"disgoftunwells" wrote in message



Strikes are the result of strikers knowing that they can extract more
by threatening to strike or by actually striking.

In general, tube drivers can extract a lot because management is in a
very weak position.

Normally, if you end up with an intransigent work force, you could
build up stock, determine that strikers have resigned, and recruit new
staff. You can't build stock in a service industry so it's not an
option. So management have no choice but to give in to ever more
extreme demands.

Yes, there's a long tradition in Britain and elsewhere of producers of
highly perishable goods (newspapers, trains, airlines, etc) being held
to ransom in this way. But such strikers can be defeated, as Murdoch and
Reagan (with air traffic controllers) showed. However, it's much harder
for a public transport organisation like TfL to stand up to such
demands. And MEP candidate Brother Crow has no love for either Labour or
the Tories, so he'll be delighted if either/both of them are damaged by
the strike.

On 28 May, 18:46, "Recliner" wrote:
"disgoftunwells" wrote in message





Strikes are the result of strikers knowing that they can extract more
by threatening to strike or by actually striking.

In general, tube drivers can extract a lot because management is in a
very weak position.

Normally, if you end up with an intransigent work force, you could
build up stock, determine that strikers have resigned, and recruit new
staff. You can't build stock in a service industry so it's not an
option. So management have no choice but to give in to ever more
extreme demands.

Yes, there's a long tradition in Britain and elsewhere of producers of
highly perishable goods (newspapers, trains, airlines, etc) being held
to ransom in this way. But such strikers can be defeated, as Murdoch and
Reagan (with air traffic controllers) showed. However, it's much harder
for a public transport organisation like TfL to stand up to such
demands. And MEP candidate Brother Crow has no love for either Labour or
the Tories, so he'll be delighted if either/both of them are damaged by
the strike.


A strike in the rail sector damages employers, causes huge disruption
for the public, and provides an unpaid holiday for the employees.
Hardly a balanced sharing of pain.

The legislation of the 80s pretty much levelled the playing field in
most industries, but not in essential services.

Where you have an essential service, how about legislation to remove*
the right to strike and replace it with compulsory pendulum
arbitration. This has worked well at many companies, where a strike
would damage employees and employers. It could work in the public
sector as well.

*Or limit, by giving the public the right to sue strikers who deny
them service. (This may have to be via the employer, with whom the
public have a contract).

"disgoftunwells" wrote in message

On 28 May, 18:46, "Recliner" wrote:
"disgoftunwells" wrote in message





Strikes are the result of strikers knowing that they can extract
more by threatening to strike or by actually striking.

In general, tube drivers can extract a lot because management is in
a very weak position.

Normally, if you end up with an intransigent work force, you could
build up stock, determine that strikers have resigned, and recruit
new staff. You can't build stock in a service industry so it's not
an option. So management have no choice but to give in to ever more
extreme demands.

Yes, there's a long tradition in Britain and elsewhere of producers
of highly perishable goods (newspapers, trains, airlines, etc) being
held to ransom in this way. But such strikers can be defeated, as
Murdoch and Reagan (with air traffic controllers) showed. However,
it's much harder for a public transport organisation like TfL to
stand up to such demands. And MEP candidate Brother Crow has no love
for either Labour or the Tories, so he'll be delighted if
either/both of them are damaged by the strike.


A strike in the rail sector damages employers, causes huge disruption
for the public, and provides an unpaid holiday for the employees.
Hardly a balanced sharing of pain.

The legislation of the 80s pretty much levelled the playing field in
most industries, but not in essential services.

Where you have an essential service, how about legislation to remove*
the right to strike and replace it with compulsory pendulum
arbitration. This has worked well at many companies, where a strike
would damage employees and employers. It could work in the public
sector as well.

*Or limit, by giving the public the right to sue strikers who deny
them service. (This may have to be via the employer, with whom the
public have a contract).

Somehow, I can't see Brother Crow agreeing to pendulum arbitration, and
it's hard to see the current government agreeing to anything that could
hurt their union paymasters.

disgoftunwells wrote:

A strike in the rail sector damages employers, causes huge disruption
for the public, and provides an unpaid holiday for the employees.
Hardly a balanced sharing of pain.

The legislation of the 80s pretty much levelled the playing field in
most industries, but not in essential services.

Where you have an essential service, how about legislation to remove*
the right to strike and replace it with compulsory pendulum
arbitration. This has worked well at many companies, where a strike
would damage employees and employers. It could work in the public
sector as well.


The first reaction to such a suggestion would be for the RMT to call an
all-out strike.

....Do not take me down that road, bruvvers!

In message
,
Mizter T writes
Assuming the BBC have got the facts correct I can't see any union going for a
5 year deal in the current situation. *The other side is that a 5% pay claim
is also unrealistic. *Sounds like both sides need their heads banging
together.


