Striking during olympics

[ainsworth74]

Yes - way back in the early '70s Ted Heath capitulated to the miners and they got what they wanted.

And in the long term? The miners failure to accept that significant reform was needed to their industry (closing uneconomic pits for example) eventually led to the near total death of coal mining in the UK. So in the short term they got what they wanted, whilst in the long term they ended up losing their jobs as the pits they worked for became ever more expensive.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

In my opinion, it just makes the country look a complete shambles in the eyes of the world. We have one chance to prove ourselves, and there's always someone who wants to ruin it, and in this case those who strike. It's our country and we should be proud to be hosting something of this scale, but no - they'd rather show us all up.

 

[SS4]

In my opinion, it just makes the country look a complete shambles in the eyes of the world. We have one chance to prove ourselves, and there's always someone who wants to ruin it, and in this case those who strike. It's our country and we should be proud to be hosting something of this scale, but no - they'd rather show us all up.

How 19th century of you :roll:.
How can we have one chance to prove ourselves on our third Games?

 

[robschopper]

In my opinion, it just makes the country look a complete shambles in the eyes of the world. We have one chance to prove ourselves, and there's always someone who wants to ruin it, and in this case those who strike. It's our country and we should be proud to be hosting something of this scale, but no - they'd rather show us all up.

I totally agree.

Strike, by all means. Strike during the working week, during the run up to Christmas, hell ... strike during the Jubilee weekend. That affects many of us in the U.K. and we would expect it, put up with it, and many would agree with your actions, myself included.

But not this month, not whilst we have one chance to show the world what we, as a nation, can do.

Yes, you may not get an extra five hundred pounds for working through the
Olympics (Yes, I know this isn't the only issue), but in the long run, look at it from the poiint of view of Mr and Mrs Tourist, sitting in front of their tele with some spare cash to go somewhere on holiday. They may just, after watching the experience of fellow tourists going to the Olympics, choose to spend their hard earned cash, coming to the U.K, to London, and maybe on your companies trains ..... or they may go somewhere else with less disruption.

Let's look at the long game ... we'll all be better off in the long run. Otherwise, the Commonwealth Games in 2014 and the World Athletics Championships in 2017, which are the only things we are hosting and the various organisations are committed to, may be the last world class events we get.

Then where may we be .... Greece springs to mind ...!!!

 

[table38]

How can we have one chance to prove ourselves on our third Games?

Because it's unlikely we'll get another chance in the foreseable future (even assuming we don't make a pigs ear of this one!)

(And even assuming we didn't get this one by accident )

It was claimed that the Greek member had mistakenly voted for Paris rather than Madrid. If his vote had been cast for Madrid, the Spanish capital would have tied equally with Paris, and forced a run off. Most commentators agree, that Madrid would have beaten Paris and gone through to the final against London and Madrid would have have emerged victorious

 

[Oswyntail]

How 19th century of you :roll:.

By which you mean what, exactly? Please explain, with examples, what aspects of the 19th century were hinted at in that post that merit a ":roll:". Or is that just an ill-informed sneer? (Can we have a smiley for that, please? Many would find it extremely useful)

How can we have one chance to prove ourselves on our third Games?

Well, speaking for myself, I was not around, even as part of the general community for the other two. I was, indirectly, given the chance to contribute to these games, and I hope my contribution proved effective.

 

[robschopper]

I think he must have been referring to the 19th century version of 24 hours rolling news, reporting on everything 'Olympics', because they've got little else to talk about for the 58 minutes between weather forecasts ... on hundreds of channels in most of the countries in the free world!!

You know, like they had in 1948 and 1908, when we previously tried to 'prove ourselves'!!

 

[KA4C]

Drivers (generally speaking) seem to think they are untouchable, therefore they can do what they like. This is the impression they give me from all the news I hear about them.

Well, let me put your mind at rest, matey. This is not how the vast majority of drivers behave, so I'd stop taking too much notice of what is in the media.

The vast majority behave professionally in their duties. of course there are the odd one or two who don't (as there are in every walk of life) but they eventually get managed out or persuaded to see the light

 

[YorkshireBear]

Not quite as hostile a reaction as i was expecting... And no jospuk i dont expect people to strike at sunday morning in early hours if you read what i put that is not what i said.

I said not during the olympics, the rail system will struggle to cope, strikes could cripple it completely. Like i have already said, i recieve no extra money for working harder than normal at work and pushing myself etc etc. Makes me feel proud to achieve something and like i earnt my wage packet. If for a few weeks of sometimes harder work (it wont always be busier they will get normal spells too which they still want paying extra for) they need money then should they have a job? It is not like train drivers have poor salaries is it? Many people are going to work harder, have longer commutes (just as hard as working as they are not only stressful but exhausting) and not one of them is going to recieve an extra penny. Its not perfect but what part of life is...

 

[DarloRich]

Here we go again - I don’t get as good a deal so why should you. The race to the bottom is on. Perhaps it could be made an Olympic Sport

In an ideal world there should not be strikes during the Olympics. However, in an ideal world there would be no need for unions because everything would be fair and equitable and there would be no disputes.

Now, when do you think the best time to get someone to listen to your grievance might be? When do you think you might get a positive outcome? Is it right? No. Not at this time. But I bet you it won’t get sorted out if you defer action until after the games.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thats not the point im making, i think my deal is fair. I dont think they have an actual grievance i think they are being unreasonable.

Im not disputing its the best time to strike... im disputing should they be striking at all (in this situation i am not against strikes)

Turns out this was my 3000th post!

 

[SS4]

By which you mean what, exactly? Please explain, with examples, what aspects of the 19th century were hinted at in that post that merit a ":roll:". Or is that just an ill-informed sneer? (Can we have a smiley for that, please? Many would find it extremely useful)

The logical conclusion of the post I quoted was when employers were free to do whatever the liked with their workers. Trade unions became legal in 1871, child labour was alive and "well", slum housing, disease.
We must never forget the lessons of the past because it has a nasty habit of recurring.

For the ill-informed sneer smiley just use Iain-Duncan-Smith announcing welfare "reform" or Jeremy " Murdoch" Hunt. For a "I lied" smiley there is Cameron telling us we're all in it together

Well, speaking for myself, I was not around, even as part of the general community for the other two. I was, indirectly, given the chance to contribute to these games, and I hope my contribution proved effective.

Neither was I. Perhaps you're right in showing the world what we can do in the 21st century (besides allowing our banking rates to be fixed and our phones being hacked - both of which of course were under the previous government).
A spectator coming to London will see a Tube system desperately in need of money to update it, a debacle over security showing how the G4S needed to be bailed out from the public sector and extortionately raised prices from an already high cost of living. By allowing strikes to take place we show we're a free country where it's citizens have a voice because they sure as hell don't in politics!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here we go again - I don’t get as good a deal so why should you. The race to the bottom is on. Perhaps it could be made an Olympic Sport

In an ideal world there should not be strikes during the Olympics. However, in an ideal world there would be no need for unions because everything would be fair and equitable and there would be no disputes.

Now, when do you think the best time to get someone to listen to your grievance might be? When do you think you might get a positive outcome? Is it right? No. Not at this time. But I bet you it won’t get sorted out if you defer action until after the games.

Hear hear.

Thats not the point im making, i think my deal is fair. I dont think they have an actual grievance i think they are being unreasonable.

Naturally you're in command of all the facts and have no emotional attachment to the issue. The members got a ballot and the majority voted for it, whether it's right in your mind or mine is irrelevant.

