A song for the brave RMT strikers

[detective-boy]

If strikes didn't cause some disruption there'd be no point in them.

I agree. But is there not scope for considering what "some" is in the context of proportionality in a particular dispute? I would suggest that all unions do that anyway - scaling their action to the circumstances of each case (even the RMT - why only three days every couple of weeks? Why not all out for weeks on end?), but the RMT tend to the excessive.

It may be because their employer is particular problematic (and there have certainly been problems from that side too) but seeing as their disputes have arisen with a variety of employers and public bodies and the same difficulties seem to crop up in all cases, perhaps the communication problem lies closer to home ...

 

[detective-boy]

Detective-boy, should we legislate against privateers who have only their interests at heart and not the travelling public, who have caused this action to begin with?

Maybe. There is certainly an awful lot of scope to look at the farce which is PFI / PPP and the ridiculous set-up costs of the contracts which then turn out not to be worth the (huge amount of) paper they are written on.

There is also scope to strengthen the legislation in relation to corporate manslaughter to deal with management (and workers, if they are to blame personally) who endanger the public through their negligence and cost-cutting.

But they are different debates. As is whether we could do more for the environment, be nicer to animals and tell Noel Edmonds to fuck off. Why do you want to change the subject?

 

[nino_savatte]

Let me get this right: The anti RMT crew are so concerned for the hardships faced by other working people, that they want to see the effectiveness of the union destroyed. So undergound workers can get fucked over by the employers in the same way as the anti RMT crew supposedly dislike seeing in other workers?

I know, talk about contradictory positions and skewed logic - eh?

 

[nino_savatte]

Most amusing.

The union members should be more interested in getting people to work (ie. actually doing their jobs) than trying to flex their feeble political muscles. Of course, they're not, so everyone has to suffer.

"Feeble political muscles"? LOL!!! For a small-ish union, the RMT punches well above its weight. It also happens to be one of the few unions in this country that has decent leadership.

 

[detective-boy]

decent leadership.

You have a strange idea of "decent", judging by their various alleged internal and external fisticuffs and yobbery ...

 

[Citizen66]

But they are different debates. As is whether we could do more for the environment, be nicer to animals and tell Noel Edmonds to fuck off. Why do you want to change the subject?

They're not different debates though are they?

The dispute is over keeping the guarantees made to the workers following the creation of the ppp by the political masters and authors of the project. The workers are asking if these guarantees can still be assured now that metronet has collapsed, through no fault of their own.

Your reactionary solution is to suggest new legislation preventing the worker from calling for industrial action with no mention of the privateers who set the conditions for the dispute with their mismanagement of the company sending it into administration.

 

[detective-boy]

Your reactionary solution is to suggest new legislation preventing the worker from calling for industrial action

I didn't suggest that. Go back and read my posts properly.

 

[Isambard]

I didn't suggest that. Go back and read my posts properly.

Well it seems like you want more even more restrictions on the right of workers to strike to me:

Perhaps some sort of delaying device or compulsory referral to an arbitration service before a strike becomes permissible? ..............Or some sort of limit to the extent of the strike action (e.g. only one or two lines at a time or something)

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't suggest that. Go back and read my posts properly.

True, it was restrictions on *taking* industrial action rather than *calling* for it that you suggested.

 

[nino_savatte]

You have a strange idea of "decent", judging by their various alleged internal and external fisticuffs and yobbery ...

Nowt like a timely demonisation - eh? I can see where you stand on the issue of trade unions. The PF doesn't count as a proper union in my book. It's a little like the CBI referring to itself as the "bosses union".

If more unions had leaders like Bob Crow the rest of the trade union movement wouldn't be as cowed as it is today.

 

[detective-boy]

Well it seems like you want more even more restrictions on the right of workers to strike to me:

Different point. But yes.

 

[detective-boy]

I can see where you stand on the issue of trade unions.

You haven't got a fucking clue where I stand on the issue of trade unions. Who said the Police Federation was a union? I didn't.

 

[lights.out.london]

Mr Crow and the RMT seem incapable of understanding the sledgehammer / nut-cracking principle.

Mr Crow and the RMT are operating in a global economy which is hostile to unionised labour.

Gawd bless em and all who sail with them.

 

[butchersapron]

Different point. But yes.

What restrictions do you support or suggest?

 

[detective-boy]

What restrictions do you support or suggest?

I made my suggestion in my first post. It is quite plain.

 

[butchersapron]

Have another go then.

 

[Citizen66]

I didn't suggest that. Go back and read my posts properly.

More legislation, limiting action in the public sector generally, or public transport specifically.

Well that's how I interpreted it. They're all ready limited through the legislation Thatcher imposed.

 

[Cobbles]

Well that's how I interpreted it. They're all ready limited through the legislation Thatcher imposed.

That'll be the same legislation that Labour continues to impose (presuming that you're defining the will of Parliament as "imposition").

 

[nino_savatte]

You haven't got a fucking clue where I stand on the issue of trade unions. Who said the Police Federation was a union? I didn't.

You haven't got a fucking clue full stop, chum, What you have done is engaged in a blatant demonisation of the RMT in order to advance your 'thesis' (such as it is). My point about the PF is that you probably wouldn't understand the nature of trade union activity, given the fact that the police don't strike or engage in any form of real industrial action.

 

[nino_savatte]

Mr Crow and the RMT are operating in a global economy which is hostile to unionised labour.

Gawd bless em and all who sail with them.

Ain't that the truth? If only more unions had the same backbone as the RMT.

 

[Isambard]

That'll be the same legislation that Labour continues to impose (presuming that you're defining the will of Parliament as "imposition").

Just becasue one hates what Thatcher stood / stands for doesn't mean that one is a fan of Labour.
And as for "the will of Parliament", tosh and piffle. "Mother of Democracy" ? My arse.

 

[detective-boy]

You haven't got a fucking clue full stop, chum, What you have done is engaged in a blatant demonisation of the RMT in order to advance your 'thesis' (such as it is). My point about the PF is that you probably wouldn't understand the nature of trade union activity, given the fact that the police don't strike or engage in any form of real industrial action.

I haven't got a clue ...

1. I have no "thesis".
2. I have advanced no "thesis".
3. I have not "demonised" the RMT.
4. I have no wish to "demonise" the RMT.
5. I am able to understand the nature of trade union activity, despite never having been a member of a "proper" one.

Please try and engage with what I actually write, rather than what you imagine / wish / presume I write.

And please don't call me "chum". I am no such thing.

 

[nino_savatte]

I haven't got a clue ...

1. I have no "thesis".
2. I have advanced no "thesis".
3. I have not "demonised" the RMT.
4. I have no wish to "demonise" the RMT.
5. I am able to understand the nature of trade union activity, despite never having been a member of a "proper" one.

Please try and engage with what I actually write, rather than what you imagine / wish / presume I write.

And please don't call me "chum". I am no such thing.

No, you have't got a clue. You sit there and make claims of "violence" in order to divert from the main issue: namely the industrial action that was called for by the RMT. You have demonised the RMT, how else could one describe your accusations of "violence"?

This is a demonisation

judging by their various alleged internal and external fisticuffs and yobbery

I've engaged with what you've written, so how about you actually read what I've typed in reply instead of putting on your size 12s and trying to give me a kicking?

I'll call you "chum" as and when I please, chum.

I am able to understand the nature of trade union activity, despite never having been a member of a "proper" one.

You have signally displayed a great deal of ignorance about the unions and the need for industrial action. Like many others, you're too selfish to understand why strikes are called. It's a case of "I'm alright, Jack" - eh?

Here's your thesis

More legislation, limiting action in the public sector generally, or public transport specifically.

So you're calling for no strike agreements between unions and management in the public sector - is that correct?