Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.
Discussion
LucreLout said:
Four things I'd note about striking:
1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.
2) Public sector monopolies should be barred from striking. You can always quit and find another job, where as I can't get another service provider because, well, you're a monopoly.
3) The threshold to strike should be a vote of 51% of staff wanting to strike.
4) Employers should, of course, be free to employ agency labour to cover this period should they so choose.
You wish.1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.
2) Public sector monopolies should be barred from striking. You can always quit and find another job, where as I can't get another service provider because, well, you're a monopoly.
3) The threshold to strike should be a vote of 51% of staff wanting to strike.
4) Employers should, of course, be free to employ agency labour to cover this period should they so choose.
Your right-wing wish list seems to struggle at the first hurdle:
http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/roundup/arti...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26472809
http://www.theguardian.com/society/blog/2012/jun/2...
Unless you add:
5) Obviously lawyers, doctors, surgeons and radiotherapists aren't 'real' professionals...
Your second point is laughable and depicts all that's wrong with greedy right-wingers.
Your third point is a simple ploy to take further powers from workers, diminish their rights and take them back to the 18th century.
And No 4 - yes, no problem with that.
Unfortunately agencies don't have many professional health-workers or lawyers on their books - I suppose if the strike lasted several years you'd have enough time to recruit and train all you need.
Best of luck
Mario149 said:
To be succinct, if Unions are abusing their power, that's exactly what it should do. Can't be trusted with a responsibility? You'll have your privileges curtailed just like a petulant child would
Care to show where this abuse is happening?It's clear what's going on here - an attack on Unions and a conscious effort to make a ballot for strike action next to impossible.
Can't you see that?
Mario149 said:
To be succinct, if Unions are abusing their power, that's exactly what it should do. Can't be trusted with a responsibility? You'll have your privileges curtailed just like a petulant child would
You seem to be implying that unions have the same level of responsibility as company directors. That employers have no responsibility under agreements they have made and that those agreements are privileges. Unless I misunderstand your succinct post? How 19th Century! The abuse word is bandied about these days, its meaning drifting towards something equal to child abuse. If a union advises its members that an employer is taking unfair advantage (my definition of your abuse) by reneging on agreements and strike action is reluctantly the only way to get their undivided attention, then so be it. That's fair.
No, I'm not a union member and would be considered on here as right wing but I am not unaware that some employers see employees as horny handed slaves - union activity the only means of redress.
trashbat said:
How quaint.
Is it unbecoming of a commoner to request a pay rise?
Is it unladylike to report a violent husband?
Is it ungentlemanly to go around loudly making social proclamations?
since when did asking for a raise require a strike? Is it unbecoming of a commoner to request a pay rise?
Is it unladylike to report a violent husband?
Is it ungentlemanly to go around loudly making social proclamations?
If i don't like the terms on offer from an employer, I quit and get another job. Problem solved.
legzr1 said:
You wish.
Your right-wing wish list seems to struggle at the first hurdle Unless you add:
5) Obviously lawyers, doctors, surgeons and radiotherapists aren't 'real' professionals...
Your third point is a simple ploy to take further powers from workers, diminish their rights and take them back to the 18th century.
I've trimmed the rest of your reply because it was emotive garbage mostly and shows no ability to reason.Your right-wing wish list seems to struggle at the first hurdle Unless you add:
5) Obviously lawyers, doctors, surgeons and radiotherapists aren't 'real' professionals...
Your third point is a simple ploy to take further powers from workers, diminish their rights and take them back to the 18th century.
The only thing about the medical profession that bears any semblance of professionalism is the name. See filthy hospitals and slovenly staff for details.
So that leaves you lawyers. When your job is to defend the indefensible, it's easy to see why you might mistake striking for being professional. It isn't. Ever.
My right to have services delivered by the monopoly I am forced with threats of jail to pay for, will always trump any right to strike. Just quit and let someone that wants to do the job do it.
The world is only moving in one direction on this and its heading in my direction. Your dogma is the mantra of failure from a bygone age, and its death will herald a golden age for peoples relationship with those whose public sector position exists only to serve them.
legzr1 said:
Mario149 said:
To be succinct, if Unions are abusing their power, that's exactly what it should do. Can't be trusted with a responsibility? You'll have your privileges curtailed just like a petulant child would
Care to show where this abuse is happening?It's clear what's going on here - an attack on Unions and a conscious effort to make a ballot for strike action next to impossible.
Can't you see that?
Abuse to me is that trade unions were originally conceived to fix genuine serious problems as far as I can tell. This does not seem to be the case now. What was one of TFL's more recent reasons....something like going on strike because ~1000 jobs were going to be lost....except they weren't because about 97% of those people were going to take voluntary redundancy. You couldn't make it up. It's especially galling, when as others have said, the strikers are part of a monopoly service where there is no other choice available.
The world does not owe someone a job. If you're job is no longer economically viable and has to go, provided you are sensibly compensated or moved to another role, you just have to deal with it. If you don't like it, quit and do something else if you think you can do better. And if you don't have the skills to move elsewhere and aren't disabled in some way, that's tough unfortunately, you take what you're given and be glad that they're employing you when no-one else will. And after all of that, if it does go completely wrong, be thankful that there is the safety net of the welfare state.
crankedup said:
The U.K. has the fattest book of legal requirements that a Trade Union has to comply with within Europe. Why don't the Tories just come out and ban Unions, its clearly the dream that they have cherished for decades. Tories, same old vision to put the working people into a low pay poor working conditions environment.
Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
point missed Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
the trades unions in the UK are a party political movement , the TUC is inherently left leaning even if there are only 14/15 unions in the explicitly controlling the Labour Party club.
the trades unions concenr themselves with too many things outside the workplace and don;t concern themselves with things in the work place ... the default position in many organisations is that the unionised employees and the union are concerned with protecting TaCoS for legacy employees and the few new substantive staff while ignoring casuals and agency staff.
I am somewhat befuddled by the distinction between 'employer' and 'employee' tbh.
Unless the organisation for which you are employed through which you are remunerated for your services is 'owned' by those who make the recruitment decisions, then all are - in fact - employees of the corporate or state organisation.
It is, however, without doubt that certain 'employees' have greater influence over other 'employees' in such organisations which are not 'owned' by 'the management'
'We're all equal - but some are more equal than others'
Allegedly, there is some sort of meritocracy at play - which determines which employee has the right to determine other employees' standard of living/ability to exist etc. - but I'm buggered if I can fathom it!
Unless the organisation for which you are employed through which you are remunerated for your services is 'owned' by those who make the recruitment decisions, then all are - in fact - employees of the corporate or state organisation.
It is, however, without doubt that certain 'employees' have greater influence over other 'employees' in such organisations which are not 'owned' by 'the management'
'We're all equal - but some are more equal than others'
Allegedly, there is some sort of meritocracy at play - which determines which employee has the right to determine other employees' standard of living/ability to exist etc. - but I'm buggered if I can fathom it!
mph1977 said:
crankedup said:
The U.K. has the fattest book of legal requirements that a Trade Union has to comply with within Europe. Why don't the Tories just come out and ban Unions, its clearly the dream that they have cherished for decades. Tories, same old vision to put the working people into a low pay poor working conditions environment.
Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
point missed Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
the trades unions in the UK are a party political movement , the TUC is inherently left leaning even if there are only 14/15 unions in the explicitly controlling the Labour Party club.
the trades unions concenr themselves with too many things outside the workplace and don;t concern themselves with things in the work place ... the default position in many organisations is that the unionised employees and the union are concerned with protecting TaCoS for legacy employees and the few new substantive staff while ignoring casuals and agency staff.
Labour Party have distanced themselves from the Trade Union Movement, or at least made a start on that process. Mistake imo, the Tories enjoy support of big business after all.
Why shouldn't workers enjoy the support of their colleagues through a Union?
Casual labour are generally just that, perhaps that suits them and they have no wish or regard for representation.
Agency staff are usually on a higher rate than the full time employees.
crankedup said:
mph1977 said:
crankedup said:
The U.K. has the fattest book of legal requirements that a Trade Union has to comply with within Europe. Why don't the Tories just come out and ban Unions, its clearly the dream that they have cherished for decades. Tories, same old vision to put the working people into a low pay poor working conditions environment.
Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
point missed Fortunately the Tories are unlikely to win a majority verdict come the G.E.
the trades unions in the UK are a party political movement , the TUC is inherently left leaning even if there are only 14/15 unions in the explicitly controlling the Labour Party club.
the trades unions concern themselves with too many things outside the workplace and don;t concern themselves with things in the work place ... the default position in many organisations is that the unionised employees and the union are concerned with protecting TaCoS for legacy employees and the few new substantive staff while ignoring casuals and agency staff.
such as Unison's being "... affiliated to Abortion Rights which campaigns "to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion"; among its statements it opposes the criminalisaton of sex-selective abortion." plus the various overseas soujourns
crankedup said:
Labour Party have distanced themselves from the Trade Union Movement, or at least made a start on that process. Mistake imo, the Tories enjoy support of big business after all.
probably because among the modernisers they have realised that the dead hand of Unison, RMT , CWU etc means they can't make the changes they need to make to stand the slightest chance of being elected or if elected being able to run a balanced budget , they also realise that people don;t have the appetite for yet another tube or heavy rail strike becasue the RMT are upset the allocation of tea bags in the messroom has been cut crankedup said:
Why shouldn't workers enjoy the support of their colleagues through a Union?
Casual labour are generally just that, perhaps that suits them and they have no wish or regard for representation.
Agency staff are usually on a higher rate than the full time employees.
absoluitely no reason why Unions should not exist , what they should do however is restrict their activities to things directly related to those they represent rather than playing with party politics. Casual labour are generally just that, perhaps that suits them and they have no wish or regard for representation.
Agency staff are usually on a higher rate than the full time employees.
your comments about casual labour and agency staff being on higher rates are inaccurate ( the only place i've seen where agency staff are on higher rates is healthcare or where sham self employed powerfully built contractors are involved - otherwise why does the AWR attempt to ensure agency workers are paid the same rate as substantive staff in the same job )
Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 15th January 20:52
LucreLout said:
I've trimmed the rest of your reply because it was emotive garbage mostly and shows no ability to reason.
The only thing about the medical profession that bears any semblance of professionalism is the name. See filthy hospitals and slovenly staff for details.
So that leaves you lawyers. When your job is to defend the indefensible, it's easy to see why you might mistake striking for being professional. It isn't. Ever.
My right to have services delivered by the monopoly I am forced with threats of jail to pay for, will always trump any right to strike. Just quit and let someone that wants to do the job do it.
The world is only moving in one direction on this and its heading in my direction. Your dogma is the mantra of failure from a bygone age, and its death will herald a golden age for peoples relationship with those whose public sector position exists only to serve them.
Hail the new King of Arrogance.The only thing about the medical profession that bears any semblance of professionalism is the name. See filthy hospitals and slovenly staff for details.
So that leaves you lawyers. When your job is to defend the indefensible, it's easy to see why you might mistake striking for being professional. It isn't. Ever.
My right to have services delivered by the monopoly I am forced with threats of jail to pay for, will always trump any right to strike. Just quit and let someone that wants to do the job do it.
The world is only moving in one direction on this and its heading in my direction. Your dogma is the mantra of failure from a bygone age, and its death will herald a golden age for peoples relationship with those whose public sector position exists only to serve them.
Only in your little dream world can a surgeon be classed as unprofessional because they choose to retain their right to withdraw labour.
Lout by name, race to the bottom by nature.
Please tell me you're a hedge fund manager about to bugger off
Mario149 said:
To be fair, I'll admit my post is a bit of a throwaway line, I was just leaving work and bashing something out quickly.
Abuse to me is that trade unions were originally conceived to fix genuine serious problems as far as I can tell. This does not seem to be the case now. What was one of TFL's more recent reasons....something like going on strike because ~1000 jobs were going to be lost....except they weren't because about 97% of those people were going to take voluntary redundancy. You couldn't make it up. It's especially galling, when as others have said, the strikers are part of a monopoly service where there is no other choice available.
The world does not owe someone a job. If you're job is no longer economically viable and has to go, provided you are sensibly compensated or moved to another role, you just have to deal with it. If you don't like it, quit and do something else if you think you can do better. And if you don't have the skills to move elsewhere and aren't disabled in some way, that's tough unfortunately, you take what you're given and be glad that they're employing you when no-one else will. And after all of that, if it does go completely wrong, be thankful that there is the safety net of the welfare state.
Please, reword the end of that first sentence!Abuse to me is that trade unions were originally conceived to fix genuine serious problems as far as I can tell. This does not seem to be the case now. What was one of TFL's more recent reasons....something like going on strike because ~1000 jobs were going to be lost....except they weren't because about 97% of those people were going to take voluntary redundancy. You couldn't make it up. It's especially galling, when as others have said, the strikers are part of a monopoly service where there is no other choice available.
The world does not owe someone a job. If you're job is no longer economically viable and has to go, provided you are sensibly compensated or moved to another role, you just have to deal with it. If you don't like it, quit and do something else if you think you can do better. And if you don't have the skills to move elsewhere and aren't disabled in some way, that's tough unfortunately, you take what you're given and be glad that they're employing you when no-one else will. And after all of that, if it does go completely wrong, be thankful that there is the safety net of the welfare state.
You really need to read up on the recent TFL dispute - your figures have no basis in reality and it sounds like you've got your opinion from reading a vocal PH anti-union diatribe which pops up every time RMT is mentioned
As hinted at elsewhere in this thread, unions aren't just there to strike at the drop of the hat - rather, the good ones give balance and a voice for unfortunate employees having agreements ripped up and contracts reneged on.
mph1977 said:
absoluitely no reason why Unions should not exist , what they should do however is restrict their activities to things directly related to those they represent rather than playing with party politics.
your comments about casual labour and agency staff being on higher rates are inaccurate ( the only place i've seen where agency staff are on higher rates is healthcare or where sham self employed powerfully built contractors are involved - otherwise why does the AWR attempt to ensure agency workers are paid the same rate as substantive staff in the same job )
The rest of your post has been snipped as this tablet confuses split quotes but I must ask - the '1977' in your user name - is that where you're living?your comments about casual labour and agency staff being on higher rates are inaccurate ( the only place i've seen where agency staff are on higher rates is healthcare or where sham self employed powerfully built contractors are involved - otherwise why does the AWR attempt to ensure agency workers are paid the same rate as substantive staff in the same job )
Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 15th January 20:52
Esseesse said:
edh said:
LucreLout said:
Four things I'd note about striking:
1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.
What? - only if you define professionals as "workers who don't strike, ever"1) Professionals don't strike. Ever.
First the government imposes massive restrictions on how a union can ballot its members, suppressing turnout.
Then it wants a minimum 40% threshold of all staff
Can only be designed to emasculate unions
LucreLout said:
legzr1 said:
You wish.
Your right-wing wish list seems to struggle at the first hurdle Unless you add:
5) Obviously lawyers, doctors, surgeons and radiotherapists aren't 'real' professionals...
Your third point is a simple ploy to take further powers from workers, diminish their rights and take them back to the 18th century.
I've trimmed the rest of your reply because it was emotive garbage mostly and shows no ability to reason.Your right-wing wish list seems to struggle at the first hurdle Unless you add:
5) Obviously lawyers, doctors, surgeons and radiotherapists aren't 'real' professionals...
Your third point is a simple ploy to take further powers from workers, diminish their rights and take them back to the 18th century.
The only thing about the medical profession that bears any semblance of professionalism is the name. See filthy hospitals and slovenly staff for details.
So that leaves you lawyers. When your job is to defend the indefensible, it's easy to see why you might mistake striking for being professional. It isn't. Ever.
My right to have services delivered by the monopoly I am forced with threats of jail to pay for, will always trump any right to strike. Just quit and let someone that wants to do the job do it.
The world is only moving in one direction on this and its heading in my direction. Your dogma is the mantra of failure from a bygone age, and its death will herald a golden age for peoples relationship with those whose public sector position exists only to serve them.
So who are the real "professionals"?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff