Tube Strike

[Huguenot]

Forgive me Dougal, but is this not a case of an aggressive abusive employee who threatened his co-workers for going to work simply going through a disciplinary procedure?

Has this employee not already accepted that he was aggressive and abusive?

Is the RMT trying now to disrupt the disciplinary process to prevent the victims of this unpleasant yob getting justice?

This is fuck all to do with 'bully boy management'.

The RMT would be better talking about the 'human rights' of the victims not to be abused, instead of trying to prevent justice being done.

If you're siding with the RMT in this dispute, then you are merely demonstrating that you believe in threatening people, believe in undermining juistice, and don't give a shit about the victims.

[mockney piers]

Another example of Mash genius the quids.

"Bob negotiated the menu, successfully ordering bottles of a revolting drink called 'Morgassi Superiore 2009 Piedmont' which apparently tastes of workers' tears"

[Annette Curtain]

RMT leader Bob Crow taunted Morcambe manager Sammy McIlroy during yesterday's League Two play-off semi-final agsinst Dagenham and Redbridge.

Mr Crow, 49, who earns ?129,000 a year running the militant rail union, was told by stewards that he would be forced to leave the ground if he continued heckling.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279035/RMT-union-boss-Bob-Crow-told-calm-foul-mouthed-rant-football-match.html#ixzz1PWGNIjw0

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/17/article-1279035-099B5E1B000005DC-136_468x455.jpg

Calm down: The visiting bench plead with Mr Crow to stop ranting at Mr McIlroy

You have to laugh.

Nette

[Loz]

Dougal Mulldoon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You obviously blindly support bully boy bastard

> management without considering things from the

> other side don't you?

And you obviously blindly support bully boy bastard unionism without considering things from the other side don't you? This strike action is unjustifiable. You can't dress it up in any way - it is just the RMT trying to bully LU. They have done it before and I'm please LU management have finally grown a pair.

Bring on the RMT strikes - it's just one more step closer to more restrictive strike laws.

[david_carnell]

First they came from the Trade Unions and I didn't speak up....

[Marmora Man]

D-C "J'accuse" - GODWIN's LAW

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> First they came from the Trade Unions and I didn't

> speak up....

Sorry, DC, that doesn't fit. "First they came for the bullies and I didn't speak up..." would be more like it. It's pretty clear that the RMT is abusing the process, so that process will probably have to change. The RMT spoil it for the rest of the more reasonable unions, so that when a legitimate grievance arises it will become a harder process.

Personally, I think a 50% turnout rule will be imposed. I'd also like to see strikes on tubes and main transport lines outlawed, if for no other reason than to drive the RMT out of business.

[david_carnell]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> D-C "J'accuse" - GODWIN's LAW

Guilty. Tbh - I'm staying out of this one. I've got my hands full in the Drawing Room.

:-)

[Chippy Minton]

Clearly, the RMT are the most likely to strike in this sector. ASLEF are more minded to talks and TSSA's rarely gets into disputes by comparison.

I had hoped the 50% idea would always be blocked by the Lib Dems, but in the light of Cable's comments the other week now I'm not so sure. As for driving them out of business, I can't see that happening anytime soon - the RMT is one of the few unions that are increasing their membership at the moment and the Tube workers are probably the closest thing the UK has to a closed shop these days.

Personally, I believe it is everyone's human right to withdraw their labour and just because an RMT strike inconveniences you, I don't see why this should be any different.

[Marmora Man]

Personally, I believe it is everyone's human right to withdraw their labour and just because an RMT strike inconveniences you, I don't see why this should be any different.

I can follow the logic of your "human right" point although I feel it is weak and poorly made. However, but - here I feel we diverge. With rights come responsibilities.

The right to strike should be used resonsibly to achieve rational aims and objectives.

To use a strike to seek to impose the union's desire to get an individual back into full employ before the full IT ruling when the individual, who has admitted a discviplinary offence but is challenging the panalty awarded, is exoperiencing no hardship (he's suspended on full pay) and, in doing so the union inconveniences hundreds of thousands of commuter jouney's is not a responsible action.

[Chippy Minton]

Errr....I just said I believed it's a human right to withdraw your labour - no real "logic" there, just an opinion, so I'm not sure which bit of this half a sentence is weak or poor.

Anyway, the right to strike is a human right, regardless of whether you think it's logical, as long as it's within the law. As LU has failed to stop this strike, I assume it is within the law.

The RMT's actions will inconveniences hundreds of thousands - no argument from me there! And yes, damn right, I think they should call it off - I'm going to have think about how the hell I'm getting to and from work as well! However, it's the RMT's responsibility to defend its members.

