RMT bullies tube users into another pay rise.......

[Sigmund Fraud]

Intransigent - unlike the RMT, then?

I'm not suggesting that the union or management are to solely to blame - more that management seem to get off very lightly in 'outraged of Osterley' threads like this. In times of potential dispute they've fallen back to the worst kind of corporate American gangbusting and dirty tricks through the media when they should have been in dialogue with the RMT and ASLEF.

and thats before you mention PFI...

 

[teuchter]

So, if your employer extended your hours unsociably you'd not ask for fair recompense?

yes, I'd probably ask for it. Like I say, if I didn't consider I was getting it I'd take myself elsewhere.

Anyway, the tube drivers' hours are not being extended.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I'm prepared to accept that I get paid what I get paid and if I don't like it, I go elsewhere... what's greedy about that? I'm not asking for more than someone else with similar abilities and willingness to do the job would ask for and be able to get.

I'm not holding others at ransom just because I happen to be in a position of power to do so ... ie I'm not negotiating by bullying; I'm negotiating based on what I've got to offer and what my employer needs.

If you got it it would be because you were in a position of power, if you didn't it would be because your employers were. It's how pay negotiations work.

Unless you think employers reward their employees from some magnanimous sense of fairness.

(I didn't call you greedy by the way. I'd wish you luck in getting your pay rise. But your differentiation into 'greedy' and 'not greedy' is rubbish, tbh.)

 

[teuchter]

perhaps these disgruntled tube drivers should go and work for a rival tube operator?

They could do a different job, perhaps?

I accept that there's a point to be made that there is effectively no other employer who can offer tube drivers the particular job they do and have trained to do. And I wouldn't suggest it would be fair to suddenly cut their wages now, as many are no doubt dependent on earning what they do in order to maintain their lifestyle, and have done the training etc in the understanding that this will continue.

I just object to the fact that the situation has gradually arisen, due to what I see as the unions' selfish behaviour, where they are (in my opinion of course) overpaid and yet still seem continually to be demanding more and more.

If it was going on in a private company, then as far as I'm concerned they could try their luck and commercial pressure would determine whether the employer went along with the demands or decided to try and fight them ... The company might go bust either way and no=one would have any jobs at all.

But the tube drivers' wages are being paid out of public money which, if you ask me, would be better spent on other things which would benefit the genuinely underpaid in London.

 

[Guineveretoo]

What would an inflation linked rise be at the moment? 2.5%? 3%. So they aren't getting that much over that are they?

It's not as if there's a direct correlation between ticket prices and driver pay anyway. The prices would have gone up like they have regardless IMO.

RPI, which is the inflation measure the Government used to use, is currently running at 4.2%.

Wage inflation is at least 1% higher than that.

The Government have created a different inflation measure, which they are calling CPI, and it is currently running at 2.7%.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

RPI, which is the inflation measure the Government used to use, is currently running at 4.2%.

Wage inflation is at least 1% higher than that.

The Government have created a different inflation measure, which they are calling CPI, and it is currently running at 2.7%.

Cheers.

So, hardly rampant greed then?

 

[teuchter]

If you got it it would be because you were in a position of power, if you didn't it would be because your employers were. It's how pay negotiations work.

Unless you think employers reward their employees from some magnanimous sense of fairness.

(I didn't call you greedy by the way. I'd wish you luck in getting your pay rise. But your differentiation into 'greedy' and 'not greedy' is rubbish, tbh.)

OK, but I would be in a position of power because I would be the one offering them something positive that someone else can't offer. That to me is a fair use of "power" that results in a benefit to me and to the employer.

That's different to being in a position of power on account of holding a threat against someone. That's how terrorism works, isn't it? (No, I'm not saying striking tube drivers are in the same league as terrorists. But it's a similar principle.)

 

[Guineveretoo]

see above.



Agreed it's not the same. (And driving a mainline train has its own, different stresses, I'm sure). But given a free market, I'm confident people would do the job for a lot less. If this wasn't the case, the RMT wouldn't want to get involved, would they.



