Your favourite anti-union cliches!

[dennisr]

Anyone who doesn't want employment rights should not be entitled to any.

I think that is a reasonable attitude to have.

exactly

 

[JTG]

Anyone who doesn't want employment rights should not be entitled to any.

I think that is a reasonable attitude to have.

absolutely

 

[butchersapron]

I suspect trulyyessir is a bit higher up than most of the people who need to go on strike reading between the lines...

 

[dennisr]

I suspect trulyyessir is a bit higher up than most of the people who need to go on strike reading between the lines...

one of the one's who likes to delude him/her self that his democratic version of the gun held to the rest of our backs is something that was handed to us by the genurosity of folk like him - not something that had to be fought for by the likes of the very trade unionists who would, apparently, like to deny him his 'democratic right' to scab.

 

[Belushi]

I suspect trulyyessir is a bit higher up than most of the people who need to go on strike reading between the lines...

Ah, Managements right to Manage...

 

[YoursTruly]

Anyone who doesn't want employment rights should not be entitled to any.

I think that is a reasonable attitude to have.

We all have different views on where a employees rights end and an employers rights begin. If only the issue was as nice, simple and black and white as you want it to be. Everyone has differering opinions and there is one big fat whopping chunk of grey that sits inbetween.

Besides, it's not all about employment rights, is it? Sometimes people strike over pay rather than rights. Sometimes they might be justified in striking, sometimes they might not.

Just as people can strike, others should be able to cross the picket line, especially whe that picket line (IMHO) is lesss than 50% of the firm. Otherwise, if you want to deny people from getting in to just get on with their job, why should they even support your right to strike or picket.

Picket lines should be about making other workers aware that there is strike and that their is an issue and not to intimidate others from working.

 

[YoursTruly]

I suspect trulyyessir is a bit higher up than most of the people who need to go on strike reading between the lines...

I don't recall insulting you or referring to you by an insulting name, so calling me 'trulyyessir' is a bit uncalled for, don't you think?

 

[YoursTruly]

I suspect trulyyessir is a bit higher up than most of the people who need to go on strike reading between the lines...

Well you had better keep me busy and amused then, before I justify my astronomical salary and share options deal, by actually doing something constructive, like a major rationalisation that involves human resources...

 

[butchersapron]

I don't recall insulting you or referring to you by an insulting name, so calling me 'trulyyessir' is a bit uncalled for, don't you think?

I do apologise, totally outrageous of me.

 

[YoursTruly]

I do apologise, totally outrageous of me.

Don't worry, I've called IT and some pleb..I mean 'engineer' is on his way with a new monitor.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Just as people can strike, others should be able to cross the picket line, especially whe that picket line (IMHO) is lesss than 50% of the firm..

I disagree that there should be an absolute figure but when you have a situation where only a small proportion of union members actually vote for a strike and the rest abstain from voting or can't be bothered then that does remove a lot of legitimacy from the strike and makes it easier to just see the strike as an inconvenience rather than a way of expressing a grievance. I didn't support the last two strikes in my industry as I disagree with the way the union leadership is running things and feel that some form of targetted work to rule or a three day strike (with assistance from the union to members in financial difficulty ) would have been far more effective than barely supported one day strikes.

Picket lines should be about making other workers aware that there is strike and that their is an issue and not to intimidate others from working.

That I do agree with.

 

[disownedspirit]

We all have different views on where a employees rights end and an employers rights begin. If only the issue was as nice, simple and black and white as you want it to be. Everyone has differering opinions and there is one big fat whopping chunk of grey that sits in between.

these grey areas usually depend if you are a worker or management, no?

Besides, it's not all about employment rights, is it? Sometimes people strike over pay rather than rights. Sometimes they might be justified in striking, sometimes they might not.

who made you the judge on if a strike is justified or not? same point as above depends on which side of the worker/ boss divide you are on, agree or not?

Just as people can strike, others should be able to cross the picket line, especially whe that picket line (IMHO) is lesss than 50% of the firm. Otherwise, if you want to deny people from getting in to just get on with their job, why should they even support your right to strike or picket.

the flipside of this is that if someone doesnt want to go into work how do you force them, and if loads of individuals dont want to go to work what do you do? esp in this case you cant sack them or no tube, but workers do get sacked for taking legal strike action, im hoping you find this deplorable

Picket lines should be about making other workers aware that there is strike and that their is an issue and not to intimidate others from working.

and again im presuming that you dont support management intimidation, whether its by subtle or not so subtle means, did you see the video where a manager from metronet clearly thought it was ok to punch someone if they were in the RMT?
imagine the headline on the standard that evening if a picket had punched a manager, do you really think the picket would have been allowed to apologise and no further action taken

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is your problem with the City? It contributes a huge amount towards the UK economy and is (generally) a real centre of excellence.

Please quantify this statement.

(Although, as you support "the City", whose resident businesses exist through the rarified and delusional system known as "free market capitalism", and follow "laws" of economics, a self-perpetuating pseudo-science, I suspect your quantification will be entertaining rather than informative. )

 

[STFC]

I'm glad I work in an industry and for a company that doesn't require unionisation. Work isn't a battleground, and I like it that way.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm glad I work in an industry and for a company that doesn't require unionisation. Work isn't a battleground, and I like it that way.

It's possibly because work is so often a battleground that people sometimes unionise.

 

[YoursTruly]

these grey areas usually depend if you are a worker or management, no?

Statistically more so than not, but there are enough people out there who go against the grain. In any case, it's not surprising that you would find most workers on one side and most management on the other side *but still inside* the grey as they have different and sometimes conflicting interests.
[/quote[

who made you the judge on if a strike is justified or not? same point as above depends on which side of the worker/ boss divide you are on, agree or not?

No I disagree. Remember, it's my views that have been pulled up here. I've been in management and have agreed that my own staff were right to strike, yet I've been a worker for a firm where some staff did strike and I didn't agree with it. So as I said, it's not as black and white as you think. Also, regardless of my views on whether I think a strike is justified or not, we all have the right to think whether a strike is justified or not, which would bring us back fundementally to the rights of workers to stay out of unions and work on regardless of what union members think.

the flipside of this is that if someone doesnt want to go into work how do you force them, and if loads of individuals dont want to go to work what do you do? esp in this case you cant sack them or no tube, but workers do get sacked for taking legal strike action, im hoping you find this deplorable

You don't force them. I'm not aware of people being sacked for legal strike action alone. If there has been cases of that, I would find it deplorable. On the other side of the coin, I can't understand it when people strike with placards saying "Save our jobs!" when employers are having problems finding the cash to keep people employed.

In the case of the tube. You tell me. No one has any answers. I know not all tube strikes are about more pay for drivers, but I would be interested to know where you draw the line and say "Hold on a minute. They're taking the piss."

and again im presuming that you dont support management intimidation, whether its by subtle or not so subtle means, did you see the video where a manager from metronet clearly thought it was ok to punch someone if they were in the RMT?

imagine the headline on the standard that evening if a picket had punched a manager, do you really think the picket would have been allowed to apologise and no further action taken

That's assault, which is against the law. Was the metronet manager convicted of assault?

 

[rekil]

We all have different views on where a employees rights end and an employers rights begin. If only the issue was as nice, simple and black and white as you want it to be. Everyone has differering opinions and there is one big fat whopping chunk of grey that sits inbetween.

Imo, this 'grey area' you mention is the confusion about employment rights and the fear of being branded a 'troublemaker'. It favours employers as it enables them to exploit their employees' disorganisation and/or lack of awareness of existing legal avenues.

Besides, it's not all about employment rights, is it? Sometimes people strike over pay rather than rights. Sometimes they might be justified in striking, sometimes they might not.

Pay is an employment right, the most rudimentary one in fact.

Just as people can strike, others should be able to cross the picket line, especially whe that picket line (IMHO) is lesss than 50% of the firm. Otherwise, if you want to deny people from getting in to just get on with their job, why should they even support your right to strike or picket.

Picket lines should be about making other workers aware that there is strike and that their is an issue and not to intimidate others from working.

Which brings us back to the point a few people have made here - why should scabs be entitled to pay, conditions and rights won by a movement they actively undermine.

 

[Irenick]

and he smells of wee too!

Now, that's just being plain nasty!

 

[rekil]

You don't force them. I'm not aware of people being sacked for legal strike action alone. If there has been cases of that, I would find it deplorable. On the other side of the coin, I can't understand it when people strike with placards saying "Save our jobs!" when employers are having problems finding the cash to keep people employed.

Well yeah, two years ago bank of Ireland had to sack 2000 people because profits only went up 5% to €1.3 billion.

 

[YoursTruly]

But you would be happy to get the conditions and pay won by a union?

Absolutely I would, what kind of idiot do you take me for? But hey, if members of a union won such pay and conditions and I didn't benefit, do you really think I would care? I would just get on with it and if I found that da union boys were giving me hassle I would just move on a work for a firm without a union.

What, 'red tape' like health and safety? representation when negotiating or defending yourself with employers? ensuring and defending decent pay?

There is enough 'red tape' from the government and the EU to cover health and safety.

Yep, the 'free market' employers can do without 'red tape' such as this - bosses should be able to insist on the same conditions faced by say chinese workers so 'we' can 'compete' - is that your view?

The answer is to find different markets to make a living than the Chinese. What do you suggest?

absolutely - a gun at your back, a bowl of rice a day and none of this 'red tape' (sic)

What are you on about? I said I wouldn't work for a firm with a union. Is that so hard for you to stomach? Does it make your blood boil that there are firms out there, without unions?

Have I sat here and typed "Unions are the scourge of society" ???

This is the problem, with *some* of you people. Never happy unless *everyone* is covered by union, paying their "dues" and all the rest of it.

I understand that they are good for fighting for better conditions, but sadly these days, a lot of the time they can also be a huge hinderance to simply just "getting on with it".

mug

I stated my views politely.

 

[YoursTruly]

Well yeah, two years ago bank of Ireland had to sack 2000 people because profits only went up 5% to €1.3 billion.

If they could do without the 2000, there was 2000 artificial jobs in the bank.

I believe the government should stop mergers going ahead, that are clearly designed to just get rid of workers, but if a bank can shed staff and easily get by, then it had too workers working for it.

 

[glenquagmire]

So increased profit through efficiency is more important than livelihoods? In a successful company here, not a struggling one.

 

[YoursTruly]

So increased profit through efficiency is more important than livelihoods? In a successful company here, not a struggling one.

If you can find that you can get rid of excess through natural means then great. But when you find out that you have 2000 too many, they have to go, because eventually, someone is going to provide all of those services cheaper and then the firm will stop being competive which will mean more than the original 2000 will end up being laid off or downsized. If you don't get rid of the excess, you'll endanger the jobs that are left.

 

[jigotai]

There is enough 'red tape' from the government and the EU to cover health and safety.

But the implementation of the legislation is often not a priority to the management time. Or the methods used to comply with the law are ham fisted, or ineffective in regards to the spirit of the law.

Thats where a group of people whose first interest is not simply obeying employment law, but is keeping the staff safe, come into their own.

The answer is to find different markets to make a living than the Chinese. What do you suggest?

Or show some human compassion and solidarity with the chinese workers. Their products cost less because the extra cost is paid by the chinese workers reduced quality of life.

 

[YoursTruly]

But the implementation of the legislation is often not a priority to the management time. Or the methods used to comply with the law are ham fisted, or ineffective in regards to the spirit of the law.

Thats where a group of people whose first interest is not simply obeying employment law, but is keeping the staff safe, come into their own.

Then it's the law that's wrong.

Or show some human compassion and solidarity with the chinese workers. Their products cost less because the extra cost is paid by the chinese workers reduced quality of life.

"The Chinese Workers" - What are they all somehow being slave driven? I've read the same horror stories you have and I'm appauled and shocked by the way a large minority of Chinese workers are treated but it's not all doom and gloom over there. That said, they've got many problems in the workplace and it's not all down to bad conditions for workers.

By the way. There are plenty of Chinese firms out there, knocking out goods far cheaper than we can compete with, without bad conditions for the workers.

 

[butchersapron]

If you can find that you can get rid of excess through natural means then great. But when you find out that you have 2000 too many, they have to go, because eventually, someone is going to provide all of those services cheaper and then the firm will stop being competive which will mean more than the original 2000 will end up being laid off or downsized. If you don't get rid of the excess, you'll endanger the jobs that are left.

So basically you're saying that capitalism fucks people over through its own natural laws but people shouldn't dare organise to try and stop this. Tough shitm they always do any they always will - thereby demonstrating that these natural laws are made up bollocks that can and have been overcome through actively combating them.

 

[jigotai]

Then it's the law that's wrong.

No, it's the attitude of the employers, who will only ensure employee safety if industrial "accidents" significantly cut into profits. The law is there and arguably fit for purpose, after years of campaigning for safer working environments.

But wouldn't it be great if employers didn't have to be berated into looking after their employees? That they treated fellow man with some humanity. [/fantasy mode]

 

[Belushi]

Funnily enough free-market rhetoric goes out the window when business gets itself in the shit and needs bailing out, as we've seen in the States in the last few weeks.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Which brings us back to the point a few people have made here - why should scabs be entitled to pay, conditions and rights won by a movement they actively undermine.

would have thought game theory provides the answer (?). . .

something like

1) the flip side of that argument is that union members shouldn't be entitled to pay, conditions and rights negotiated by non-union members.

2) therefore it would be rational, if a union member thought s/he could negotiate a better individual deal than the unions, to leave the union.

3) ultimately those union members left would be on a worse deal than their non-union counterparts.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Funnily enough free-market rhetoric goes out the window when business gets itself in the shit and needs bailing out, as we've seen in the States in the last few weeks.

Funnily enough in the UK, pretty much everyone is critising the US authorities reaction to the sub-prime issue.