Home Office staff to strike on eve of Games
Discussion
The Hypno-Toad said:
pokethepope said:
So the other 90% who didn't vote/voted against will still turn up for work?
I'm guessing with that amount of support crossing the picket line won't be too hard when it only consists of the fat girl from the canteen and Tony the Red who still thinks he's at university sticking it to the man.
martin84 said:
Bit easier in a country where only 12% of the workforce is unionised (probably even less in Reagans time) compared to the Western European average of around 20-25%
True. But I wonder what is the true "union power" in the uk at the moment. As in, those that can realistically get a strike called.Don't get me wrong, I respect their right to strike. I even grudgingly respect their right to strike at times of high demand, like Easter holidays.
I object to them striking at a time when it damages the national interest, like the Olympics.
McHaggis said:
True. But I wonder what is the true "union power" in the uk at the moment. As in, those that can realistically get a strike called.
Don't get me wrong, I respect their right to strike. I even grudgingly respect their right to strike at times of high demand, like Easter holidays.
I object to them striking at a time when it damages the national interest, like the Olympics.
I accidentally deleted my fDon't get me wrong, I respect their right to strike. I even grudgingly respect their right to strike at times of high demand, like Easter holidays.
I object to them striking at a time when it damages the national interest, like the Olympics.
king post, thanks for replying. Lose my head if it wasn't screwed on.I don't think the union power is as strong as it once was. In the late 70s they were able to stop practically everything, a feat they'd be unable to achieve today. During the 1980's plenty of once state-owned industries were sold off, naturally reducing union power in the process. They can call strikes still, we've had a few already. There was the teachers strike, doctors strike, public sector walkout and the Border Agency walkout but none of them caused much disruption to speak of.
The question should be how much power do they have in regards to calling a significant strike which would actually matter?
martin84 said:
The question should be how much power do they have in regards to calling a significant strike which would actually matter?
Agreed. It should be a balance between representing their issues with the management and damaging national interests. It's a tough call, but I think they have it wrong in this instance. In a wider view, Unionisation was born out of people being exploited and creating a block power to counteract an exploitative employer.
I think both government and unions owe it to the people they represent to find a different way. When you look to unionised work forces fo the 70's such as car manufacturers, union power was rife. Where is it now? They've evolved to be workers councils, less them/us and we have a highly competitive and productive system with good morale, reasonable wages and a level of flexibility not seen 20 years ago. We are a net exporter once more...
The time has come to apply to same to the civil services...
Interesting that when I first read that report, it clearly stated "...of the 16000 staff balloted" before giving the 20% turnout figure, yet that statistic has mysteriously now vanished. Were one being a cynic, one might suggest it's to divert attention from the fact 57.2% of 20% of 16000 clearly doesn't warrant "Thousands" in the headline, yet there it is...
martin84 said:
I accidentally deleted my fking post, thanks for replying. Lose my head if it wasn't screwed on.
I don't think the union power is as strong as it once was. In the late 70s they were able to stop practically everything, a feat they'd be unable to achieve today. During the 1980's plenty of once state-owned industries were sold off, naturally reducing union power in the process. They can call strikes still, we've had a few already. There was the teachers strike, doctors strike, public sector walkout and the Border Agency walkout but none of them caused much disruption to speak of.
The question should be how much power do they have in regards to calling a significant strike which would actually matter?
Hello Martin, I hope you're well.king post, thanks for replying. Lose my head if it wasn't screwed on.I don't think the union power is as strong as it once was. In the late 70s they were able to stop practically everything, a feat they'd be unable to achieve today. During the 1980's plenty of once state-owned industries were sold off, naturally reducing union power in the process. They can call strikes still, we've had a few already. There was the teachers strike, doctors strike, public sector walkout and the Border Agency walkout but none of them caused much disruption to speak of.
The question should be how much power do they have in regards to calling a significant strike which would actually matter?
Industrial action with little support makes no difference. A union is ignored if single figures actually vote for action when the rest don't care (ask any teacher).
It would strengthen unions if they had to get a 50% agreement with strike policy.
Unions would cease to be a joke and have to be listened to.
Left or right- it should be a requirement of any strike that a majority of members have voted for the strike before it goes ahead.
McHaggis said:
Agreed. It should be a balance between representing their issues with the management and damaging national interests. It's a tough call, but I think they have it wrong in this instance.
In a wider view, Unionisation was born out of people being exploited and creating a block power to counteract an exploitative employer.
The original intentions of Unions were perfectly noble, to increase power for the majority and lessen exploitation. It's knock on effects have included more workers rights and a more balanced economy. However these days I'm not sure they're really required, rather than things like the General Strike and the Steel Strike, we get BA cabin crew striking because they don't get flights for free anymore. In a wider view, Unionisation was born out of people being exploited and creating a block power to counteract an exploitative employer.
McHaggis said:
I think both government and unions owe it to the people they represent to find a different way. When you look to unionised work forces fo the 70's such as car manufacturers, union power was rife. Where is it now? They've evolved to be workers councils, less them/us and we have a highly competitive and productive system with good morale, reasonable wages and a level of flexibility not seen 20 years ago. We are a net exporter once more...
Union power was rife in the 1970s but it didn't get them anywhere in the end. Once the Asians started to turn up on time, do their job, build cars and generally do what was asked of them our auto industry was only going in one direction. You can go back to the start of the 70s for where it began though, the UK was still struggling financially after the War and we had a lot of state owned industry, more than most other countries. We weren't ready for the impacts and challenges of global trade, globalisation and the effects of a liberalised economy. We were fighting our battle with an outdated relic, trying to take on the world economy with state owned industry is like running a taxi firm with horses when your competitors all have cars. The oil price rise in the early 70s was only the start, leading to the 'great inflation' when pay packets lost value faster than you could open the envelope. Many workers were in trade unions so they looked to their unions to make up the difference and get them more money, which was totally reasonable because the causes were not their concern, they just wanted more money to counteract the problem. Government's buckled time after time, throwing money it didn't have at groups like miners just to keep the lights on. Strikes at Ford plants for example were born out of the same thing, their money was worthless and they wanted more. Eventually strikes like that just got silly with walkouts due to 'the floor being too wet' and other nonsense. It went from a noble hunt to make up a pay gap into a charter for the lazy and a vehicle for unaffordable greed.
The main problem was the UK was so insular, ignorant to the real reasons behind our failing economy. After all it wasn't long since most of the World was coloured pink and profits from all four corners wound up in Blighty. That world was gone and we had to change, compete, fight, modernise. It took an IMF bailout and a winter strike which saw hospital staff walking out on sick children to get it into peoples skulls but we got there.
McHaggis said:
The time has come to apply the same to the civil services
The money ran out in the late 70s and plenty of people alive today were alive then to see the consequences. We're back in the position where the money has run out and once again people are going to have to re-think things.martin84 said:
It is interesting only 20% bothered to vote in this ballet and only a narrow majority voted for strike action, so any strike will be down to 1 in 10 members favouring it, suggesting most don't want to strike during the Olympics. In fairness to them it seems this is more about the general poor shape of the Agency itself rather than a simple pay dispute. We all know Theresa May has an awful relationship with the Border Agency...and the Police...and..well...basically everybody. She is the most incompetent human being in this Government, everything she touches goes wrong and everybody hates her. The Unions are probably just trying to force her out of the job.
I would think May will be first up for the axe when the next re-shuffle comes around. She's even more of a liability than Hunt and Lansley.
You're missing the point by trying to spin this round to May as usual. If they want rid of her, striking during the olympics is a grade A route to zero public support, failure and a blank cheque for the government to carry on reforming the public sector. The union boses evidently don't have a braincell to share amongst themselves.I would think May will be first up for the axe when the next re-shuffle comes around. She's even more of a liability than Hunt and Lansley.
Caulkhead said:
You're missing the point by trying to spin this round to May as usual. If they want rid of her, striking during the olympics is a grade A route to zero public support, failure and a blank cheque for the government to carry on reforming the public sector. The union boses evidently don't have a braincell to share amongst themselves.
They're not going to strike, this is just grandstanding. May's biggest problem is with the Police rather than the border staff, the public will rally behind Police, you don't fk with them. The Government are not reforming the public sector, they're trimming the edges.May's had an awful time of it since.....May 2010
so they're just piling it on by making her have to face TV cameras for this as well as other things recently. She'll be out soon enough.martin84 said:
In fairness they only look to do that when they're having money taken away from them and jobs are being lost. When Labour were throwing money at them they were quite happy.
Yeah, right.martin84 said:
You have a 10 year old Guardian link?
You need to get out more
You need to get out more
You don't remember it so I have to get out more?
They always strike. They strike more in times of austerity, but it isn't as if they don't strike when people are 'throwing money at them'. That time it was the Commonwealth Games.
martin84 said:
McHaggis said:
Agreed. It should be a balance between representing their issues with the management and damaging national interests. It's a tough call, but I think they have it wrong in this instance.
In a wider view, Unionisation was born out of people being exploited and creating a block power to counteract an exploitative employer.
The original intentions of Unions were perfectly noble, to increase power for the majority and lessen exploitation. It's knock on effects have included more workers rights and a more balanced economy. However these days I'm not sure they're really required, rather than things like the General Strike and the Steel Strike, we get BA cabin crew striking because they don't get flights for free anymore. In a wider view, Unionisation was born out of people being exploited and creating a block power to counteract an exploitative employer.
McHaggis said:
I think both government and unions owe it to the people they represent to find a different way. When you look to unionised work forces fo the 70's such as car manufacturers, union power was rife. Where is it now? They've evolved to be workers councils, less them/us and we have a highly competitive and productive system with good morale, reasonable wages and a level of flexibility not seen 20 years ago. We are a net exporter once more...
Union power was rife in the 1970s but it didn't get them anywhere in the end. Once the Asians started to turn up on time, do their job, build cars and generally do what was asked of them our auto industry was only going in one direction. You can go back to the start of the 70s for where it began though, the UK was still struggling financially after the War and we had a lot of state owned industry, more than most other countries. We weren't ready for the impacts and challenges of global trade, globalisation and the effects of a liberalised economy. We were fighting our battle with an outdated relic, trying to take on the world economy with state owned industry is like running a taxi firm with horses when your competitors all have cars. The oil price rise in the early 70s was only the start, leading to the 'great inflation' when pay packets lost value faster than you could open the envelope. Many workers were in trade unions so they looked to their unions to make up the difference and get them more money, which was totally reasonable because the causes were not their concern, they just wanted more money to counteract the problem. Government's buckled time after time, throwing money it didn't have at groups like miners just to keep the lights on. Strikes at Ford plants for example were born out of the same thing, their money was worthless and they wanted more. Eventually strikes like that just got silly with walkouts due to 'the floor being too wet' and other nonsense. It went from a noble hunt to make up a pay gap into a charter for the lazy and a vehicle for unaffordable greed.
The main problem was the UK was so insular, ignorant to the real reasons behind our failing economy. After all it wasn't long since most of the World was coloured pink and profits from all four corners wound up in Blighty. That world was gone and we had to change, compete, fight, modernise. It took an IMF bailout and a winter strike which saw hospital staff walking out on sick children to get it into peoples skulls but we got there.
McHaggis said:
The time has come to apply the same to the civil services
The money ran out in the late 70s and plenty of people alive today were alive then to see the consequences. We're back in the position where the money has run out and once again people are going to have to re-think things.Welcome to reality, please enjoy your stay.
If you want a "Good" service be prepared to PAY FOR IT. If you want the current half baked version of Security you can see what you will get with G4S at the Olympics and the so-called "security" at Major airports many on here whinge about. Yes we could probably do with less staff than they had. Unfortunately all government agencies now find themselves with far fewer people in the job than they expected. Piss people off with lower pay and worse conditions and they leave especially if they are any good. That leaves you with lower grade staff and not enough of them to do the job. Hence we already have queues at Heathrow and complaints of incompetence.
telecat said:
If you want a "Good" service be prepared to PAY FOR IT.
But we DO pay for it (I'm not specifically addressing the issue in hand, more a general point). What's more, we already pay for it AND STILL the service is poor. Throwing money at it isn't the solution. It's not how much money you throw around, it's HOW you throw it. If you throw it well and you add more then things improve, if you do things as is mostly done, all we are doing is throwing good money after bad which results in the great mess we are in.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff