Striking during olympics

[blacknight]

Agent Provocateur springs to mind

 

[Metroland]

So what is all this about then?



While you didn't specifically say you would do it on this occasion, you have threatened to do it in the past.

Really? Doubt I actually would, I have for better things to do!

It's a public forum, staff are reporting themselves if they post up identifable info!

 

[GB]

I'm sure you wouldn't, (though its not unknown for some to report others) but the threat alone stifles debate and makes for an even more them vs us situation which doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[wigwamman]

You know what would happen if a member of staff was to be disciplined for expressing their views on a public forum don't you.
The unions would ballot their members for industrial action.

 

[chuckles1066]

Absolutely!

The UK is our country, we should be supporting our image with pride, whatever we might think about the Olympic Games, sports sponsorship, or trade unionism.

With a good reputation, other countries will invest in the UK, increasing receipts, improving our economy, which in turn will improve public services and the job market.

With a poor reputation, companies will bypass us, investing in other economies which will then compete with us.

If anything could have came out of the Olympics, I wished it was to regain a bit of national pride. Unfortunately, that has not even started to happen.

I certainly hope that the people tarnishing our reputation are not going to turn around the next week and complain about public services or the job market. ... Yeah, I know, they will!

I am a British expat living out of the UK, and I travel around quite a lot. Many people think that "England" (meaning the UK) is a "has-been", a 19th and early 20th century country. We need to show the world that the UK is here and now, and still a major hub of the world.

Come on, let's pull together, work as a team and show the world that the UK is here, is happening, is a great place to be and is a great place to invest!

I'm amazed you managed to type all of that whilst quite clearly asleep and having the most wonderful dream about a Utopian-esque England that certainly hasn't existed for a very long time.

 

[Oswyntail]

Really the only two anti-union sentiments are jealousy and those who want to take advantage of a divided workforce.

But surely the main driver of a lot of the public union activity we see is driven by jealousy - "I want what he's having". And as for taking advantage of a divided workforce, well, we are back in the 70s rhetoric of "The workers, united, will never be defeated". But united to what purpose? The "best interests" of (eg) drivers may well be against the "best interests" of (eg) guards, and to pretend otherwise is just blind.

I'm amazed you managed to type all of that whilst quite clearly asleep and having the most wonderful dream about a Utopian-esque England that certainly hasn't existed for a very long time.

Actually, that is exactly how the world works. If a company thinks the country will provide the right balance of skill, reliability and cost-effectiveness, it will invest there; if not, it will not. One aspect of reliability could well be not disrupting infrastructure during nationwide events.

 

[krisk]

I work in the industry but am also a customer. If EMT drivers feel all other avenues have been explored and there is no other option then strike it is.

It feels like jealousy, how dare you strike when you are paid so well.

 

[jon0844]

I don't see the point of striking if your employer isn't allowed to do something, and you're being given extra money that you can choose what to do with.

Is it because members can't trust themselves not to just waste it?!

That doesn't make it wrong to strike about other things, but silly strikes - especially those without public support - will just encourage more people to want to stop it being possible to strike at all.

 

[ainsworth74]

That doesn't make it wrong to strike about other things, but silly strikes - especially those without public support - will just encourage more people to want to stop it being possible to strike at all.

I've been thinking that. Whilst people are somewhat right to suggest that what happens between a business and it employees is nothing to do with outsiders, one thing to consider is that if they annoy the public enough that eventually a politician will realise that they'll be able to score an easy win on this issue. All that'll happen is that they'll restrict the right to strike even further than it is currently and very few members of the public will say anything other than "Good!" or "About time someone did something about those Union dinosaurs!".

Maybe Unions and their members don't think that's an issue or a likely outcome but personally, I can certainly see it happening.

 

[jon0844]

Bob Crow probably wishes he went into politics, and is probably like any other politician. He isn't worried about the long term effects, just the short term gains.

He's good at that, but if he and others ultimately help end the power of the unions, I'm sure he'll have done quite well for himself during that time and won't care too much.

Isn't it how most people think now? Just look out for yourself, and don't worry about the future. Probably why we favour these PFI schemes, which saves a few quid today and causes major headaches tomorrow. And what deterrent is there when a Government has a fixed five year term?

Not that I'm suggesting you'd give them a longer term, but if you look at the franchise system and the benefits of a longer time in control - allowing you to get on and do things with a longer outlook, it does make you wonder if constantly changing from one party to another, or one leader to another, is really that good for the nation. But, as I said, it couldn't change as there's too much risk with a system that would almost create a dictatorship!