There's a difference between an easy job and a desirable job.
And firefighters got away with their strikes because they could appeal to a certain section of the public's romantic notion about what they do ... that they are risking their lives every day, etc etc. In fact, working on a building site is much more dangerous than being a firefighter.

You seem to be missing something here. The RMT is not some outside body which comes in when it wants to cause trouble. It's the collective body of those very same tube drivers. They are negotiating their own pay rise, but, instead of doing it one at a time, they are doing it collectively.

On what are you basing your statement that firefighting is less dangerous than working on a building site, and is it really relevant?

 

[Guineveretoo]

If I wanted a pay rise and reckoned I deserved it ... I'd ask for it. If I didn't get it I'd consider whether I wanted to stay where I was or get a new job.

And that is what the tube drivers did. Only, they did it in a group. It's called a trade union. RMT is a trade union.

They made their case, and they won. End of

 

[Guineveretoo]

I'm prepared to accept that I get paid what I get paid and if I don't like it, I go elsewhere... what's greedy about that? I'm not asking for more than someone else with similar abilities and willingness to do the job would ask for and be able to get.

I'm not holding others at ransom just because I happen to be in a position of power to do so ... ie I'm not negotiating by bullying; I'm negotiating based on what I've got to offer and what my employer needs.

Remind me who the tube drivers have bullied and how?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

OK, but I would be in a position of power because I would be the one offering them something positive that someone else can't offer. That to me is a fair use of "power" that results in a benefit to me and to the employer.

That's different to being in a position of power on account of holding a threat against someone. That's how terrorism works, isn't it? (No, I'm not saying striking tube drivers are in the same league as terrorists. But it's a similar principle.)

You've already stated you'd leave if you didn't get it. That's a threat, is it not (assuming they want you to stay)?

You terrorist bastard.

 

[Blagsta]

teuchter seems to have little problem with money going to people like Bob Kiley

 

[Blagsta]

But the tube drivers' wages are being paid out of public money which, if you ask me, would be better spent on other things which would benefit the genuinely underpaid in London.

Yes, like lining the pockets of private investors, or on Bob Kiley's house.

 

[Guineveretoo]

teuchter seems to be, anti union, but not in a very well informed way, which makes him ever so easy to argue with.

However, he doesn't seem to realise how weak his arguments are

 

[teuchter]

Originally Posted by teuchter
If I wanted a pay rise and reckoned I deserved it ... I'd ask for it. If I didn't get it I'd consider whether I wanted to stay where I was or get a new job.

And that is what the tube drivers did. Only, they did it in a group. It's called a trade union. RMT is a trade union.

They made their case, and they won. End of

No, that's not what they did. They asked for it. They didn't get it. They said, if we don't get it, we're going on strike, because we know that by doing that we will bring LU and half of London to a standstill. Because LU haven't got the practical option of rehiring 90% of their workforce.

It's the equivalent of me saying to my employer, I've nicked the key to the electricity meter and if you don't give me more cash, I'm going to turn off the power until you do.

 

[teuchter]

Remind me who the tube drivers have bullied and how?

Anyone who relies on the tube to get around on their daily business. Most of London, in other words.

 

[teuchter]

You've already stated you'd leave if you didn't get it. That's a threat, is it not (assuming they want you to stay)?

You terrorist bastard.

I see it as a fair threat because they ultimately have the option of hiring someone else. Who might well do a better job than me.

 

[Blagsta]

That's different to being in a position of power on account of holding a threat against someone. That's how terrorism works, isn't it? (No, I'm not saying striking tube drivers are in the same league as terrorists. But it's a similar principle.)

...and the threat of losing your job is...different is it?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Anyone who relies on the tube to get around on their daily business. Most of London, in other words.

I don't accept that I have been bullied. Neither do I think that it is bullying to negotiate a pay rise, but then I suppose I would say that!

 

[Guineveretoo]

Originally Posted by teuchter
If I wanted a pay rise and reckoned I deserved it ... I'd ask for it. If I didn't get it I'd consider whether I wanted to stay where I was or get a new job.




No, that's not what they did. They asked for it. They didn't get it. They said, if we don't get it, we're going on strike, because we know that by doing that we will bring LU and half of London to a standstill. Because LU haven't got the practical option of rehiring 90% of their workforce.

It's the equivalent of me saying to my employer, I've nicked the key to the electricity meter and if you don't give me more cash, I'm going to turn off the power until you do.

No, it's like you saying to your employer: I am really not happy at the changes you are making to working practices around me and, unless you pay me a bit more in recompense, I will withdraw my labour (in your case, by getting a job somewhere else (your example)).

 

[Blagsta]

Originally Posted by teuchter
If I wanted a pay rise and reckoned I deserved it ... I'd ask for it. If I didn't get it I'd consider whether I wanted to stay where I was or get a new job.




No, that's not what they did. They asked for it. They didn't get it. They said, if we don't get it, we're going on strike, because we know that by doing that we will bring LU and half of London to a standstill. Because LU haven't got the practical option of rehiring 90% of their workforce.

It's the equivalent of me saying to my employer, I've nicked the key to the electricity meter and if you don't give me more cash, I'm going to turn off the power until you do.

How is that different from the power that managers have over workers when it comes to hiring and firing?

 

[teuchter]

teuchter seems to have little problem with money going to people like Bob Kiley

People always pop up with these kind of comments in discussions such as this, as a feeble diversionary tactic.

1. It's irrelevant to the question of whether there is too much money going to the drivers.

2. Nowhere have I said that I don't have a problem with money going to Bob Kiley so it's a bit annoying to have words put in my mouth. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. It's irrelevant.

 

[Blagsta]

How is it irrelevant? You're complaining about public money going to workers, yet seem to have no problem with it lining the pockets of investors or someone like Bob Kiley.

Oh and last time I saw you post on a thread like this, you didn't seem to have a problem with Kiley getting what he did.

 

[teuchter]

How is it irrelevant? You're complaining about public money going to workers, yet seem to have no problem with it lining the pockets of investors or someone like Bob Kiley.

Sorry but where have I said this?

Oh and last time I saw you post on a thread like this, you didn't seem to have a problem with Kiley getting what he did.

please feel free to quote the bit where I said "I didn't have a problem"

 

[teuchter]

I don't accept that I have been bullied. Neither do I think that it is bullying to negotiate a pay rise, but then I suppose I would say that!

I suppose you would!!

 

[Guineveretoo]

I suppose you would!!

But you really do seem to be anti trade union, but also not to understand what a trade union is and does, which makes it a bit bewildering that you are anti trade union

 

[teuchter]

No, it's like you saying to your employer: I am really not happy at the changes you are making to working practices around me and, unless you pay me a bit more in recompense, I will withdraw my labour (in your case, by getting a job somewhere else (your example)).

No, it's not because as I'm trying to explain, if I withdraw my labour, they have the option of hiring someone else instead. Unlike LU.

 

[Blagsta]

Sorry but where have I said this?

You only ever seem to aim your ire at the workers. If you do have a problem with it, why not post about it?

please feel free to quote the bit where I said "I didn't have a problem"

IIRC, you said that you didn't actually know anything about it, but if management agreed he was worth paying millions to, then he probably was...or words to that effect. Feel free to correct me if I've misremembered.

 

[Guineveretoo]

No, it's not because as I'm trying to explain, if I withdraw my labour, they have the option of hiring someone else instead. Unlike LU.

LU assessed the situation, and determined that they didn't want to replace the entire workforce, so they paid up.

Simple, really.

But where is that bullying?

 

[teuchter]

But you really do seem to be anti trade union, but also not to understand what a trade union is and does, which makes it a bit bewildering that you are anti trade union

Firstly, I'm not entirely anti trade union. I can see they have an important function in sticking up for the interests of those who can't do so by themselves. But I do feel that they have a tendency to abuse the power that they inevitably have. Just like some private companies do. My view is that they have been overly greedy in the case of the tube negotiations, and in fact it's this kind of thing that makes some people anti-union.

Secondly I don't know why you feel I don't understand what a trade union is or does. It's a pretty simple concept and I think I've just about got my head around it, thanks.