Tube drivers paid extra £1800 not to strike during Olympics

[hornetrider]

...but there is not a 'no-strike' clause linked to the payment!

So much wrong with this I don't even know where to fecking start!

Soov apologies

They are also on a basic of 43k plus overtime. Nice work if you can get it!

[whoami]

Bob Crow.

The world's worst .

[Happy82]

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

[Randy Winkman]

whoami said:

Bob Crow.

The world's worst .

Good at his job though, I'd say.

[Dixie68]

Happy82 said:

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

Simple answer - yes. They have got to do something unbelievably dangerous before they can be sacked.

[whoami]

Randy Winkman said:

whoami said:

Bob Crow.

The world's worst .

Good at his job though, I'd say.

Which is?

[hornetrider]

whoami said:

Randy Winkman said:

whoami said:

Bob Crow.

The world's worst .

Good at his job though, I'd say.

Which is?

Being a and extracting maximum folding for his members no matter how unreasonable their demands.

[EDLT]

Dixie68 said:

Happy82 said:

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

Simple answer - yes. They have got to do something unbelievably dangerous before they can be sacked.

Isn't a 'no-union' clause illegal too, otherwise unions would be pretty pointless.

[whoami]

EDLT said:

Dixie68 said:

Happy82 said:

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

Simple answer - yes. They have got to do something unbelievably dangerous before they can be sacked.

Isn't a 'no-union' clause illegal too, otherwise unions would be pretty pointless.

No, it's not illegal.

[MX7]

whoami said:

EDLT said:

Dixie68 said:

Happy82 said:

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

Simple answer - yes. They have got to do something unbelievably dangerous before they can be sacked.

Isn't a 'no-union' clause illegal too, otherwise unions would be pretty pointless.

No, it's not illegal.

I thought it was illegal to either ban or make unions mandatory?

Edit: Wiki - "It bans agreements or terms in employment contracts which require, prohibit, or discriminate on the basis of union membership"

Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 14th September 00:44

[Happy82]

MX7 said:

I thought it was illegal to either ban or make unions mandatory?

Edit: Wiki - "It bans agreements or terms in employment contracts which require, prohibit, or discriminate on the basis of union membership"

Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 14th September 00:44

That's interesting, because there was a no union clause when I worked for a pubchain about 11years ago (unless it was a no-strike clause and I've become confused over the years - which is highly likely )

[mph1977]

Happy82 said:

MX7 said:

I thought it was illegal to either ban or make unions mandatory?

Edit: Wiki - "It bans agreements or terms in employment contracts which require, prohibit, or discriminate on the basis of union membership"

Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 14th September 00:44

That's interesting, because there was a no union clause when I worked for a pubchain about 11years ago (unless it was a no-strike clause and I've become confused over the years - which is highly likely )

it is legal for an employer to refuse to recognise Unions for the purposes of collectivebargaining etc and some employers think this means they can prevent people from promoting union membership on their premises etc ...

[Gruffy]

hornetrider said:

They are also on a basic of 43k plus overtime.

Wow. How much do bus drivers get? They have to deal with steering and everything – must be north of 60k?

[Du1point8]

Dixie68 said:

Happy82 said:

Is it really that difficult to sack them and employ new staff with a 'no-union' clause?

Simple answer - yes. They have got to do something unbelievably dangerous before they can be sacked.

pfffttt.... thats bullst!!

There was a case of one person who kept opening the doors on the wrong side and he was suspended and they were looking to sack him for being an idiot...

Unions came in and striked until he was re-instated as they thought he was being made an example of and it was unfair.

[twister]

Gruffy said:

Wow. How much do bus drivers get? They have to deal with steering and everything – must be north of 60k?

If only... For a nominal 40 hour week with her shifts starting between 4 and 5 am, and being on the top pay rate for her depot (which is about the most any driver can earn in TfL-land) the OH's salary is a smidgin over half of the 43k basic mentioned above.

Edited by twister on Wednesday 14th September 10:01

[turbobloke]

Not totally O/T though - now bus drivers are at it, as promised.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156848/Lo...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/bus-drivers-dem...

[martin84]

Yes I heard this morning bus drivers are at it. What exactly do they want? Are they being asked to do anything they wouldn't normally do?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Shame there isn't an olympic event for s driving tube trains. We'd be nailed on for the gold.

[kowalski655]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Shame there isn't an olympic event for s driving tube trains. We'd be nailed on for the gold.

Nah they'd all be on strike

[martin84]

turbobloke said:

Not totally O/T though - now bus drivers are at it, as promised.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156848/Lo...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/bus-drivers-dem...

The second article is from last year but does provide decent background.

This is a tricky one in truth, I accept the argument that they're essentially trying to cynically cash in. On the other hand, if TFL has already given train and rail staff extra money for essentially doing nothing, then surely the bus drivers - and the union they belong to - would be stupid to not demand the same?

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 9th June 23:23