Northern Rail - Blackpool Guards strike

[WatcherZero]

Indeed, we cant say if the person did it or not but there are a variety of reasons the Union may choose to defend them even if know or suspect they did do it.

Camaraderie for a colleague, sympathy for someone who made a stupid mistake, feeling of guilt (e.g. a colleague might have dared them), obstinacy (e.g. supervisor unloved and might have felt they deserved it).

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed, we cant say if the person did it or not but there are a variety of reasons the Union may choose to defend them even if know or suspect they did do it.

The person in question has paid a subscription to the Union so the Union are obliged to support their member but how much support is down to them.

 

[crehld]

Indeed, we cant say if the person did it or not but there are a variety of reasons the Union may choose to defend them even if know or suspect they did do it.

Camaraderie for a colleague, sympathy for someone who made a stupid mistake, feeling of guilt (e.g. a colleague might have dared them), obstinacy (e.g. supervisor unloved and might have felt they deserved it).

I can understand the camaraderie and sympathy arguments, but these are much better dealt with by mobilising the union's resources to fight on an individual case basis.

I hadn't considered the guilt issue. But then if a colleague dared them to do it and feels guilty about the outcome I would hope that colleague comes forward and is truthful about their involvement. This of course does not excuse the dismissed member of staff's actions (if it did indeed happen), but is a much more effective demonstration of solidarity if that is what the union is after.

As for the obstinacy I really hope this isn't the case. We all have colleagues we don't get on with, but is potentially poising your supervisor (if it did indeed happen) an appropriate way of dealing with a grievance? Striking for this reason essentially means the union is legitimising this behaviour.

By striking, all the union has achieved is to draw public attention to a case where a member of staff has been dismissed for allegedly spiking their supervisor's drink. This may not be the whole story, but that is the story to emerge. The public will be rightly asking why the employee should not face consequences for their alleged actions, and this effectively undermines the union's aim which should be to get that employee reinstated (if indeed they have been unlawfully dismissed).

 

[185]

General opinion from a range of staff is that he probably did do it *however* the lack of evidence should have been enough to stop any disciplinary action in the first place.

Any investigation should have flagged the lack of 'actual' evidence up and Northern HR proceeding with the gross misconduct charge resulted in the strike. Speaking to a cop, the burden of proof in criminal cases is far higher, which is why BTP shied away from bringing any charges - however Northern decided to take the risk of upholding their own 'charges'.

 

[crehld]

General opinion from a range of staff is that he probably did do it *however* the lack of evidence should have been enough to stop any disciplinary action in the first place.

Any investigation should have flagged the lack of 'actual' evidence up and Northern HR proceeding with the gross misconduct charge resulted in the strike. Speaking to a cop, the burden of proof in criminal cases is far higher, which is why BTP shied away from bringing any charges - however Northern decided to take the risk of upholding their own 'charges'.

Which brings me back to why the union isn't pursuing this through an employment tribunal. This stands more of a chance of getting the employee reinstated (or at least receiving damages from Northern) and a judgement (and probable sanction) against Northern rail would have much more impact on their HR department's future approach to dismissal cases without hard evidence.

 

[Carlisle]

Trotskyist doctrine is to create conflict wherever possible. Every conflict brings the revolution closer.

Finally due to arrive on 8th May 2020 after a landslide victory for prime minister Corbyn

 

[FordFocus]

The person in question has paid a subscription to the Union so the Union are obliged to support their member but how much support is down to them.

The union won't defend the indefensible, it's a waste of union funds. I've seen agreements that said person is allowed to resign and that's the end of it. However if they've called for strike action and people have voted yes for action and thus lose their money then there must be more to the story.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

UK

Finally due on 8th May 2020 after a landslide victory for prime minister Corbyn

.....then you woke up to find President Cash was the new leader of the British Autonomous Oblast with the radio playing a stirring version of "The East Is Red" sung by the South Yorkshire Socialist Workers Choir...:roll:

 

[HH]

Finally due to arrive on 8th May 2020 after a landslide victory for prime minister Corbyn

Except that Comrade Corbyn is a Stalinist.

Better hope that he doesn't decide that striking rail workers are counter-revolutionaries and sends the tanks in.

 

[northwichcat]

The union won't defend the indefensible, it's a waste of union funds. I've seen agreements that said person is allowed to resign and that's the end of it. However if they've called for strike action and people have voted yes for action and thus lose their money then there must be more to the story.

Presumably most of the members receiving voting papers would not have been at the time of the incident and have voted based on what they've heard happened opposed to what they witnessed.

As mentioned the RMT wanted to strike over proposed changes in the next franchise but after the threat of legal action because the strike would have been illegal they backed down. Many members voted to strike in the ballot that didn't stand, so they possibly this time they voted because they still want to strike more than anything else?

 

[ainsworth74]

We already have a thread for discussing Corbyn and the potential impacts of his ascension to the Labour leadership so I would ask that we continue discussion on that thread and leave this one for discussion about the dispute at Blackpool.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If the hand-gel allegedly used 'killed 99.9% of all known germs' as the saying goes, anyone consuming it could face severe consequences.

Your stomach relies on 'bugs' to digest food. Without those bugs you are in serious trouble. There have been cases where people, having drunk (excessively) large volumes of water for 'health' reasons, flushed all the bugs out of their system, thus putting themselves into intensive care until the bugs could be replenished.

Whether the incident, as described, happened or not I leave to those who were there, those who have investigated it fully, or due legal process. But I wouldn't want to work with such jolly jesters thank you very much.