 

[Legzr1]

Bob Crow...

What's this got to do with him?

Debate freely? How does one do that with the threat of you (or anyone else) running to someones employer claiming disrepute?

I reckon that's exactly why it was mentioned - to shut up people who actually know what they're talking about.

I don't see the point of striking if your employer isn't allowed to do something, and you're being given extra money that you can choose what to do with.

You're missing the point.

I'll ask you a simple question (a question i've previously asked before another of my posts was deleted):

EMT agreeing to a simple interim valuation would stop ALL industrial action.

Why won't they do that?

Why aren't the 'down-trodden innocent rail passengers' interested in finding out?

Is it because it's easier to have yet another go at front line staff and their unions?

 

[Oswyntail]

What's this got to do with him?....

That question does highlight an interesting divide in this discussion.
Whatever rail union is actually involved, the publicity-grabbing antics of Bob Crow have made him the "face" of rail unions. Most of us here can sort this out, but for the public generally, this means that rail unions are seen as smug, disruptive, greedy, and all the other adjectives you can imagine. Unfair, perhaps, but the other unions involved have let this happen, and so must carry some of the fallout.
If a dispute is a genuine one (and not manufactured for showboating) there are two standpoints, each capable of being defended by intelligent experts. Genuine negotiations are an attempt to reconcile these standpoints. Rarely, if ever, will we find complete intransigence, except in the public announcements of the showboaters. I very much doubt that any, except the inner negotiating teams, know all the details being discussed - and this will include the union leaders, or the CEs. It is in no one's interests to manufacture or nourish the "us and them" mythology of 150 years ago, and when I hear a CE or union leader doing this I tend to write them off as meaningless.

 

[Metroland]

EMT agreeing to a simple interim valuation would stop ALL industrial action.

Why won't they do that?

Why aren't the 'down-trodden innocent rail passengers' interested in finding out?

Is it because it's easier to have yet another go at front line staff and their unions?

I agree, EMT should be, and communicating this to their staff.

This is why it should go to arbitration instead of a strike, because two parties argue they know better.

What I object to, like others is why these things do get to a strike. If an impartial independent party could come in on the majority of these things (I can think of other examples like DOO) it would solve a lot of issues.

At the end of the day, whatever way anyone wants to dress it up, both parties are self interested. And it's the poor passenger that gets caught in the middle, it seems nobody has our interests at heart, and we just have to put up with the ravages of poor management or greedy unions.

This is why the government should bring in new laws to force them into arbitration with strikes only allowable in extreme circumstances.

It won't suit the extreme lefties that believe in class warfare, or rage against capitalism, or whatever, but it's a damn site fairer than the systems we have now overall.

 

[island]

I dont agree with that either though, but this is a rail forum so i left my general ranting about the olympics out of it :P
You make a very good point and i agree whole heartedly, i hate macdonalds and the fact they are the only food supplier allowed to sell portions of chips on their own.

That got overturned a day later.

The obvious flaw in your argument is that "coca cola, mcdonalds,mastercard etc" are actually contributing millions in sponsorship in order to pay for the Olympics and reduce the tax burden for the general public. *

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.

Visa and Adidas probably will be less than happy that people recall MasterCard and Nike as olympic sponsors!

It Just goes to show how out of touch people who work for TOC's are with the rest of society. Many people are taking unpaid leave to help out at the olympics and travel and accomodation costs can ammount to hundreds of pounds. By striking you are only affecting these people the big corporations don't care. Its a disgrace.

Many people are choosing to take unpaid leave and incur travel and accommodation costs. Free choice.

Rather than people who work for TOC's being out of touch,I think they are very much in touch,the olympics is now nothing more than a advertising oppurtunity for corporate enterprise,the corporations will make millions,the athletes rather than the amatuers that used to take part will make millions (the top ones) and the treasury will pocket a healthy return as well.
As I said before if folk want to offer their goodwill free of charge then good luck to them,but people who work for TOC's mostly are in unions,this means that they are part of a organised labour force,their unions are trying to get them the best possible deal and yes it is oppurtunism but if all these rich corporations, athletes and government are using the olympics as a oppurtunity to make a few bob then its only right organised labour seeks to line their own pocket as well.

I quite agree. I am a card-carrying union member (it is not important which one) and have formerly been a representative and negotiator. We used several levers to get employees an absolutely stonking redundancy package (eight weeks per year of service with a 26-week minimum, in case you wanted to know) because the employer needed our members' cooperation to facilitate a reorganisation that would save them far more. I am proud of my contribution to that arrangement.

Rail workers wanting a bonus for doing their job during the Olympics is out and out greed.

I quite disagree. It's simple economics.

So is going on strike every five minutes! What do you want, sympathy? The fares go up every year, most of these "ordinary workers" on are salaries comparable to middle managers and professionals, tools are downed at every opportunity, and when you do want to get a train it's cancelled because people can't sort things out like adults.

You must be very out of touch to not understand why people do not support these sorts of activities - it's virtually everyone I talk to, every paper I read, most (non-railway) comments. It's got nothing to do with jealousy, and everything to do with people who are paid (well) to do a job, and instead of carrying it out, down tools and hold the begging bowl out yet again, despite being in the top 20% of salaries!

This is apart from the railways are not really a commercial entity and we pay a lot of taxes for a service we expect.

Railway workers are the ones going on strike. Perhaps the passengers should go on strike and see what that gets you!

Question for you. How many strikes — actual strikes — have there been on National Rail in the last year?

It'll all end in tears. If the PR battle is lost the government, in the end, will just invoke anti strike legislation. The same way as corporations have to be regulated against monopolistic and exploitative behaviour, politicians have to answer to voters etc.

That is something I am more concerned about than anything else, anti-union legislation being promulgated. The current nonsensical arrangements where an employer can wait until the day before a strike and then take out an injunction on the grounds that the union immaterially understated the number of people being balloted or similarly trivial grounds are bad enough.

Exactly. A strike ballot is one way that a union can put presssure on the employer to hold serious negotiations. Once an employer knows that staff are prepared to take industrial action if necessary, they will usually come up with an improved offer, and the strike threat disappears.

Quite so. As a union, we know that when we get to actually going out on strike, there is now no chance of a win-win outcome. A ballot is near the bottom of our toolbox in dealing with industrial disputes.

Naturally, if a ballot reveals no appetite for industrial action, the employers hand is somewhat strengthened! But it's all part of the game of negotiation!

I am regularly surprised and disappointed how quickly some people get outraged as soon as a ballot is even mentioned!

I agree. A union should not be running a ballot if it is not sure it will win.

The Olympics may only be for a few weeks but we will be paying for it long into our retirement.

I fear you are right. I don't think the government had a spare £9bn knocking around.

I don't see why NOT wanting to facilitate a social event I feel only apathy towards is in any way reprehensable.

I agree. You can't even say you don't like the olympics now without a dozen people jumping on you for being unpatriotic.

I don't see why they should be allowed to recruit volunteers, the olympics is a commercial event and should be paying at least minimum wage to everyone working there.

Totally. It is an absolute disgrace that they expect people to work for nothing and pay (some of) their own expenses when there are bigwigs getting put up in top Park Lane hotels at huge cost.

I firmly believe in any service the public relies on, it should go to arbitration first. In fact, for very essential services there should be no strike contracts - the railways probably don't come into that, apart from mainly in London, and possibly Glasgow and Leeds.

They have that arrangement in Australia. It was used to squash the Qantas industrial action last October, and I think it worked out negatively for the workers.

So you won't be flying any more then? Quite a lot of that training is done by outside agencies.

I believe that's mostly low-cost carriers. British Airways has a nice big training centre near Heathrow.

 

[Legzr1]

I agree, EMT should be, and communicating this to their staff.

This is why it should go to arbitration instead of a strike, because two parties argue they know better.

What I object to, like others is why these things do get to a strike. If an impartial independent party could come in on the majority of these things (I can think of other examples like DOO) it would solve a lot of issues.

At the end of the day, whatever way anyone wants to dress it up, both parties are self interested. And it's the poor passenger that gets caught in the middle, it seems nobody has our interests at heart, and we just have to put up with the ravages of poor management or greedy unions.

This is why the government should bring in new laws to force them into arbitration with strikes only allowable in extreme circumstances.

It won't suit the extreme lefties that believe in class warfare, or rage against capitalism, or whatever, but it's a damn site fairer than the systems we have now overall.

That makes sense to me (bar the need for even more stringent regulation on the workers right to withdraw labour - that WILL set us all back hundreds of years) but it misses a vital point.

I've read through all 17 pages of this thread and the ridicule shown to front line staff is disgusting.(When I reply in kind my posts are moderated,my voice silenced).

I've been a member here long enough to take that on the chin but it is slightly worrying that most (if not all) vitriol seems to be targetted on one group.

The managers at EMT need to explain themselves.

The most vocal members in this thread (you included!) need to understand that.

Perhaps they're (EMT) being clever by saying nothing and allowing that 'all important' public support to ebb away from the opposing group (and it's members) who are prepared to explain why this is happening.

That,to me at least,is a little too one-sided.

 

[KA4C]

I've read through all 17 pages of this thread and the ridicule shown to front line staff is disgusting.(When I reply in kind my posts are moderated,my voice silenced).

How true and tell me about it!!!

 

[Ferret]

I wish the DfT would haul in EMT management and the Union reps for a meeting to establish just what is going on, and force them into finding a way forward. That would be far more productive than a strike. Maybe legislation here forcing a dispute to go through ACAS before a strike can take place would be a good idea for Cameron and Co to look at.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I agree, EMT should be, and communicating this to their staff.

This is why it should go to arbitration instead of a strike, because two parties argue they know better.

What I object to, like others is why these things do get to a strike. If an impartial independent party could come in on the majority of these things (I can think of other examples like DOO) it would solve a lot of issues.

At the end of the day, whatever way anyone wants to dress it up, both parties are self interested. And it's the poor passenger that gets caught in the middle, it seems nobody has our interests at heart, and we just have to put up with the ravages of poor management or greedy unions.

This is why the government should bring in new laws to force them into arbitration with strikes only allowable in extreme circumstances.

It won't suit the extreme lefties that believe in class warfare, or rage against capitalism, or whatever, but it's a damn site fairer than the systems we have now overall.

Fairer for who exactly? you keep going on about "greedy unions" its members like myself VOTE for what WE believe in. If we feel we are being treated unfairly regardless of the issues it is our RIGHT as workers in this country, The government and TOC's already do everything they can to undermine unions as it is and you want to give them MORE power? are you totally loopy? or do you hate unions (especially railway) that much that you would be willing to let the government and TOC's shaft the workers just to make your life easier?

 

[Metroland]

Question for you. How many strikes — actual strikes — have there been on National Rail in the last year?

In my area, quite a few, certainly too many.

They have that arrangement in Australia. It was used to squash the Qantas industrial action last October, and I think it worked out negatively for the workers.

But it's not just about the workers is it? It's about the companies, their suppliers, the users, the taxpayer too, and society as a whole. What I called - the big picture.

A system which gives the workers too much power is a rotten one, because it distorts their interests against everyone else's.

You certainly can't trust what the unions say, they have a long record of distortion (especially about safety) for their own ends. There is a perception they are greedy and disruptive, and generally not on the side of the passenger.

I'm not sure you can trust some of the rail companies, they have their own interests too.

The government of the day can be biased. Look at the way the Labour party are sponsored by unions, or the Tories by big business.

So what does that leave us? We need a professional organisation to come in and arbitrate, calling expert witnesses and rule on these things in my view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fairer for who exactly? you keep going on about "greedy unions" its members like myself VOTE for what WE believe in. If we feel we are being treated unfairly regardless of the issues it is our RIGHT as workers in this country, The government and TOC's already do everything they can to undermine unions as it is and you want to give them MORE power? are you totally loopy? or do you hate unions (especially railway) that much that you would be willing to let the government and TOC's shaft the workers just to make your life easier?

You are only a small part of the big picture, see above. No I'm not loopy, are you? Can't you grasp these things are not just about YOU?

 

[KA4C]

In my area, quite a few, certainly too many.

Dates, TOC's involved, staff grades involved?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

In my area, quite a few, certainly too many.




But it's not just about the workers is it? It's about the companies, their suppliers, the users, the taxpayer too, and society as a whole. What I called - the big picture.

A system which gives the workers too much power is a rotten one, because it distorts their interests against everyone else's.

You certainly can't trust what the unions say, they have a long record of distortion (especially about safety) for their own ends. There is a perception they are greedy and disruptive, and generally not on the side of the passenger.

I'm not sure you can trust some of the rail companies, they have their own interests too.

The government of the day can be biased. Look at the way the Labour party are sponsored by unions, or the Tories by big business.

So what does that leave us? We need a professional organisation to come in and arbitrate, calling expert witnesses and rule on these things in my view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You are only a small part of the big picture, see above. No I'm not loopy, are you? Can't you grasp these things are not just about YOU?

Well actually it is about Myself and my colleagues who persons like yourself wish to shaft so you can have a nice easy life, sorry we fight for our rights, you fight for yourself, thats the true picture as seen in alot of the threads you have posted in.

 

[Legzr1]

Perhaps we should follow the Chinese model then?

 

[Metroland]

Well actually it is about Myself and my colleagues who persons like yourself wish to shaft so you can have a nice easy life, sorry we fight for our rights, you fight for yourself, thats the true picture as seen in alot of the threads you have posted in.

Well start caring about other people, the people that pay your wages for a start.

Hence my point, the unions are greedy. You have just admitted you put your interests above mine and that's your right.

No it isn't.

 

[jon0844]

What's this got to do with him?

Nothing regarding EMT/ASLEF, but I was talking in general because Bob Crow is a high profile figure. I don't even know who leads ASLEF, which is probably a good thing - as keeping a bit below the radar can help keep the media and public at bay.

Bob can, and does, do well for RMT members - but also encourages the anti-union sentiment that one day may well cause the unions a LOT of grief.. and by then, he's long gone.

Let's wait and see, huh?

 

[jon0844]

I'll ask you a simple question (a question i've previously asked before another of my posts was deleted):

EMT agreeing to a simple interim valuation would stop ALL industrial action.

Why won't they do that?

Why aren't the 'down-trodden innocent rail passengers' interested in finding out?

Is it because it's easier to have yet another go at front line staff and their unions?

I can't answer that can I? Why are you even asking me to answer it?

Why would agreeing to merely do another valuation halt all industrial action? What if it just proves they were correct in the first place? Will the union then ask for it to be done again?

And if you think I'm anti-union, think again as I'm also a paid-up union member myself.

 

[jon0844]

It's sad when even this forum ends up as a 'them vs us' debate.

As an outsider, a member of union not related to transport, I can see both sides of the argument and also contribute my own opinion on the dangers of being too militant that will ultimately cause more harm than good in the long run.

I will also say that it seems unfair to have such a go at Metroland who is raising genuinely good points. And it even seems ironic that many union members would argue that the Tories encouraged people to look out for themselves, which was nothing short of evil, while then happily admitting that their union will fight for whatever it can get - and if you don't like it, tough.

In other words, it just proves that everyone is simply looking out for number one, and some union members are in a rather more fortunate position than others. Drivers are particularly lucky as they can't be sacked and replaced very easily, and I've spoken to other railway staff who are actually quite angry that the drivers secure improved conditions and pay rises that they feel comes at their expense.

It's not black and white, but the real solution is for everyone to understand and respect the views of others and accept how things can be interpreted.

 

[Legzr1]

I can't answer that can I? Why are you even asking me to answer it?

Why would agreeing to merely do another valuation halt all industrial action? What if it just proves they were correct in the first place? Will the union then ask for it to be done again?

Sorry,I thought you were in possession of some (if not all) of the facts.

Aslef have gone on record saying "Do an interim valuation - if the fund is healthy the strike action WILL be called off".

EMT refuse.

You work out why this situation should occur.

Or don't.

It's 2012 and we're all still allowed to think as we please.

Certain members on here would be pleased to have even that regulated out of existance as long as it doesn't affect their daily commute...

Making points like that I don't think I'm a troll. When I was on the railway I did fight for my rights, and quite honestly some of it was misguided, then I grew up.

Ah!

That'll be the ex-smoker routine then?

Once I was lost,now i'm found.



You couldn't make it up!

 

[jon0844]

Sorry,I thought you were in possession of some (if not all) of the facts.

Why would you think that? I'm not involved with the EMT or ASLEF yet you asked me why management won't agree to doing another valuation?

If the union can't get an answer, I doubt asking me will help.

Yes it is 2012 and you are still allowed to think as you please. Let's just see if that's still the case in 2022...

 

[A-driver]

I to would like to hear from metro land when the last strikes he has been inconvenienced by were.

Strike action is very rare in recent years. There is a huge difference between threatening a strike and holding one. As soon as a union enters pay talks or anything like that newspapers will report strike threats. None of them really come to anything but as soon as a union talks with a company strike action is one of the tools which may be used if all else fails. It is very rare for it to actually be used as neither the union, the company or the worker wants to strike, ever. It's bad publicity for the union and loss of pay for the worker. I can think of loads of pay talks and bank holiday etc negotiations recently which the papers have reported as possible strikes but can only think of a small amount which have actually even led to a ballot.

This thread is getting very tedious once again with the anti staff posters jumping in it without considering that staff dont actually want to strike and nor do the unions. This EMT strike is about staff trying to protect their pensions and with talks breaking down they have seen this option as a last resort.

But I'm still interested in how many strikes in the past few years metro land has been affected by.

 

[radamfi]

There is a huge difference between threatening a strike and holding one.

Threatening to strike is normally enough for the union to get what they want. So there is usually no need to go on strike.