I believe the current pay deal is a 5 year one which is coming towards
an end. I'm not sure of the history of LU pay deals and how long they
have run for in the past, but that's surely where the notion of a new 5
year deal has come from.

The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set
at RPI + 0.6% in its final year.

The current offer is generally (from those I've spoken to) deemed ok as
a one year deal but years 2 - 5 are in contention. We are now 2 months
after the start of the current pay year and still negotiating.

FWIW, I disagree with calling this ballot by the RMT (those who know me
know that I am not an RMT member) before negotiations have reached a
point of impasse, which they haven't as they are still ongoing.

The business about job losses is a bit of a red herring IMO as it's
mostly removing duplication after Metronet was brought in house which
any well run business would endeavour to do. Many of those losing jobs
are not even RMT members and are currently being placed into other roles
within LU and TfL as far as they can.

The breakdown of relationships with management seems to be a few local
issues being thrown into the pot for good measure.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

wrote on 28 May 2009 14:12:57 ...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:38:10 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:

About 10,000 Tube workers have voted to strike on two separate disputes
over pay deals and proposed job losses.

I wonder if we market RMT strikes as an historical tourist attraction. Perhaps
advertising them as the last bastion of large scale trouble making marxist
scum in britain so kids could come and watch how life used to be in the 70s
and 80s.

Last bastion? It still happens in France, too, but in a much more
tourist-friendly way. If the Métro/RER drivers in Paris decide to
strike, the RATP (TfL equivalent) issue quite detailed bulletins 48 and
24 hours before the strike saying how many trains will run on each line
(e.g. 1 train in 3). Generally some sort of service, with a published
timetable, operates from Gare du Nord to CDG airport so as not to make
life too difficult for the tourists. SNCF even have a dedicated
interactive website for such occasions, www.abcdtrain.com, where you can
find out the temporary timetable for any journey in Ile de France
("Greater Paris").

Somehow I don't see our strikes becoming that tourist-friendly.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On May 28, 9:29*pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:

In message
,
Mizter T writes

Assuming the BBC have got the facts correct I can't see any union going for a
5 year deal in the current situation. *The other side is that a 5% pay claim
is also unrealistic. *Sounds like both sides need their heads banging
together.

I believe the current pay deal is a 5 year one which is coming towards
an end. I'm not sure of the history of LU pay deals and how long they
have run for in the past, but that's surely where the notion of a new 5
year deal has come from.

The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set
at RPI + 0.6% in its final year.

Thanks for correcting me Steve - just goes to show that no-one should
pay any attention to what I say, it's all huff and bluster!

When you say it expired in 2008, does that actually mean in ran up to
the end of the financial year in April '09?

Any idea where the idea that this upcoming deal should last for 5
years originated from - i.e. LU or the RMT?


The current offer is generally (from those I've spoken to) deemed ok as
a one year deal but years 2 - 5 are in contention. *We are now 2 months
after the start of the current pay year and still negotiating.

That's not that unusual though, or is it?


FWIW, I disagree with calling this ballot by the RMT (those who know me
know that I am not an RMT member) before negotiations have reached a
point of impasse, which they haven't as they are still ongoing.

The business about job losses is a bit of a red herring IMO as it's
mostly removing duplication after Metronet was brought in house which
any well run business would endeavour to do. *Many of those losing jobs
are not even RMT members and are currently being placed into other roles
within LU and TfL as far as they can.

The breakdown of relationships with management seems to be a few local
issues being thrown into the pot for good measure.

Thanks for your input - it's good to hear a view from the 'inside'.

In message
,
Mizter T writes
The current deal (that expired in 2008) was a 3 year deal which was set
at RPI + 0.6% in its final year.

Thanks for correcting me Steve - just goes to show that no-one should
pay any attention to what I say, it's all huff and bluster!

When you say it expired in 2008, does that actually mean in ran up to
the end of the financial year in April '09?

Yes, any new deal will commence from the 2009 financial year.

Any idea where the idea that this upcoming deal should last for 5 years
originated from - i.e. LU or the RMT?

LU.

I understand it's one of Boris's things - as close to a no strike deal
as he can realistically get.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:

A strike in the rail sector damages employers, causes huge disruption
for the public, and provides an unpaid holiday for the employees.
Hardly a balanced sharing of pain.

The legislation of the 80s pretty much levelled the playing field in
most industries, but not in essential services.

Where you have an essential service, how about legislation to remove*
the right to strike and replace it with compulsory pendulum
arbitration. This has worked well at many companies, where a strike
would damage employees and employers. It could work in the public
sector as well.

The first reaction to such a suggestion would be for the RMT to call an
all-out strike.

That would of course be a political strike which is banned under the
80s legislation, so the RMT could then be stripped of its assets.

But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive. I just hope I don't need to commute when it does.