 

[wigwamman]

That is utter balderdash.Apart from the fact that the Olympics are part of the athletes' "job" so to describe what they are doing as an "oppurtunity to make a few bob" is somewhat offensive, I suspect that neither the "rich corporations" nor any Government will see much directly from the games, but rather from indirect aspects such as goodwill and increased activity. But look at that crass statement you made for what it is, an expression of envy, greed and selfishness. "I want a share of that" - of what? TOC workers are not having a share of the sponsorship pot, or government revenue (except indirectly), or athletes' prize funds. Just the income their employers can generate. And where does that come from? Not from the Olympics.
Sorry, but this sort of action by "organised labour" brings the whole union movement into the very worst of lights.

Of course the likes of nike,mcdonalds, and other sponsors will make money out of the games,why otherwise spend money advertising and promoting them.As you state the benefits maybe indirect but so what,you could as easily make the case that the workers are trying to benefit indirectly.
As for workers feeling proud to do a good job and work a bit harder for the country,what utter tosh,work hard for a country that let's rich people exploit its poor,that wants its old to work longer and draw less pension,a country that is making education more expensive for its younger generation.
Let's stop the handwringing and let's see these disputes for what they are, plain and simply about a workforce chancing its arm.I don't see anything untowards in that as the people who have run this country have been chancers for the last 30 years,we voted for a society that looks after itself and this is what we have got.It is just that unions look after themselves and their members as a collective.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Naturally you're in command of all the facts and have no emotional attachment to the issue. The members got a ballot and the majority voted for it, whether it's right in your mind or mine is irrelevant.

The point was to discuss, it has been done and my opinion has changed. I wasn't trying to prove something one way or the other.

 

[Oswyntail]

Of course the likes of nike,mcdonalds, and other sponsors will make money out of the games,why otherwise spend money advertising and promoting them.

To avoid the losses that would come their way if they didn't, and their rivals did. Or do you expect them to form a cartel, all agreeing not to sponsor the games?

As for workers feeling proud to do a good job and work a bit harder for the country,what utter tosh,work hard for a country that let's rich people exploit its poor,that wants its old to work longer and draw less pension,a country that is making education more expensive for its younger generation.
Let's stop the handwringing and let's see these disputes for what they are, plain and simply about a workforce chancing its arm.I don't see anything untowards in that as the people who have run this country have been chancers for the last 30 years,we voted for a society that looks after itself and this is what we have got.It is just that unions look after themselves and their members as a collective.

This is one of the saddest rants i have seen recently. Much of it is utter bosh, of course. I would stick my neck out and say there is a good deal less exploitation of the workforce within the UK these days than there has ever been, largely as a result of the social changes since 1979. It is arguable whether the unions do effectively look after the long-term interests of their members, but we will never agree on that. I presume you would be happy to see your last sentence rewritten with the word "bankers" in place of "unions" and be equally supportive of their aims.
Or perhaps you should recognise that, for a society to function, we should all be working for the communal good, in whatever way we can, and that sometimes that means subsuming personal gain within a greater ideal. Sorry if i sound a bit too left-wing, but, as a Conservative-leaner, that is the way i think

 

[wigwamman]

To avoid the losses that would come their way if they didn't, and their rivals did. Or do you expect them to form a cartel, all agreeing not to sponsor the games?
That is irrelivant,if the coporate bigwigs had the slightest idea they would lode money by getting inonlved with the olympics they wouldn't go near it at all.

This is one of the saddest rants i have seen recently. Much of it is utter bosh, of course. I would stick my neck out and say there is a good deal less exploitation of the workforce within the UK these days than there has ever been, largely as a result of the social changes since 1979. It is arguable whether the unions do effectively look after the long-term interests of their members, but we will never agree on that. I presume you would be happy to see your last sentence rewritten with the word "bankers" in place of "unions" and be equally supportive of their aims.
Or perhaps you should recognise that, for a society to function, we should all be working for the communal good, in whatever way we can, and that sometimes that means subsuming personal gain within a greater ideal. Sorry if i sound a bit too left-wing, but, as a Conservative-leaner, that is the way i think

What you seem to be describing here is a communist society were each person contributes to the greater good of their fellow human according to their ability.
We live in a capatilist society,and the people who do the biggest amount of crying when workers orgainise and use capatilist tactics to extract more money for themselves are the usual suspects the daily mail,the times and the right wingers of this world.
As a conservative you must be a fan of the privatisation of the railways,utility companys and british telecom etc,do these companies work for the betterment of society or do they work for the intrests of their shareholders.
I would like nothing more than a world were greed and self intrest is a thing of the past but we don't live in that world.
As for the multi nationals,if they thought for one moment that by sponsoring the olympics they would lose money they wouldn't get involved at all.They don't spend millions in sponsorship out of the goodness of their hearts or to leave any legacy behind for the good people of london.

 

[DarloRich]

Or perhaps you should recognise that, for a society to function, we should all be working for the communal good, in whatever way we can, and that sometimes that means subsuming personal gain within a greater ideal. Sorry if i sound a bit too left-wing, but, as a Conservative-leaner, that is the way i think

Just like all of those capitalisit supermen in the banks and the city do! Now just who is talking "bosh"

Also strange that the Conservatives have tried to veto every piece of social legislation in history from universal sufferage to the minimum wage via the National Health Service and all stations in between

 

[table38]

As a conservative you must be a fan of the privatisation of the railways,utility companys and british telecom etc,do these companies work for the betterment of society or do they work for the intrests of their shareholders.

We're getting a bit off the point, but these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Privatisation of Telecoms, Gas and Electric has no doubt benefitted the shareholders, but because of increased competition has massively benefitted consumers via lower prices that we could only have dreamt of if (for example) BT still had a monopoly. I'm old enough to remember when you did that thing to save money where you rang the phone twice to say you got home OK. Now you get free calls!

(Railway privatisation doesn't work where there is no competition, but that has been discussed ad nausem before)

 

[DarloRich]

We're getting a bit off the point, but these two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Privatisation of Telecoms, Gas and Electric has no doubt benefitted the shareholders, but because of increased competition has massively benefitted consumers via lower prices that we could only have dreamt of if (for example) BT still had a monopoly. I'm old enough to remember when you did that thing to save money where you rang the phone twice to say you got home OK. Now you get free calls!

(Railway privatisation doesn't work where there is no competition, but that has been discussed ad nausem before)

Yes we have saved a fortune thanks to the privitised utility companies. I mean the gas and electric bills are so low that no one lives in fuel poverty in this country or struggles to pay thier bills :roll:

 

[table38]

Yes we have saved a fortune thanks to the privitised utility companies. I mean the gas and electric bills are so low that no one lives in fuel poverty in this country or struggles to pay thier bills :roll:

So... presumably you saying they would be better off with no competition and higher prices somehow ?

 

[wigwamman]

So... presumably you saying they would be better off with no competition and higher prices somehow ?

Where is your evidence prices would be higher under state control.
If anything the utility companies are a cartel that have jacked prices and profits up

 

[table38]

Where is your evidence prices would be higher under state control.

Well sadly I no longer have the bills from when I first got a phone in around 1980, but I do remember (having sat on a waiting list for around a month) making sure that everyone who used it (including the girls in the flat next door!) wrote down every call so we could divvy up the bill when it arrived, including a proportion of the rental.

If I were in the same situation now, I'd most likely get free evening and weekend calls.

Any monopoly can feel free to overcharge given they have a captive customer base. Competition lets the customer vote with his (or her) feet.

If anything the utility companies are a cartel that have jacked prices and profits up

That would be illegal - if you have evidence of that, I'd report it

 

[HSTEd]

As to competition in the utilities.... there is no competition at all in the water supply industry, we simply traded monopolies owned by the people for ones owned by foreign venture capitalists.

And as to whether the privatisation of the British energy supply infrastructure has actually helped consumers it is an open question, one of the executives at National Grid admitted on Radio 4 that the electricity infrastructure is effectively the one the supposedly incompetent CEGB built and they are worried because they are actually going to have to start replacing it soon.

Publicly owned utilities have access to lower capital costs and have shareholders who don't worry about this years dividend at the expense of a long term capital plan.

On balance I believe that public ownership of utilities would be best if we could use the fact that parliamentary committees are now broadcast to the nation on Digital Television to hold them to account. (State owned corporations could take turns sitting before a special committee of the house and answer for all the decisions they made during the year based on a complete publication of the financial year's accounts).

 

[nedchester]

But isn't that kind of the point?
I am not sure on the details, but I would imagine the main issue here is that they wouldn't just be "doing their job". They'd be doing a lot more work than what their job description and contract actually says.

So drivers do more than just drive trains during the Olympics?

 

[HSTEd]

So drivers do more than just drive trains during the Olympics?

There are concerns over the imposition of different rostering standards to usual and they expectation they will work as required based on short notice changes as I understand it.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

As to competition in the utilities.... there is no competition at all in the water supply industry, we simply traded monopolies owned by the people for ones owned by foreign venture capitalists.

Not in Wales. Glas Cymru is an excellent model of how things can be done with all profits ploughed back into the business, to the benefit of consumers. Plaid Cymru has proposed a similar set up to operate Welsh Railways when the franchise comes up for renewal.

 

[Oswyntail]

Just like all of those capitalisit supermen in the banks and the city do! Now just who is talking "bosh"

I didn't say they were - in fact i thought i had implied they weren't. But Wigwamman had suggested in effect that society was now a question of "Each man for himself", and I was suggesting a better way.

Also strange that the Conservatives have tried to veto every piece of social legislation in history from universal sufferage to the minimum wage via the National Health Service and all stations in between

In theory, Conservativism is based on the idea that the country's institutions can be made to function to carry out everything that is necessary. Part of this is an innate conservatism, that would rather take time to get things right rather than rush ahead - this does have unfortunate consequences at times, of course, but so does rushing immense change through. Universal suffrage, I will grant, was right , but had implications that were not thought through or allowed for which we are feeling even today. The NHS likewise - and remember it was opposed by almost the entire medical and nursing professions; do you really think the founding fathers imagined the financially disastrous behemoth we have today?
There are lunatic mongrels on both the right and left wings of British society. Today it is as wrong to assume that all Conservatives (even the rich ones) exploit the working class as it is to assume that all Socialists (even the rich ones) are plotting to overthrow the establishment. It is because the vast majority of the British, from whatever political persuasion, believe in the advancement of social democracy that i find the "I want a share of that" approach so dispiriting.

 

[313103]

Once again i see the usuaul diatribe coming from certain quarters!

I also note that Bob Crow's name was mentioned in the very first post, the fact that RMT members are not striking is not lost on me!

I am not going down and picking other comments apart, although what i will say is i think i am right to think that ilive in a democratic country, with a (at the moment) democratic Government. So i think it is also my right to strike if it requires it and refuse to work overtime again if it requires it. No matter when and no matter what kind of event is being done.

 

[wigwamman]

Well sadly I no longer have the bills from when I first got a phone in around 1980, but I do remember (having sat on a waiting list for around a month) making sure that everyone who used it (including the girls in the flat next door!) wrote down every call so we could divvy up the bill when it arrived, including a proportion of the rental.

If I were in the same situation now, I'd most likely get free evening and weekend calls.

Any monopoly can feel free to overcharge given they have a captive customer base. Competition lets the customer vote with his (or her) feet.



That would be illegal - if you have evidence of that, I'd report it

In 2009 energy giants EON and GDF were fined €1.1 billion for carving up the european gas markets between them.
Do you want me to post any more unethical practices by those nice venture capatilists that own these thiefs.

 

[table38]

So i think it is also my right to strike if it requires it and refuse to work overtime again if it requires it. No matter when and no matter what kind of event is being done.

I agree.

Yet you could choose not to do it before the Olympics, and then maybe not be accused of self-interest and gain more public support for your grievances?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you want me to post any more unethical practices by those nice venture capatilists that own these thiefs.

Sure if you want, although I'm still unsure what that has to do with the topic under discussion.