There is trouble afoot

[Cobbydaler]

At least Cuba has seen the light...

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

At least Cuba has seen the light...

From that story.....

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.

Does Bob Crow know about this?

[Cobbydaler]

Middlesbrough has 42% of workers employed by the public sector.

That's nearly half the proportion in Cuba....

[Osem]

I see Harman's come out in support of the unions, surprise, surprise.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11283048

Conveniently forgetting that it was her and her rotten 'government' that took us to the brink of financial ruin, thereby necessitating the cuts we're now all going to suffer, she's back on the "it's all the fault of those nasty, evil Tories" bandwagon.

Had she and her grubby, inept, collegues worried a bit more about where all that money they were spending like confetti was coming from, there'd be no need for such drastic measures now!

And the latest from the Socialist Paradise of the Republic of Cuba

Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees, to help revive the communist country's struggling economy.

The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers would lose their jobs - half of them by March next year. Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.

Analysts say it is biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people.

As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.

Qué bolá asere?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy.....

Wonder what Harman and her 'bankrupt' party think of that?

[PeteLockwood]

Originally Posted by Osem

I see Harman's come out in support of the unions, surprise, surprise.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11283048

Conveniently forgetting that it was her and her rotten 'government' that took us to the brink of financial ruin, thereby necessitating the cuts we're now all going to suffer, she's back on the "it's all the fault of those nasty, evil Tories" bandwagon.

Had she and her grubby, inept, collegues worried a bit more about where all that money they were spending like confetti was coming from, there'd be no need for such drastic measures now!

spot on, typical of these labour idiots blind to what they caused and still cant see the problem ! encouraging these strikes is suicide

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by PeteL

spot on, typical of these labour idiots blind to what they caused and still cant see the problem ! encouraging these strikes is suicide

Not really it's a calculated political move. In any event Labour are still extremely reliant on union money so have little choice but to toe the line.

As another reminder Harman's husband is a union man through and through.

If the unions can cause enough grief it may assist with getting Labour back into power - as their puppets.

[PeteLockwood]

it will have the opposite effect, if labour encourage another winter of discontent so to speak it would be political suicide

the current government needs to reform the laws on strike action

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by PeteL

it will have the opposite effect, if labour encourage another winter of discontent so to speak it would be political suicide

the current government needs to reform the laws on strike action

I remember the Winter of discontent very well as in 1978 I was 32. If you had lived through the preceding mess of totally inept governments which started around 1972 you would have a completely different opinion.

I am not union orientated and have never been but there was a mood of public disquiet around that time where most people were simply fed up to the back teeth with years of incompetence. Masses of people were action orientated and supportive of those that acted.

I hope you never have to endure such a period in your lifetime but strongly suspect that my feelings of Deja Vue will give you first hand experience.

Governments have reformed the laws on strike action and have moved the criteria into the area of strict rules that ensure true democratic activity based on majority votes. Surely you not against democracy?.

That all depends on your definition of 'democracy'. Strike ballots may be 'democratic' within the Union concerned, but what about all the people outside the Union who are affected by the strike action? Where do they go to have their say?

[Sirius]

Any legal eagles on here know if you can sue a union if by there actions or there union members actions you lose pay. IE if you try to work but are stopped from entering your place of work because you felt intimidated or threatened by the actions of union pickets acting on the orders of there union . ???


However for those like me who just want to work then these are the rules that pickets must abide by. Should they not then you have them by the bits

I will be crossing any picket line i come across and woe betide the union who's members stop me from legally attending my place of work.

A prominent feature of recent industrial action has been the increasing use of picketing and demonstrations to attract media attention and to heighten the public relations risks for the employer. There have been rooftop demonstrations, sit-ins, and site occupations across the country.

There is no sign of this phenomenon going away and many commentators suggest we will see a further increase in the coming years. One national broadsheet predicted that industrial action would be one of the top 10 features of life in 2010.

Picket lines are often highly-charged environments, and behaviour can easily deteriorate causing numerous problems for the employer, for non-picketing workers and for neighbouring businesses. Management usually want to exert control over the situation, but many are often too unsure of the legal position regarding picketing.

The first principle to get to grips with is that a peaceful picket line is, in itself, entirely lawful due to s220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. A peaceful picket line is one in which the pickets peacefully assemble at or near their own place of work (with a couple of exceptions). To be peaceful, the Acas Code of Practice on picketing suggests a maximum of six pickets, but this numerical limit must be treated with some caution now since the UK has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.

The second principle is that pickets can lawfully engage in only two types of activity on the picket line: they can peacefully obtain or communicate information; and they can attempt to persuade others, usually fellow workers and delivery drivers, to break their contractual obligations to work or deliver. However, pickets can only invite a person to listen to them; they cannot compel them to do so.

The third principle is that the right to picket peacefully does not legitimise any other behaviour that takes place on a picket line or demonstration. In particular, pickets are subject to the full rigour of our criminal law.

The types of unlawful behaviour that often occurs on a picket line and which employers can challenge are as follows:

Intimidation/harassment – Pickets are only entitled to communicate and seek to persuade peacefully. Pickets cannot use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or actions to try to pressurise others to act as the pickets want. Nor can they make express or implicit threats of physical harm or otherwise cause individuals to fear for their safety. If pickets do so, they can commit a variety of offences. The non-permitted behaviour can range from semi-childish (hiding an individual's clothes, tools or property) to implicit menace ('watching and besetting' a place where an individual lives/works, or persistently following a person from place to place) to threats of or actual violence to a person.

Breach of the peace – Pickets are acting unlawfully if within a person's presence they either actually harm or cause that person to fear that they will harm either him or his property. This can occur simply if the picket line becomes too large and/or unruly.

Damage to property – Pickets are acting unlawfully if they vandalise gates, fencing or vehicles that are entering or leaving the employers premises or if they throw objects into the employers property that cause damage.

Trespass – Pickets are only allowed to attend at or near the entrance to their workplace. They have no right to enter the employer's premises or land without permission.

Obstruction of the highway – Pickets are entitled to gather peacefully at or near their place of work but they are not allowed to deliberately prevent other persons from using the public highway. This could include stepping in front of vehicles to force drivers to stop and listen to them or simply trying to make progress awkward for the employer, delivery drivers, or workers who continue to work.

Public order offences – A group of pickets, even a small group, who are or seem likely to use threatening or insulting behaviour, language or signage, or seem likely to cause nuisance, trespass may commit a variety of public order offences.

Key points

Types of permitted behaviour

* Peacefully attendance at the picket line (eg standing on the line)
* Peacefully communicating with other persons (eg holding placards, chanting/shouting lawful slogans)
* Attempting to persuade other persons to break their contractual obligations.

Types of unlawful behaviour

* Generally insulting, abusive or threatening words or actions
* Watching, following or threatening an individual
* Obstructing the highway
* Trespass
* Damage to property.

[PeteLockwood]

Originally Posted by Traduk

I remember the Winter of discontent very well as in 1978 I was 32. If you had lived through the preceding mess of totally inept governments which started around 1972 you would have a completely different opinion.

I am not union orientated and have never been but there was a mood of public disquiet around that time where most people were simply fed up to the back teeth with years of incompetence. Masses of people were action orientated and supportive of those that acted.

I hope you never have to endure such a period in your lifetime but strongly suspect that my feelings of Deja Vue will give you first hand experience.

Governments have reformed the laws on strike action and have moved the criteria into the area of strict rules that ensure true democratic activity based on majority votes. Surely you not against democracy?.

i am not against democracy no, however i also dont want a bunch of militants holding the country to ransom for there own personal gain as ultimately it is at the expense of the tax payer, people in the private sector are suffering why do those in the public think they should be above cuts ?

and if they start striking playing silly beggars maybe we should be able to stop paying our council tax as we won't be getting what we pay very good money for ?

Originally Posted by PeteL

i am not against democracy no, however i also dont want a bunch of militants holding the country to ransom for there own personal gain as ultimately it is at the expense of the tax payer, people in the private sector are suffering why do those in the public think they should be above cuts ?

and if they start striking playing silly beggars maybe we should be able to stop paying our council tax as we won't be getting what we pay very good money for ?

So we should penalise the Councils for the actions of their workers?

[PeteLockwood]

well to an extent yes, the councils should prevent workers at all costs striking ? example if my bin does not get emptied think that should be reflected in my council tax, just like if the bbc strike and it interferes with any programming i happen to watch i think i should be entitled to a partial rebate as compensation