Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
trashbat said:
Whether it's or what is reasonable grounds is more interesting. I don't know is the simple answer. To comment on for example an RMT tube strike, I would have to have at least some knowledge of what it's like to be a tube driver, which I don't have, so I can't claim that it's justified, and nor can I claim 'no reason'. I'd gently suggest that for everyone to go out and lose a day or more's pay, incur the public wrath and potentially face other consequences, they must at least believe it to be something slightly greater than frivolity. But others may disagree.
Fair point and I get that you don't see it from their perspective so you can't definitively answer.To come at this from a different angle: What I can answer for is the majority of the people affected by the RMT strikes.
The vast majority believed them to be frivolous and the vast majority think they were wrong and a large percentage believe tube drivers to be overpaid.
Do you think it is right that the general public, who indirectly pay the wages of these people, should have no say whatsoever in this kind of action?
Would you also agree that it is almost solely the RMT that have bought about this Conservative law? THat no other union has behaved in a vaguely similar way to the RMT (that I know of)?
The point I am trying to make is that even if you wont be drawn on the subject, most people believe that RMT to have behaved appallingly over the past few years and the new laws, whilst in principle undemocratic, will only affect strikes that the rest of us thing are wrong and will not affect reasonably behaving unions.
In my opinion this law has come about because of gross abuse of power and possibly ego by a few indiviuals
blindswelledrat said:
Fair point and I get that you don't see it from their perspective so you can't definitively answer.
To come at this from a different angle: What I can answer for is the majority of the people affected by the RMT strikes.
The vast majority believed them to be frivolous and the vast majority think they were wrong and a large percentage believe tube drivers to be overpaid.
Do you think it is right that the general public, who indirectly pay the wages of these people, should have no say whatsoever in this kind of action?
Would you also agree that it is almost solely the RMT that have bought about this Conservative law? THat no other union has behaved in a vaguely similar way to the RMT (that I know of)?
The point I am trying to make is that even if you wont be drawn on the subject, most people believe that RMT to have behaved appallingly over the past few years and the new laws, whilst in principle undemocratic, will only affect strikes that the rest of us thing are wrong and will not affect reasonably behaving unions.
In my opinion this law has come about because of gross abuse of power and possibly ego by a few indiviuals
Personally I think it has less to do with the contemporary actions of the RMT (or any other union) and more to do with consolidation of power on a long historical trajectory. Courtesy of the RMT in fact, this is a reasonable summary of anti-union measures. All recent governments have been authoritarian and this is probably more a manifestation of that than it is a pragmatic, specific response - as we have seen with other forms of protest over the last decade and more.To come at this from a different angle: What I can answer for is the majority of the people affected by the RMT strikes.
The vast majority believed them to be frivolous and the vast majority think they were wrong and a large percentage believe tube drivers to be overpaid.
Do you think it is right that the general public, who indirectly pay the wages of these people, should have no say whatsoever in this kind of action?
Would you also agree that it is almost solely the RMT that have bought about this Conservative law? THat no other union has behaved in a vaguely similar way to the RMT (that I know of)?
The point I am trying to make is that even if you wont be drawn on the subject, most people believe that RMT to have behaved appallingly over the past few years and the new laws, whilst in principle undemocratic, will only affect strikes that the rest of us thing are wrong and will not affect reasonably behaving unions.
In my opinion this law has come about because of gross abuse of power and possibly ego by a few indiviuals
The only particularly interesting factor about the RMT is that unlike most, it's supposedly growing, and not just via mergers.
I disagree with your opinion about public perception, which I think is much more nuanced - at least amongst those who don't loudly crow about how easy it is to drive a train. I'm no expert but I believe public support for the RMT has historically been mixed - over pay and conditions it's been reasonable, but it looks like it's not been as strong of late, not least because in 2014 the RMT were on strike over ticket office closures & automation which is surely a doomed enterprise before long anyway.
The two sets of interests aren't always aligned, of course - but union action may be in the public interest, in that they have an interest in maintaining a competently run network which is otherwise a monopoly.