I'd also guess that because this guy is a union rep he's very valuable to the RMT - recruiting members, organising, helping full-time officials etc. The organisation is a lay-democracy and the RMT will rely on its reps in order for it to function. They will always look to give them all their backing and resources wherever they can.

[Marmora Man]

So now this strike (which you believe to be a human right) is about ensuring the continued employment of one union official who spends much of his time quote "recruiting members, organising, helping full-time officials". And you still support the RMT in their action?

No matter that his actions were admitted to be outside the appropriate code of conduct.

No matter that the strike will inconvenience hundred's of thousands of commuters

No matter that the situation is being reviewed by an independent tribunal

No matter that the individual concerned is experiencing no hardship

No matter that LU has agreed that the individual will be re-instated if that is the tribunal's finding.

I understand from earlier posts that if the RMT do not hold Sunday's planned strike their mandate for subsequent strikes fails.

This strike is not about protecting the workforce from unfair management practices, it's certainly not about improving the services of LU and it is oing nothing to improve union / management relations. This about demonstrating the union's muscle. To hear Bob Crowe claim that the LU can stop the strike at any time - because all they have to do is give in to his demands, is to hear an irritating and irrational man make irrational statements.

As Loz and others have pointed out this sort of behaviour will only accelerate demands for further controls on union action - whether its a requirement for an absolute majority in favour of strikes or the banning of strikes in key services.

[Chippy Minton]

I believe, and it is also stated in law, that it is a human right to belong to a trade union and that if a trade unionist withdraws their labour within the law, then that is obviously within their rights.

I've never said I personally support the RMT strike, just that they have every right to go ahead with a strike if they are acting within the law.

BTW he's not a "union official" as you state, he's a union rep - a lay member of the RMT. Much of UK law has been diluted when it comes to union reps and their work, but it is entirely possible that this member is a seconded rep working full time on RMT/union work. If this is the case, and I have no idea whether it is or isn't, this is not only perfectly normal, but it would have been agreed with the RMT and LU.

[Marmora Man]

Just because something is legal it doesn't make it moral, necessary or right.

This strike is immoral, irresponsible and unnecessary.

It is not an action comparable to Annie Besant and her moral, necessary and proper actions to support the Bryant & May oppressed workforce strike for better conditions.

This is simply a fat cat unionist flexing his muscles and showing off.

[Chippy Minton]

How can any action today be compared to something that happened 100+ years ago! I think it's safe to say society and employment conditions have changed somewhat since Annie Besant!

[Marmora Man]

Exactly - the need for unions to protect employees is pretty redundant these days.

[Chick]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly - the need for unions to protect employees

> is pretty redundant these days.

You?re having a laugh aren't you?

[Huguenot]

77% of the UK's labour force are not in a trades union, nor are they suffering from any manifest denial of human rights or lack of tea breaks as a consequence. So we'd have to say they were redundant in that context.

But I suspect that the unions only need to be perceived as a possible threat to keep the more extreme commercial or employment decisions from taking place.

Hence in principal it's good to have them around, even if only in the background.

The problem is when you get self-serving thugs like Bob Crow leveraging them to benefit his cronies and henchmen. The RMT isn't there to protect human rights, it's Faustian pact with the devil himself.

[StraferJack]

"77% of the UK's labour force are not in a trades union, nor are they suffering from any manifest denial of human rights or lack of tea breaks as a consequence. So we'd have to say they were redundant in that context. "

I dunno. Quids description of the situation amongst private sector workers in the drawing room suggests quite the opposite. We might disagree on unions being the best response but to say non unionised workers haven't been more exposed is demonstrably untrue

[Huguenot]

Why is it demonstrably untrue? What can be demonstrated?

Are you saying that non-union workers in the UK have less employment rights than the unionised ones? I've not heard that.

We're not conflating public sector workers and unionised workers are we?

The studies we shared over in the Drawing Room said that there was no quantifiable difference between unionised and non-unionised workforces.

[Chippy Minton]

There is defiantly a quantifiable difference between unionised and non-unionised workforces!

There's the obvious wage difference - unionised workers earn 12.5% more per hour than employees in non-unionised workplaces.

They are also less likely to leave their jobs saving employers up to ?143 million a year; they save employers money because of reduced absenteeism; and employees that are listened-to are "money productive" - worth up ?10.2 billion a year to the economy.

In addition, unionised workers also get all the other benefits union membership brings in health and safety, lifelong learning, legal representation, equalities etc etc

[Huguenot]

What's your source for those figures - is it as good as your source for the 'unionism is good for the economy' figures? ;-)

It's just a load of sweeping assertions yet again - some of which are manifestly not the remit of unionisation.

Let's clear a few of those up shall we?

Is your salary comparison for equivalent jobs?

When you say 'less likely to leave their jobs' what do you mean? Is this comparing with equivalent jobs? How did you calculate that 143m figure?

What's the absenteeism figure and is it equivalent? How does it compare with the days lost to strikes?

What do you mean 'employees that are listened to'? Is this a definition of union membership? Or is this figure for everyone who feels 'listened to' regardless of whether they're in a union or not?

What do you mean union membership delivers health and safety? There's no objective meaning to this: health and safety at work is a concern for union and non-union labour alike, alongside government legislation.

What is the grounds for claiming unionism brings lifelong learning? There's no grounds for that claim. Lifelong learning is an option for everyone regardless of union membership.

Legal representation is available to both union and non-union employees alike.

Equalities and anti-discrimination laws apply to all the workforce, not just union members.

You honestly sound like you've been fed a line, and have taken it all in without any consideration. Now you're repeating it on here and it sounds hollow and naive.

[Chippy Minton]

- The wage difference: the figure comes from BERR/National statistics.

- Department of Trade and Industry (now BIS) report from 2007 concluded union reps significantly reduced the number of "exists," improving labour retention and reducing absenteeism - this is where the ?143 mill figure comes from.

- Union members deliver health and safety - there are an estimated 150,000 trade union health and safety reps in the UK workforce today and they play an enormous role in thousands of workplace in order to improve health and safety.

- BERR estimates up to 241,000 fewer working days are lost each year due to the presence of trade union safety reps, the potential benefit being ?371 million.

- DTI estimates up to 375,000 fewer working days are lost each year due to work related ill-health because of the work of union safety reps saving up to ?207 million.

- Employee involvement through union membership and the subsequent ability to participate in company decision making leads to the greater productivity figure of ?10.2 billion - again a figure produced by the DTI.

- Legal representation is free for union members. It is not always free for non-members.

- Equalities: what does the law have to do with it? The law states that men and women are equal, that all ages are equal, that all races all equal etc, but sexual, age, racial discrimination etc exists all over society and that includes the workplace whether it's pay or otherwise.

- Lifelong learning: nearly all trade unions have a lifelong learning department these days and all promote this. Union members have more opportunities to access this for free. In the last 10 years, over 400,000 trade union reps have taken advantage of free lifelong learning education, and over 200,000 trade union members are helped into further learning for free every year.

It's naive to suggest there's no difference - if that's the case, why are so many up in arms about the RMT in the first place?

[Huguenot]

You're just repeated the data, but I still can't find it to analyze it - can you link me to the source?

It's noticeable that you continually make inaccurate claims - for example you claimed union services such as health and safety campaigning, political campaigning, lifelong learning are 'free'.

This simply isn't true.

Union members will be subject to a number of fees, regular dues and assessments. Additional facilities such as healthcare plans or car insurance will attract additional fees.

That's the same as an insurance premium - something available to non unionised workforces.

I'm afraid it's perfectly plausible that your union propaganda is quoting the source material incorrectly and out of context. It's quite possible that the data you're quoting is heavily caveated, as was your World Bank data - and that as with that data you're making claims that aren't robust.

When you say that unions 'bring' all of this stuff, that fact is that this stuff is also available elsewhere - it is unreasonable to apply these benefits simply to unionisation.

I also didn't say that unions don't make a difference - Marmora Man observed that unions no long had the role in the workplace that they did 100 years ago, and I observed that 77% of the workforce was doing very well without unionisation.

Your response has been to try and give credit to the unions for schemes that are widely available independently.

The 'difference' the RMT is making is militant bullying, the violent persecution of staff who don't share their views, and the avoidance of justice.

They certainly make a 'difference'.

[Chippy Minton]

Can't find an online link to the actual doc but if you want to, you can subscribe to the Industrial Law Journal - http://ilj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/242.full to get it - it's called "Workplace representatives: A review of their facilities and facility time," DTI consultation document, January 2007 and this gives the ?10.2 billion figure.

I'm not sure what you mean by "union members will be subject to a number of fees." If you mean they pay a membership subscription then yes, but all these benefits I listed are free at source e.g. a member will not pay to attend any lifelong learning course, indeed the union will even pay their expenses to get to and from the course.

And just what does "The studies we shared over in the Drawing Room said that there was no quantifiable difference between unionised and non-unionised workforces" mean if you claim you didn't say that unions don't make a difference?

Anyway, it's Saturday and the pub is calling, and thanks to the unions, I've got the weekend off ;-)