Just browse the
Latest News Items on the RMT website.
I did. That was the first place I headed but, as I said, I only found one of them.
I have no doubt that some of them are accurate. But the language used is quite provocative. Using more conciliatory language could be far more productive. But presumably the choice of words has been made for a specific reason - and certainly not the language I would use if I were working for RMT.
Yes, perhaps. I think I may have said right at the start that I feel that some of the union matters can be a bit more confrontational than is perhaps strictly necessary, and I would have to say that the RMT lays it on a bit thicker than some of the other unions active in the rail industry. But, rightly or wrongly, they do get results.
You're actually a good example of this. Throughout this thread, the language you have used has often been accusatory and seemingly designed to provoke a reaction rather than reach any consensus.
Which proves my point. You've written something that uses quite aggressive language to try and provoke some kind of negative reaction from me.
Not really, no. You're entitled to the opinion, though.
I am finding it hard to address what you're saying because it keeps shifting around. One moment you're interested in the way unions work and the next you're not. I try to explain that the perception you get is due to two things; a) the interaction of the unions and TOCs, and b) the way that the media (mis)report these interactions; but then you tell me you're not interested and suggest that we should all get along better.
On that point alone, I agree. If we all got along better we wouldn't have so many issues regarding industrial relations and the unions wouldn't have to take disruptive action when the situation deteriorates so far. Then you wouldn't have to worry about your day being disrupted.
But I just can't seem to impress on you how breakdowns in industrial relations impact on your perception of the railways, the unions and the staff who work on them. You can't address one problem without addressing the other, and when it comes to industrial relations you can't ignore the position of the unions. And neither is the answer simply to curb the power of the unions as the TOCs will just take advantage. Relations have to improve on BOTH sides before your perception or impression of the railways improves.
I have explained to you importance of perception, but you have chosen to reinterpret it to mean something else. It's not that I want to "judge without understanding", it's more of a case of not needing to understand.
And for me
this is where the confrontation comes in. How can you judge something without understanding it?
I'm sure you don't care about industrial relations in my workplace - and I see no need to criticise you for that. However poor industrial relations in your industry does have a direct affect on my life. So as a customer, I don't care how you (i.e. the employers and employees) sort it out - I'd just rather that you do.
And in most cases we do sort it out without recourse to disruptive action, as I believe I have said on more than one occasion. Your day is not affected and you can go about your business without problems.
If you think a confrontational style is best suited to achieve your objectives of a more harmonious workplace, then good luck with that. I think such an approach is doomed to failure and is damaging to the long-term interests of the industry.
See above. Most of the time things are sorted out amicably without recourse to disruptive action. This is why I keep trying to interest you in understanding what is
actually happening rather than simply refusing to engage.
Does it nor occur to you that if the union used a different approach they might achieve better results and not become the butt of humour? You might dismiss it as a 'silly joke', but Andy Hamilton (the writer of the show) obviously feels that's how the RMT is perceived by public. Bear in mind that joke is over 18 years old - what's changed to make it not relevant today?
I'm not bothered if we are considered to be an anachronism by the public. The union does not represent the public. They represent me and my colleagues. The problem with public perception (and, by extension, your own position) is that it is often based on skewed reporting by the media. Everyone loves a villain and the the media pander to it. So for all the good he does, Bob Crow becomes a figure of fun, the big bad bogeyman spouting rhetoric from the 1970s who stops the trains and tubes from running. We could easily apply the same test to almost any public figure, and that is exactly what the media does, making any name a by-word for almost anything they want.
O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's just that the threat of industrial action appears to be used more than in many other industries. And it's the apparent reliance of it as a negotiating tactic that I would question.
An equally valid interpretation is to question whether or not the TOCs are more hamfisted in their dealings with staff than employers in other industries and that the unions are actually fighting a valiant rearguard action against the erosion of their terms of service, safety of the railways and against summary dismissals. Given that the railways are safety-critical the question becomes even more urgent.
The problem is that to answer either of those questions you have to try and understand what happens inside the industry and the dealings between TOCs and their employees. Unfortunately, your refusal to engage in the discussion and to persist with your impressions, perceptions and interpretations is stifling the debate.
O L Leigh