and nurses and employing vastly more of them, to the point where there was hardly any money left for patient care. *The doubling of spending (tripling in cash terms) led to an increase in procedures (the best available index of output) of only 17%. *Now it's true that nurses needed to be paid significantly more after a decade of declining remuneration, but does your local GP really deserve to be paid £107,000 on average, or a consultant £170,000? *This was the price Labour paid for getting them to agree to a modernisation that is far from the significant root and branch reform of the NHS that was needed. Healthcare has improved significantly. Wages for many in the NHS needed to go up too, as you concede. I absolutely agree that the very high pay settlements reached with consultants and GPs were absolutely astounding - essentially it seems as though the DoH moronically simply agreed to the BMA's opening gambit in the negotiations. I also agree that by no means did the NHS as a whole manage to get anything near as big a bang out of the bucks that were spent as should have been the case. And then there was the illegal war(s). *Blair cynically looked at them from a party political point of view, and realised that he would be toast with some of New Labour's new Middle England voters if he opposed the war(s). *So he wrong-footed the Conservatives and joined up with some of the most repugnant war criminals that have enjoyed power since 1945 - Cheney, Rumsfeld and their idiot stooge, Bush, all for domestic party political gain. I disagree - I really don't think Blair approached Iraq from a party political standpoint at all. I think he essentially agreed to back Bush, and then justified it to himself and others by focussing on the evilness of Saddam Hussein's regime coupled with the somewhat forlorn hope that the new Iraq could be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East (and to an extent the wider world), plus a few other ideas (e.g. felling a 'rogue state' would demonstrate to others that they should be good). I don't think either Afghanistan or Kosovo/Serbia were approached from a party political angle either (and I would also demur with you in labelling them as "illegal wars" but that's moving onto new territory). |
Another Tube strike announced
"Mizter T" wrote in message
On Jun 4, 10:21 am, Tony Polson wrote: Mizter T wrote: And then there was the illegal war(s). Blair cynically looked at them from a party political point of view, and realised that he would be toast with some of New Labour's new Middle England voters if he opposed the war(s). So he wrong-footed the Conservatives and joined up with some of the most repugnant war criminals that have enjoyed power since 1945 - Cheney, Rumsfeld and their idiot stooge, Bush, all for domestic party political gain. I disagree - I really don't think Blair approached Iraq from a party political standpoint at all. I think he essentially agreed to back Bush, and then justified it to himself and others by focussing on the evilness of Saddam Hussein's regime coupled with the somewhat forlorn hope that the new Iraq could be a beacon to the rest of the Middle East (and to an extent the wider world), plus a few other ideas (e.g. felling a 'rogue state' would demonstrate to others that they should be good). I don't think either Afghanistan or Kosovo/Serbia were approached from a party political angle either (and I would also demur with you in labelling them as "illegal wars" but that's moving onto new territory). Blair had got the UK into several other small wars, from which the outcomes were largely successful, so he probably had become over-confident. He also probably remembered what the Falklands and first Gulf wars did for the re-election prospects of the PMs of the day. |
Another Tube strike announced
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk