disgoftunwells wrote:
On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
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.


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.


But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.


That's where you're wrong. Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. Nothing has changed. Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

And if anyone thinks that unilaterally imposing an unacceptable form of
wage negotiation is going to bring a day of reckoning, then they're
right. But it would be a day of reckoning for the management, on
account of their gross incompetence.

I don't think for a single minute that TfL are *that* incompetent.

On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
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.

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)

But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.

That's where you're wrong. *Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. *Nothing has changed. *Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

I was thinking more generally. When was the last time the miners went
on strike? Even Rover workers turned a new leaf, though ultimately too
late to save themselves.

Workers keep getting what they ask for. The management can't do
anything. finally external stakeholders force the issue. In a
competitive market, external stakeholders are customers and act very
quickly.

On 29 May, 12:45, disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:



disgoftunwells wrote:
On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
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.

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)

But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.

That's where you're wrong. *Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. *Nothing has changed. *Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

I was thinking more generally. When was the last time the miners went
on strike? Even Rover workers turned a new leaf, though ultimately too
late to save themselves.

Workers keep getting what they ask for. The management can't do
anything. finally external stakeholders force the issue. In a
competitive market, external stakeholders are customers and act very
quickly.-

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.

Along the way, they may propose something beyond reasonableness in
order to wear out the unions, and then appear to back down to what
they wanted all along.

There was a brief period in the early 1970s when the unions appeared
to use the kind of tactics that all business use all day every day,
but basically unions have no power at all beyond the funding that they
provide to Labour oppositions, and that's all been squandered by a few
officials chasing knighthoods (with a few honourable exceptions like
Bob Crow) rather than representing the interests of their members.

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.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

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.

MIG wrote:

Dem narstee bossiz hav got braynz in dez heads en uss wurkas azzunt so we
is orlwaze da undadog

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.

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

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.

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.