|
Another Tube strike announced
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 |
Another Tube strike announced
"Recliner" wrote:
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 Plus ca change ... Perhaps Bob Crow has French ancestors. ;-) |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? |
Another Tube strike announced
"Mizter T" wrote in message
On May 28, 12:38 pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? Yes, I wondered if his departure would lead to more strikes. It was harder for the militant RMT to get its members to fight him. |
Another Tube strike announced
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:38:10 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: About 10,000 Tube workers have voted to strike on two separate disputes over pay deals and proposed job losses. I wonder if we market RMT strikes as an historical tourist attraction. Perhaps advertising them as the last bastion of large scale trouble making marxist scum in britain so kids could come and watch how life used to be in the 70s and 80s. There could even be one of those living history guided tours around a picket line pointing out the amusing donkey jackets, banal badly spelt placards and quaint union banners, with possibly a group what-do-we-want style chant chosen from the Brothers United book of Music for Morons. Apperantly all the songs are out of key and only have 1 note so the kids could even join in. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
In message
Mizter T wrote: On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. IIRC the original ballot was in favour of stike action. 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. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Another Tube strike announced
On 28 May, 14:54, rail wrote:
In message * * * * * Mizter T wrote: On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the original ballot was in favour of stike action. 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. These things are negotiating positions, which need to be followed by negotiation. When the management won't negotiate, they refer to "demands", but how does anyone state a negotiating position that couldn't be described by someone else as a demand? Strikes are generally the result of a management refusal to negotiate, rather than the expectation of a "demand" being met in full. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 28, 2:54*pm, rail wrote: In message * * * * * Mizter T wrote: On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the original ballot was in favour of stike action. 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. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 28, 5:04*pm, MIG wrote: On 28 May, 14:54, rail wrote: In message * * * * * Mizter T wrote: [snip] Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the original ballot was in favour of stike action. 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. These things are negotiating positions, which need to be followed by negotiation. *When the management won't negotiate, they refer to "demands", but how does anyone state a negotiating position that couldn't be described by someone else as a demand? Strikes are generally the result of a management refusal to negotiate, rather than the expectation of a "demand" being met in full. So I suppose another take on it could be 'Team Boris's' decision to take a harder stance with the unions? That would chime with many people's world view. However, TfL is under massive financial pressures - a situation that can't really be said to be of Boris's making - and there isn't a big pot of loot stashed away somewhere, so perhaps LU are simply being rather more upfront about the lack of cash at the start of the negotiations? Though I suppose LU may well have realised that they'll have public sentiment on their side more so than ever given the present economic 'climate' - an LU front-line job is after all pretty secure, pays fairly well and comes with a pension. You do make a good point about the use of the term "demands" MIG. It's always hard to know what's really going on in these situations. |
Another Tube strike announced
On 28 May, 17:04, MIG wrote:
On 28 May, 14:54, rail wrote: In message * * * * * Mizter T wrote: On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote: 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 Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has departed? As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the original ballot was in favour of stike action. 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. These things are negotiating positions, which need to be followed by negotiation. *When the management won't negotiate, they refer to "demands", but how does anyone state a negotiating position that couldn't be described by someone else as a demand? Strikes are generally the result of a management refusal to negotiate, rather than the expectation of a "demand" being met in full. 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. |
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. |
Another Tube strike announced
On May 28, 6:24*pm, disgoftunwells wrote:
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. The circumstances are somewhat different, but during an illegal strike on the Glasgow Subway in 2002, SPT sacked 32 (of 45) drivers, and it seems at some point were considering shutting the service for three months while they trained new staff [1]. In the end, they re-hired them all, but under terms more favourable to the employer [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2413407.stm [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2429645.stm |
Another Tube strike announced
On Fri, 29 May 2009 01:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Deutsch wrote: The circumstances are somewhat different, but during an illegal strike on the Glasgow Subway in 2002, SPT sacked 32 (of 45) drivers, and it seems at some point were considering shutting the service for three months while they trained new staff [1]. In the end, they re-hired them all, but under terms more favourable to the employer [2]. I suppose the big difference is that for Glasgow the subway is a nice-to-have rather than an absolutely essential public transport service like the tube is in london. IIRC it was closed for a number of months anyway at one point when they upgraded the system. But I do think TfL needs to square up to the RMT because unless they get a much needed kick up the backside this is only going to get worse the closer we get to the olympics. Perhaps new legistlation along the lines of the maximum legal length of strikes or maximum number of strikes allowed in a year should be introduced since at least that would limit some of the damage they could cause. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
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. |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
"Tony Polson" wrote in message ... That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum... Thought you were talking about MP's allowances for a moment there... :-) Paul S |
Another Tube strike announced
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. |
Another Tube strike announced
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:31:02 +0100
Tony Polson wrote: That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum, and the Union will simply find some excuse(s) to strike for that number of days regardless of whether their grievances have any real merit. In that case you fine the RMT heavily and/or jail some of the leadership or even the members involved. Unions can get nasty , the establishment can get REALLY nasty if they want to. The workers will be quite happy to strike; Comrade Crow has shown them Not if they end up in prison and unemployed they won't. that militancy gets results. They have gained handsomely over the years as a result of past militancy so why would they not take action? Thats because no one has had the ******** to stand up to them. Ironically it took a woman to do just that to the miners. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 12:49, wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:31:02 +0100 Tony Polson wrote: That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired result. *The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum, and the Union will simply find some excuse(s) to strike for that number of days regardless of whether their grievances have any real merit. In that case you fine the RMT heavily and/or jail some of the leadership or even the members involved. Unions can get nasty , the establishment can get REALLY nasty if they want to. The workers will be quite happy to strike; Comrade Crow has shown them Not if they end up in prison and unemployed they won't. that militancy gets results. *They have gained handsomely over the years as a result of past militancy so why would they not take action? Thats because no one has had the ******** to stand up to them. Ironically it took a woman to do just that to the miners. Indeed, and Mrs Thatcher laid the groundwork carefully. 1980: First legislation 1982: 2nd legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1982 1983: Build up coal reserves 1984: Miners strike |
Another Tube strike announced
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. |
Another Tube strike announced
disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote: 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) So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? ;-) 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. Yes, when the majority of miners had been made redundant, strikes were suddenly considerably rarer. Yes, when the majority of Rover workers had been made redundant, strikes were suddenly considerably rarer. So how are you going to make the majority of TfL workers redundant? 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. Sounds good in theory. In practice, management does what is necessary to keep disruption within limits with which their customers are reasonably content. And that's where we are now. |
Another Tube strike announced
"Paul Scott" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message .. . That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum... Thought you were talking about MP's allowances for a moment there... :-) Oops! In both cases, of course, we are discussing human nature. ;-) |
Another Tube strike announced
|
Another Tube strike announced
disgoftunwells wrote:
Indeed, and Mrs Thatcher laid the groundwork carefully. 1980: First legislation 1982: 2nd legislation http://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? I suggest it cannot be done. Thatcher's strategy to defeat militancy in the NUM, and destroy Comrade Scargill en route, depended crucially on two major factors; (1) the urgent commissioning of several nuclear power stations that were nearing completion, and (2) the build-up of coal stocks at power stations amounting to five months' supply. Where are the comparable factors underpinning TPTB's campaign against militancy in the RMT, destroying Comrade Crow en route? I suggest there aren't any. |
Another Tube strike announced
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 |
Another Tube strike announced
"Tony Polson" wrote in message ... disgoftunwells wrote: 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. Sounds good in theory. In practice, management does what is necessary to keep disruption within limits with which their customers are reasonably content. And that's where we are now. In the private sector, given a competitive market, if management and workers don't get things more or less right the business goes bust and they all lose their jobs. But in the public sector (including quasi-private businesses that government can't allow to fail) management and workers get bailed out until the country goes bust. Peter |
Another Tube strike announced
On 29 May, 13:24, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote: On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote: 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) So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? *;-) I'm sure some legislation regarding strikes in essential services will come in if the Conservatives win. There'll need to be general acceptance of this and making binding arbitration more accessible will be welcomed by sectors which, for professional reasons, don't like striking, or have been exploited by having a monopoly employer (e.g. nurses). The TGWU would complain about any restriction of strike action but wouldn't strike because to do so would be illegal under the 1982 legislation, and if sold correctly the new legislation would have broad support. David Cameron is a master at selling things, and in this instance he would have the full help of Bob Crow and the RMT, who have spent much of the last decade trying to convince the public that such legislation is required. |
Another Tube strike announced
"Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message .. . disgoftunwells wrote: 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. Sounds good in theory. In practice, management does what is necessary to keep disruption within limits with which their customers are reasonably content. And that's where we are now. In the private sector, given a competitive market, if management and workers don't get things more or less right the business goes bust and they all lose their jobs. But in the public sector (including quasi-private businesses that government can't allow to fail) management and workers get bailed out until the country goes bust. I don't see the country going bust because London Underground drivers are overpaid. There is more chance of the country going bust because of the botched part-privatisation (via PFI) of London Underground, costing very many times the wage bill of all LU staff, not just its train drivers. And no-one can blame Comrade Crow or the RMT for any of that nonsense! |
Another Tube strike announced
On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:27:30 +0100
Tony Polson wrote: The same woman had the great wisdom to know who to stand up to, and who to humour. She chose her battles well. True, but I suspect she would have done something about the RMT by now even if was only behind the scenes manouvering. She knew enough not even to attempt to privatise the railways, for example. That was left to the weak leader who succeeded her, and who gave in to the rampant free marketeers in his own party. Yes, the tories did go through a rather unfortunate privitise everything we own phase. Pity labour seemed hell bent on continuing the tradition. B2003 |
Another Tube strike announced
disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 13:24, Tony Polson wrote: So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? =A0;-) I'm sure some legislation regarding strikes in essential services will come in if the Conservatives win. There'll need to be general acceptance of this snip OK, what's the USP? How will you get people to accept the inevitable disruption that will occur, for benefits that are far from clear? David Cameron is a master at selling things, David Cameron is completely untested - he hasn't managed to sell anything to anyone yet. and in this instance he would have the full help of Bob Crow and the RMT, who have spent much of the last decade trying to convince the public that such legislation is required. If you think that there is widespread public support for such legislation, then I think you are sadly mistaken. There was a window of opportunity after the firemen's strike when the public might have accepted no-strike legislation in the essential public services - fire, police, ambulance, perhaps even the NHS. However, I'm not sure that, even then, people would have had the stomach for seeing such draconian legislation extended to workers in public transport. In London, perhaps, but not nationally. |
Another Tube strike announced
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 legislation http://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. Also pull rabbit out of hat in the form of tucked away clause that if strikes do continue over the legal period then strikers can be arrested and charged with public order offences and dismissed from their jobs on the spot. From what I've heard people are queuing around the block to for tube driver jobs even when there isn't a recession so LU won't have any problems replacing the troublemakers. B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk