A song for the brave RMT strikers

[bluestreak]

I think we expect people to negotiate and take thoughtful political action rather than grandstanding and going home with the ball when they don't get their own way.

yeah, the cunts, how dare they not just accept it. bunch of wankers.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

yeah, the cunts, how dare they not just accept it. bunch of wankers.

Have you noticed how pensions have become much more secure now that there's much less militant trades unionism?

 

[butchersapron]

I think we expect people to negotiate and take thoughtful political action rather than grandstanding and going home with the ball when they don't get their own way.

You think companies shouldn't be allowed to relocate to other areas with lower wages and safety etc then?

 

[untethered]

Well, I wonder if they may do the latter because the former has proved unforthcoming on a really quite important matter.

Well if the workers are in it for the long term, they should realise that their first loyalty is to their employer, the second to the customers and after that to themselves.

If people desert public transport because the labour force can't be relied upon it doesn't do anyone any favours.

 

[butchersapron]

Well if the workers are in it for the long term, they should realise that their first loyalty is to their employer, the second to the customers and after that to themselves.

Is that right? Care to say just why you've decided this should be the rule?

 

[untethered]

Is that right? Care to say just why you've decided this should be the rule?

Applied common sense, really.

 

[bluestreak]

Have you noticed how pensions have become much more secure now that there's much less militant trades unionism?

i have. i was jsut saying to my wife only yesterday that now these unions are weak i seem to be working half as hard for far more money. who knew?

 

[Citizen66]

Well if the workers are in it for the long term, they should realise that their first loyalty is to their employer, the second to the customers and after that to themselves.

now what 'employer' would this be then, regarding the RMT members?

 

[bluestreak]

Applied common sense, really.

as opposed to normal human instinct which is to look after their families.

remember families. you're all for them.

 

[butchersapron]

Applied common sense, really.

Not from where i'm standing - it does rather look like you've no justifcation for handing out priorities like that.

 

[untethered]

as opposed to normal human instinct which is to look after their families.

remember families. you're all for them.

Indeed I am. You seem to think, along with the RMT, that the interests of the workers and the employer are opposed. Clearly, they are congruent.

 

[butchersapron]

You think companies shouldn't be allowed to relocate to other areas with lower wages and safety etc then?

Any chance of a reply to this untethered?

 

[Wolveryeti]

I'm kind of sickened by the level of support for people who are basically blackmailing all Londoners. Lots of people paid by the hour who can only dream of a pension plan depend on the tube to get to work, and they're having their lives fucked about by this bunch.

They get paid well by any standards for what they do. To strike as many times as they have in the past year just strikes me as cunty, and an abuse of their position.

 

[untethered]

Any chance of a reply to this untethered?

I think the state should regulate reasonable health and safety standards and shouldn't regulate wages. Does that answer your question?

 

[Citizen66]

now what 'employer' would this be then, regarding the RMT members?

Any chance of answering this too untethered?

 

[bluestreak]

I'm kind of sickened by the level of support for people who are basically blackmailing all Londoners. Lots of people paid by the hour who can only dream of a pension plan depend on the tube to get to work, and they're having their lives fucked about by this bunch.

They get paid well by any standards for what they do. To strike as many times as they have in the past year just strikes me as cunty, and an abuse of their position.

so you actually don't know who is striking then?

 

[butchersapron]

They get paid well by any standards for what they do. To strike as many times as they have in the past year just strikes me as cunty, and an abuse of their position.

How many times is that then?

 

[bluestreak]

Indeed I am. You seem to think, along with the RMT, that the interests of the workers and the employer are opposed. Clearly, they are congruent.

they're not congruent if the worker loses their pension plan due the mismanagement of the business when the owners can afford to honour those agreements.

 

[Wolveryeti]

In answer to the above two posts, the RMT dickheads, and what seems like loads of times.

 

[Citizen66]

To strike as many times as they have in the past year just strikes me as cunty, and an abuse of their position.

Huh? Name when the last time maintenance workers have been on strike? In fact, no metronet employee has been on strike until today AFAIK

 

[corporate whore]

Well if the workers are in it for the long term, they should realise that their first loyalty is to their employer, the second to the customers and after that to themselves.

What a crock of shit.

Too often the employers' first priority is themselves, then the customers, and only then the employees. That's why unions exist.

 

[butchersapron]

I think the state should regulate reasonable health and safety standards and shouldn't regulate wages. Does that answer your question?

In no direct way whatsoever.

It does tell us that you really only mean that your argument applies to workers only.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

If people desert public transport because the labour force can't be relied upon it doesn't do anyone any favours.

A curious point since I was under the impression they had no option but to use public transport, this being the basis for attacking the horrid strikers.

 

[untethered]

Any chance of answering this too untethered?

The RMT strikers are currently employed by Metronet's administrators to all intents and purposes. The point being what?

 

[untethered]

A curious point since I was under the impression they had no option but to use public transport, this being the basis for attacking the horrid strikers.

Many people have options, though some don't. These options include changing where they work and their general travel patterns.

As an environmentalist, I'd be keen to see people use public transport less, so long as they aren't switching to even more polluting forms of transport.

 

[Citizen66]

The RMT strikers are currently employed by Metronet's administrators to all intents and purposes. The point being what?

That they should be 'loyal' to administrators?

Are you capable of thought?

 

[untethered]

Too often the employers' first priority is themselves, then the customers, and only then the employees. That's why unions exist.

Then they are not good businesses. Employers need to realise that they need to work in co-operation with the workforce, not against it. But then, the reverse is true also.

Unions are largely an end in themselves these days. That's why fewer and fewer people choose not to bother with them.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The RMT strikers are currently employed by Metronet's administrators to all intents and purposes. The point being what?

Administrators are not employers and do not have employers' obligations.

 

[untethered]

Administrators are not employers and do not have employers' obligations.

Hence "to all intents and purposes".

If there is a viable ongoing business, then the workers should pitch in and make it a success during this difficult time.

If anything, they should be working extra hours to sort it all out.

 

[corporate whore]

Unions are largely an end in themselves these days. That's why fewer and fewer people choose not to bother with them.

See, now you're undermining your own arguments..

As for your projected employer-employee utopia, I long for the day, but it's not going to come voluntarily from the side with the most to lose, which is always the employer.