Should the public have a say against strikes? On the face of it, sure, but what would it look like? Are they going to compel someone else to drive their trains for them? A working public that pressgangs its peers into doing its bidding for less is probably shooting itself in the foot long term.
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
I am earning less than £30k a year (a paltry sum in PH land) and with all my subs etc doesn't amount to being too much of a take home pay in this day and age (in PH land again). Not decrying zero hour and minimum wage workers here as everybody as to make ends meet. I am extremely lucky that my wife works in a decent job as well in order to keep our head above water and provide our family with a decent living. You may say the pension is the be all and end all, however with all the government foisted changes, that is increasingly not the case.
randlemarcus said:
crankedup said:
The politics of envy again seem to be shining bright, we all make our choices in life. Public sector are generally dead end jobs whilst the private sector offer greater opportunity. Heads or tails!
Eh? Public sector jobs are generally dead end? Absolutely disagree. There are some professions that tend not to be great public sector careers, such as IT or finance, but in general, Public Sector management careers are shining lights, as opposed to private sector management. Clear, defined structure, ability to skip sideways, lovely.The crappy jobs have mostly been outsourced now anyway, so your binman, dinnerlady and road mender are all poddling along with crappy pay and now, new, improved crappy private pension.
Just seems like these people are envious and angry!
crankedup said:
randlemarcus said:
crankedup said:
The politics of envy again seem to be shining bright, we all make our choices in life. Public sector are generally dead end jobs whilst the private sector offer greater opportunity. Heads or tails!
Eh? Public sector jobs are generally dead end? Absolutely disagree. There are some professions that tend not to be great public sector careers, such as IT or finance, but in general, Public Sector management careers are shining lights, as opposed to private sector management. Clear, defined structure, ability to skip sideways, lovely.The crappy jobs have mostly been outsourced now anyway, so your binman, dinnerlady and road mender are all poddling along with crappy pay and now, new, improved crappy private pension.
Just seems like these people are envious and angry!
When I go to my local public sector offices, I don't need the waiting room to have £1000 chairs in there, I don't need a £20k painting on the wall... I just want a service that works. I don't want to read that public sector people are doing 'knowledge accusation trips' in business/first class and is a thinly veiled holiday, when the private sector mostly stopped that years ago (CIO in my company flies Economy) and we do it for business (hotel room and office is all we see) so why are we funding that?
The private sector can have nice waiting rooms as they are paid by company profit, however why should the public sector waste my money on making a waiting room look pretty, funky wasteful trips that serve no purpose, rather than use the money on the service they should be providing.
trashbat said:
ersonally I think it has less to do with the contemporary actions of the RMT (or any other union) and more to do with consolidation of power on a long historical trajectory. Courtesy of the RMT in fact, this is a reasonable summary of anti-union measures. All recent governments have been authoritarian and this is probably more a manifestation of that than it is a pragmatic, specific response - as we have seen with other forms of protest over the last decade and more.
I see it a little differently and I interpret your link as supporting my view. The unions were traditionally around to protect conditions/rights/safety of mistreated workers. As our own workplace laws developed through the 80's and 90's (and access to legal recourse), the union's purposes lessened or shifted. Through that period your own link demonstrates that there were plenty of laws and changes affecting unions. Since 1999 until now, though, nothing. The way I see it is that a reasonable balance had been struck and governments didn't think otherwise and thus contrary to your assertion about authoritarian governments systematically removing powers from unions, I see it as them having been left alone for 15 years/3 successive governments. Only one thing has changed (in my eyes) in the 15 years since then and it is the actions of the RMT enraging the publictrashbat said:
I disagree with your opinion about public perception, which I think is much more nuanced - at least amongst those who don't loudly crow about how easy it is to drive a train. I'm no expert but I believe public support for the RMT has historically been mixed - over pay and conditions it's been reasonable, but it looks like it's not been as strong of late, not least because in 2014 the RMT were on strike over ticket office closures & automation which is surely a doomed enterprise before long anyway.
Maybe you are right, I don't actually have figures and it would be a subjective measure anyway. If you polled the nation I strongly suspect the results would mirror the election results. If you polled Londoners who are directly affected I strongly suspect the figures would be far less supportive. THe thing you are refusing to acknowledge, though, is that no other union has created this stir that the RMT created and, in my opinion, there are unions who's members are far worse off than the RMT. Whilst trying to support this with actual figures I came across an article saying that the nurses union has not struck for 100 years. The RMT, on the other hand, has had perhaps 10 in the past 8 years.
Nobody can look at that objectively and say "Well for all I know nurses are better off than tube drivers and have nothing to strike about".
trashbat said:
Personally I think it has less to do with the contemporary actions of the RMT (or any other union) and more to do with consolidation of power on a long historical trajectory.
I'm sorry, but if you genuinely think this is the case, I think your perception of exactly how much support the RMT has with the general public in London when it strikes is way off. A large majority of my friends/colleagues reside in London like I do. Many of us take PT to work, others don't. Most are right of centre, but many are left. Yet to a man and woman we all think the RMT take the piss. The only union that is on anyone's radar here is the RMT and there's a reason for it. If you wind up enough people in a city where the mayor is popular and has has direct access to lawmakers, you're asking for trouble. The RMT brought this on themselves as a direct consequence of their actions IMO.All that said, if you can provide some convincing evidence that the RMT does have popular support from the public for its actions, I'll def have a good read.
Du1point8 said:
The private sector can have nice waiting rooms as they are paid by company profit, however why should the public sector waste my money on making a waiting room look pretty, funky wasteful trips that serve no purpose, rather than use the money on the service they should be providing.
How do you know where your money is going? You deliberately decide it's going on stuff that annoys you so you can have a right to complain about it. Perhaps your tax share goes on stuff you use? I imagine my share of the public sector money goes towards awesome stuff like the olympics or turning a disused railway line into a cycle path or the excellent emergency services. The problem with working in the public sector must be that anyone that pays tax, thinks they own you.
Is it just me that thinks comparing the rules for a strike ballot to a general election is pretty disingenous? In a GE, the electorate might have the choice of ten difference candidates so securing majority backing for any one candidate is unlikely.
Also, there may well be lots of cross-over between the views of multiple candidates meaning that whilst you voted for one of them as a preferred choice, you actually share many of the views of the other candidates (ie their views are not diametrically opposed to yours).
In the case of a strike ballot, you either think a strike should take place or you don't. If you don't vote, the implication is that you don't really care either way. I therefore don't see why unions shouldn't need to obtain yes votes from the majority of those who voted in order for a strike to be considered legitimate.
Also, there may well be lots of cross-over between the views of multiple candidates meaning that whilst you voted for one of them as a preferred choice, you actually share many of the views of the other candidates (ie their views are not diametrically opposed to yours).
In the case of a strike ballot, you either think a strike should take place or you don't. If you don't vote, the implication is that you don't really care either way. I therefore don't see why unions shouldn't need to obtain yes votes from the majority of those who voted in order for a strike to be considered legitimate.
arp1 said:
I am earning less than £30k a year (a paltry sum in PH land) and with all my subs etc doesn't amount to being too much of a take home pay in this day and age (in PH land again). Not decrying zero hour and minimum wage workers here as everybody as to make ends meet. I am extremely lucky that my wife works in a decent job as well in order to keep our head above water and provide our family with a decent living. You may say the pension is the be all and end all, however with all the government foisted changes, that is increasingly not the case.
good on you for saying. thank you.So £29500? with a 15% contribution from your employer to your pension?
National average was £26500 dont know what pension contribution but assuming the min due to come in is I think 1% e/or contribution.
You have not said what what job role you have etc but I still dont see why on above average salary with a high e/or pension contribution that you still feel the need for Unions to stick it to the man and protect you compared to the average man on average salary who does not have a union and is being forced to suffer the strike and pay higher taxes to support public workers higher benefits.
Source: Office for National Statistics. These figures are averages of gross pay before income tax and National Insurance.
Lollipop ladies £3,187 average p/a (+4.9% yearly change)
Theme park attendants £6,011 (-10.9%)
Bar staff £7,317 (-1.0%)
Playworkers £7,400 (-3.8%)
Waiters & waitresses ( £7,654 +8.3%)
Cleaners £8,067 (+1.9%)
Florists £8,960 (-6.0%)
Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Fitness instructors £10,378 (-8.4%)
Shopworkers £11,174 (+0.3%)
Cooks £11,346 (-7.4%)
Nursery nurses £11,163 (-0.4%)
Beauticians £12,418 (+5.3%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Receptionists £12,595 (+1.8%)
Care workers £12,804 (+0.9%)
Childminders £12,949 (+2.3%)
Telephonists £14,032 (+1.5%)
Tailors & Dressmakers £14,482 (-23.5%)
Caretakers £16,114 (+3.9%)
Secretaries £16,384 (+1.1%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Customer service £16,525 (+9.5%)
Undertakers £16,526 (0%)
Packers £16,820 (-0.4%)
Tele sales £17,362 (-1.1%)
Chefs £17,391 (+0.3%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Street cleaners £17,616 (-3.8%)
Butchers £17,681 (+1.2%)
Hospital porters £17,748 (+5.8%)
Farm workers £17,925 (+4.9)
Traffic wardens £18,065 (-4.2%)
Travel agents £18,344 (+10.7%)
Van drivers £18,744 (+2.9%)
Tyre & exhaust fitters £18,888 (-4.2%)
Bank clerks £19,908 (+9.3%)
Youth & Community workers £20,240 (+2.6%)
Civil servants £20,330 +1.2%
Council administrators £20,351 (+2.9%)
Vicars £20,568 (-3.6%)
Security guards £20,841 (+2.2%)
Plasterers £21,155 (+0.1%)
Lab technicians £21,168 (+0.2%)
Fork lift drivers £21,444 (+0.3%)
Musicians £21,492 (+6.8%)
Roofers £21,921 (-1.5%)
Bricklayers £22,476 (-7.0%)
Painters £22,700 (+1.9%)
Ambulance staff £22,854 (+5.6%)
Housing officers £23,001 (-0.6%)
Bus & coach drivers £23,095 (+3.0%)
Posties & messengers £23,178 (+17.5%)
Librarians £23,940 (-0.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Photographers £24,242 (-4.8%)
Farmers £24,520 (+5.5%)
Estate agents £24,783 (-8.2%)
Publicans £25,222 (+10.7%)
Mechanics £25,238 (-0.7%)
Lorry drivers £25,602 (+1.4%)
Nurses £26,158 (+0.65)
Prison officers £26,616 (+2.6%)
Welders £26,735 (-1.6%)
Printers £26,833 (+2.7%)
Speech therapists £27,470 (-0.5%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
Social workers £28,182 (+1.6%)
Firefighters £28,183 (+0.3%)
Office managers £28,790 (-1.8%)
Human resources personnel £28,999 (+1.0%)
Car makers £29,845 (+1.9%)
Web designers £29,870 (+5.5%)
Midwives £30,020 (+2.0%)
Scaffolders £30,591 (+2.8%)
Coal miners £30,688 (-8.8%)
PRs £31,818 (+0.4%)
Telecoms engineers £32,253 (+5.3%)
Vets £32,374 (-4.0%)
Hotel managers £32,470 (-2.0%)
Teachers £32,547 (+1.4%)
Journalists £35,117 (-0.4%)
Train builders £37,613 (+3.3%)
Civil engineers £38,236 (-2.7%)
Quantity surveyors £38,855 (+1.5%)
Police officers £39,346 (-1.2%)
Construction managers £42,066 (+8.3%)
Architects £44,024 (+3.3%)
Electrical engineers £44,430 (+3.7%)
Solicitors £44,787 (-2.3%)
Train drivers £45,489 (+3.7%)
Barristers & Judges £45,571 (-2.3%)
Health managers £46,629 (-4.7%)
Financial advisers £46,797 (-0.3%)
Dentists £53,567 (+14.3%)
Senior police £58,727 (-3.5%)
MPs Now £66,396 (+1%)
Doctors £70,646 (+1.3%)
MPs Future? £74,000 (+11%)
Airline pilots £78,482 (-0.1%)
Chief executives £117,700 (-4.4%)
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 11:47
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 11:48
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
it would be nice if public sector salaries were not treated as any other salary ... but they are - so the whole ' i pay your wages' thing is a fallacy.
best met with blanking, or offering 2 or 5 p coin in refund for the last few years of the indignant self appointed 'net contributor' contribution to the PS person in question's wage...
superlightr said:
Cleaners £8,067 (+1.9%)
Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
Some of these are laughable going off my personal experiences, I'm guessing the cash in hand element doesn't quite make it into the figures Hairdressers £10,174 (+0.9%)
Window cleaners £12,561 (-11.2%)
Cabbies £16,416 (+4.6%)
Gardeners £17,595 (-1.3%)
Carpenters £24,029 (+1.4%)
Plumbers £27,832 (-1.2%)
I've lost count of the number of black cabs parked outside million pound houses/flats in London, I guess all of their wives earn a lot of money.
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
And what, pray tell, is your salary?
I dont have a salary as such as Im self employed, employ 5 people all on about £20k a year with the min pension of 1 or 1.5% due to come in soon. If its a good year I get paid more if its a bad year I get paid less. Generally I draw out about £70k my business partner the same.I make what I earn. no sick benefit, no employers contribution to pension, risk everything if I screw up, cant strike, no holiday pay and have the weight of 5 others on my shoulders to ensure the business does well. When I started I had to buy into the buisness and had a huge loan and grew the business. I lost my job being a solicitor as the firm closed and went self employed as a letting agent. Enjoy the work and the other benefits of being the boss.
Hence why I dont agree with Unions and strikes.
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:07
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:09
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:11
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:14
arp1 said:
Shock horror! So you earn more than double than I do... I also had to work hard to get to where I am, however I, unlike you, find it beneficial to have someone at your back for legal protection at the very least (amongst other things). You say I am on an above average wage, so that must make you a high earner then. The rich telling the less rich what to do again, sigh.
Don't worry comrade, when the SNP gain independence after holding 23 referendums, there will be no rich people to tell you what to do.ARP1 - so why not change jobs? - I did and get paid more but there is more risk to me. Im sure you think you are entitled to more money - all employees do. If I want to be paid more I have to be more productive, think of new ways to make more money for my business which in turns pays more tax to help fund public spending/wages. what job position/title do you have?
Of course there will always be people on a higher or lower salary - thats meaningless. Do you want everyone to be on the same salary irrespective of work/risk/skill/dedication ?
ps I used to be a solicitor but still pay for my own legal advice when needed. Dont think solicitors had a Union either. Some get paid more then others as well.
Of course there will always be people on a higher or lower salary - thats meaningless. Do you want everyone to be on the same salary irrespective of work/risk/skill/dedication ?
ps I used to be a solicitor but still pay for my own legal advice when needed. Dont think solicitors had a Union either. Some get paid more then others as well.
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:32
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 20th May 12:35
superlightr said:
arp1 said:
98elise said:
arp1 said:
We ate not getting equivalent wages so therefore the unions are there to protect us
Nope. You chose a job which pays as much as it need to attract you into it. You then rely on some hired goons to force more money out of other peoples pockets and into yours. There is no magic money tree, your gain comes at somebody else's expense.
What career have you chosen? What sort of pension scheme are you on? Not digging at you but guess that you are better off them a similar job in the private sector or am I wrong?
Can you also tell me how a union protecting public employees rights is a bad thing given that the person in the private sector has none of those rights and is lower paid?
When is being lower paid a good thing?
and 98Elise are you some sort of comedy super-capitalist Thatcher / B'stard wet dream?
Can you tell me exactly how a nurse, a teacher, a fireman is extorting money from you, with menaces?
Doesn't everyone's gain come at someone else's expense? Isn't that capitalism?
It's paying for goods and services.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff