Back to the 1970s?

[papa smurf]

Back to the 1970s: Britain braced for spring of discontent with civil servants, British Gas and rail staff ALL set to strike

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0j4mKgyBL


Teachers threaten to unleash wave of strikes days after the General Election

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0j4mapZkg



whats going on why are people so unhappy with their lot ?

[Lord Nikon]

Remind me who politically was in power when this happened in the 70s? I was born in 73 and wasn't paying much attention at the time you see. Just trying to apply Occam's Razor to the equation.

Teachers are fed up with having no status,with no real input into the system,everything imposed from outside and from people who wouldn't last five minutes in front of the average 14-15 year old classes.I won't be striking as I'm not a member of a union..very hard as a temporary worker to get a chance to join a union.

I'm not a civil servant but my husband became one two years ago..He reckons as a an uptight Tory that they have a point and he can see why, but he won't strike himself.

As for the others I can't say.I suppose it all comes down to that old adage 'walk a mile in my shoes'.

[Osem]

I think one factor in this is that the unions smell an opportunity with a weak government possibly willing to do deals that they might not be so accepting of after the election.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

whats going on why are people so unhappy with their lot ?

It's obvious, it's this awful, sleazy, self serving 'Tory' government we've had to endure for the last 13 years....

[TheDaddy]

Love the article,

Union bosses commanding workers across the economy are masterminding strikes from today

Obviously the papers aren't in favour of strikes because of their own dubious past but this really is just nuts, Union bosses commanding workers are masterminding strikes, ffs that's almost laughable, Unions don't command anyone they are commanded by their members and it shows the contempt the Mail feels for these workers to try and portray them as mindless autons ready to strike at a moments notice on the whim of some Union bigwig.

Heaven forbid they actually report the news of why so many workers feel the need to resort to the ultimate sanction of removal of Labour, oh no far better for it to be some sort of conspiracy, who knows if they can get enough people to swallow it they might just get Unions outlawed.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I suppose it all comes down to that old adage 'walk a mile in my shoes'.

Yes then we'll be a mile away from you and we'll have your shoes....

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Union bosses commanding workers are masterminding strikes, ffs that's almost laughable, Unions don't command anyone they are commanded by their members and it shows the contempt the Mail feels for these workers to try and portray them as mindless autons ready to strike at a moments notice on the whim of some Union bigwig.

So who calls a strike ballot? Who gives the members the information on which they will decide how to vote? Who goes so far as to recommend members to vote 'yes' in a strike ballot?

Portraying the Trades Union bosses as impotent and entirely at the command of their members is as nuts as suggesting the members are all brainless.

Although I suspect you meant automaton, as in a mechanically animated but ultimately useless Victorian curiosity, rather than auton, as in a killing machine made out of living plastic with a penchant for invading Earth and being thwarted by a certain Time Lord.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Chris

So who calls a strike ballot? Who gives the members the information on which they will decide how to vote? Who goes so far as to recommend members to vote 'yes' in a strike ballot?

Portraying the Trades Union bosses as impotent and entirely at the command of their members is as nuts as suggesting the members are all brainless.

You're stuck in a Daily Mail time warp if you think that's how things operate in the real world. Everything is driven by the members. There is actually very little benefit to a Trade Union leadership if a section of the members strike.

Trade Union leaders are elected so their potency is provided through a ballot of the membership.

The recommendation to strike would only come after there has been a breakdown in lengthy negotiations, the workplace or bargaining unit has been balloted (at their behest) and all available information has been reviewed.

[Osem]

I've been self-employed for many years so never been part of a union but, whilst I support the union concept and can understand the feelings of those who do strike on genuine grounds, I find the intimidation of those who choose not to do so entirely unacceptable. I believe the unions would get a far better press if their leaders clamped down on that sort of thing and accepted that just as it's their right to strike, other people have to right not to.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

So who calls a strike ballot? Who gives the members the information on which they will decide how to vote? Who goes so far as to recommend members to vote 'yes' in a strike ballot?

They don't call it with out reason and do you really think the measures you mention would result in 80-90% votes in favour of strike action as happened with the Royal Mail and BA.

[ashgray]

Originally Posted by Osem

I've been self-employed for many years so never been part of a union but, whilst I support the union concept and can understand the feelings of those who do strike on genuine grounds, I find the intimidation of those who choose not to do so entirely unacceptable. I believe the unions would get a far better press if their leaders clamped down on that sort of thing and accepted that just as it's their right to strike, other people have to right not to.

Do you also agree then that if the people who are on strike win better pay and conditions for themselves that the people who did not strike should not recieve the better pay and conditions.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They don't call it with out reason and do you really think the measures you mention would result in 80-90% votes in favour of strike action as happened with the Royal Mail and BA.

Try telling that to British Gas - they're facing a strike over nebulous and non-specific complaints about 'macho management' that are straight out of the Big Book of Nasty Strikes, 1979 edition.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by ashgray

Do you also agree then that if the people who are on strike win better pay and conditions for themselves that the people who did not strike should not recieve the better pay and conditions.

No I don't because that's impractical. In life some people work harder and do a lot more than others but don't get any more for it that the guy/gal sitting next to them. It's not fair but I tend to view it like that and I don't think anything excuses aggressive intimidation of those who disagree.

Of course the corollary to your scenario is should those who've gone on strike leading to, say, worse pay/conditions or job losses be the only ones who pay the price for that whilst those who didn't strike keep their jobs and conditions?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Try telling that to British Gas - they're facing a strike over nebulous and non-specific complaints about 'macho management' that are straight out of the Big Book of Nasty Strikes, 1979 edition.

Please their 'restructuring' has already demanded that their working week be extended and now there is talk of massive job cuts, why don't they address those specific complaints before moaning about non specific ones.

[ashgray]

People seem to forget what the trade unions did for the working man in the past ie: safer working conditions,paid holidays,shorter working week,help in compensation for accidents at work etc etc.
I've noticed over the years since thatchers day the power of the trade unions getting weaker and along with it the rights of the ordinary working man,ie:having to work longer hours,having to work bank holidays,more people having to work for minimum wage because there work place won't allow trade unions who will fight for a better wage,men on the dole having to watch foreigners in britain doing the jobs they can do.
I lived and worked in the 70's and i'll tell you this i'd sooner live and work in the britain of the 70's than brown or camerons britain of the 2010's.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by ashgray

People seem to forget what the trade unions did for the working man in the past ie: safer working conditions,paid holidays,shorter working week,help in compensation for accidents at work etc etc.
I've noticed over the years since thatchers day the power of the trade unions getting weaker and along with it the rights of the ordinary working man,ie:having to work longer hours,having to work bank holidays,more people having to work for minimum wage because there work place won't allow trade unions who will fight for a better wage,men on the dole having to watch foreigners in britain doing the jobs they can do.
I lived and worked in the 70's and i'll tell you this i'd sooner live and work in the britain of the 70's than brown or camerons britain of the 2010's.

The unions have done a great deal for working people since their creation. In some cases they've also handled things very badly and done a grave dis-service to those very same people. Lets not forget also that those who suffer from strikes tend to be entirely innocent - the worst suffering normally being the poor, the vulnerable and those in greatest need. I find that hard to swallow.