Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On 20 Nov, 16:56, wrote:
In article ,





(Bruce) wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably
elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're
in control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they
may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in
other ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. *But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the Unions
or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2 years of
contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one of those unions
that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that reason?

Are you suggesting letting facts spoil a good rant?

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!


I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

wrote in message

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the
Unions or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2
years of contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one of
those unions that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that reason?

I'm pretty sure the RMT still sponsors (ie, funds) some Labour MPs, but
not the party itself (after it was expelled in 2004). But, of course,
the RMT is not the only union on the railways, and the others remain
friendly with Labour.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 20 Nov, 16:56, wrote:
In article ,

(Bruce) wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector,
is a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum
arbitration of pay claims. *But it will never happen under Labour,
because Labour doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the
Unions or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2
years of contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one
of those unions that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that
reason?

Are you suggesting letting facts spoil a good rant?

Would I do that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Nov 21, 10:03�am, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!

I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

And to think that he was overlooked in the trawl to find a suitable
candidate for President of the E.U.!

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:50:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 21, 10:03?am, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!

I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

And to think that he was overlooked in the trawl to find a suitable
candidate for President of the E.U.!


Funnily enough, I'd rather have him than Tony Bliar, because at least
you would know exactly where you were with him. And he's a fighter -
better to have on your side than the other.

I feel sorry for the poor Belgians, whose politically divided
Parliament took many months to find someone who would agree to become
their Prime Minister, only to lose him soon after to become President
of Europe. Perhaps the feeling is that anyone who can lead divided
Belgium has at least a chance of getting the various leaders of the
states of the EU (and the European Commissioners) to work together.

I sincerely hope that Belgium can find a replacement for Herman van
Rompuy with the passion needed to unify the country. The gap between
the two sides (Flemish and Walloons) is a political and cultural
chasm. There was a near-complete dearth of candidates for the job
last time until Mr van Rompuy stepped up.

More worrying is the appointment of Baroness Nobody to be the EU's
foreign minister, and her replacement as Trade Commissioner by an
anti-free market Frenchman.