Cable Forum - Back to the 1970s?

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Back to the 1970s? (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33663081)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Well, secondary action may no longer be legal, but it seems Unite is determined to get as close to it as possible:

Quote:

The Unite union wants to raise a Â£700,000 fighting fund from members to help support striking British Airways cabin crew.

Unite intends to impose what it said was an "unprecedented" levy on its almost 2 million members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8593516.stm

So, almost 2 million people working in private companies totally unconnected with BA, its staff and the dispute between them, are going to have their pockets dipped by Woodley and his thugs to help pay for their fight with the airline. How wonderfully fair and democratic.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Well we all know that some people only advocate democracy, fairness and and tolerance when it suits them....

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34990146)

Well, secondary action may no longer be legal, but it seems Unite is determined to get as close to it as possible:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8593516.stm

So, almost 2 million people working in private companies totally unconnected with BA, its staff and the dispute between them, are going to have their pockets dipped by Woodley and his thugs to help pay for their fight with the airline. How wonderfully fair and democratic.

:no::no: Your continued existence in the Daily Mail time warp is showing through again Chris. I'll throw a few more facts your way for you to ignore at your leisure ;)

Maybe you know of a different definition of secondary action but my vague understanding suggests that such action would involve trade unionists taking action against employers other than BA. That clearly isn't the case.

No member is having their pockets dipped. No member will be paying any more union dues than they are now. The additional funding is coming from branch administration funds.

Each individual member has the option, as is the case with the political fund, not to pay a branch fund

The decision was taken by the democratically elected executive council, not Woodley. If the council are the thugs you refer then I find that pretty insulting to those 2 million members who democratically elected them.

What is wonderfully democratic is that a trade union is legitimately using resources to fight a Bullying management team intent on doing a bit of trade union busting.

It's a opinion I've expressed often in the BA thread (where I think your post belongs - but I'm not a mod ;)). I'd like to point out that I'm not one of the leading industrial academics who expressed their concerns in this letter to the Gaurdian :D:D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...cademics-walsh

Quote:

Overwhelming majorities in two strike ballots in the face of tabloid opprobrium testify to employees' understanding that a victory for Walsh's macho management strategy would precipitate a race to the bottom in terms of working conditions and job quality. In the process, this would damage beyond repair the high standards of customer service for which BA cabin crew are renowned. The wider significance of a triumph of unilateral management prerogative would be a widening of the representation gap in UK employment relations, and a further erosion of worker rights and of that most precious of commodities â€“ democracy.

Some hefty names there for you to ignore who don't have a political agenda.;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Breaking news on the BBC website - High Court injunction granted against RMT, stopping the rail strike (well, the signallers' one) next week.

Link

It would appear the basis for the injunction was this

Quote:

The company said the inaccuracies included 11 signal boxes balloted by the RMT that do not exist, and 67 locations where the numbers of union members balloted exceeded the total number of employees working there.
It says there were also 26 workplaces which were completely missed out, giving RMT members at these locations no opportunity to vote and 12 locations where there were no operations staff at all, so workers were ineligible to vote.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Oh dear, Bob Crow will be glowing red with rage at this. Who knows maybe it will anger him so much he'll bugger off to North Korea where he can surround himself with fellow communists.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Amusingly, didn't a poster on this thread state

Quote:

if it was to ballot for a strike and it was held by the union i would trust it and be bound by the result.but if any member of the management touched it with out a union member there i wouldn't trust it to be a fair ballot at all and would ask for the ballot to be retaken..

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/DarkHori.../homer_doh.png

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Yes....hmmm...now who was that again???..... :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?

I'd turn ash gray if I posted that. ;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Who says union leaders are totally out of touch? This one gets it almost spot on.

Quote:

The Labour government has been branded the "worst in the history of this country” by the head of one of Britain’s biggest trade unions.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34995250)

Who says union leaders are totally out of touch? This one gets it almost spot on.

Of course some of us have been saying that for years..... :D

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34993441)

I'd turn ash gray if I posted that. ;)