On May 28, 6:24*pm, disgoftunwells wrote:

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.

The circumstances are somewhat different, but during an illegal strike
on the Glasgow Subway in 2002, SPT sacked 32 (of 45) drivers, and it
seems at some point were considering shutting the service for three
months while they trained new staff [1]. In the end, they re-hired
them all, but under terms more favourable to the employer [2].

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2413407.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2429645.stm

On Fri, 29 May 2009 01:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Deutsch wrote:
The circumstances are somewhat different, but during an illegal strike
on the Glasgow Subway in 2002, SPT sacked 32 (of 45) drivers, and it
seems at some point were considering shutting the service for three
months while they trained new staff [1]. In the end, they re-hired
them all, but under terms more favourable to the employer [2].

I suppose the big difference is that for Glasgow the subway is a nice-to-have
rather than an absolutely essential public transport service like the tube
is in london. IIRC it was closed for a number of months anyway at one point
when they upgraded the system.

But I do think TfL needs to square up to the RMT because unless they get
a much needed kick up the backside this is only going to get worse the closer
we get to the olympics. Perhaps new legistlation along the lines of the
maximum legal length of strikes or maximum number of strikes allowed in a
year should be introduced since at least that would limit some of the damage
they could cause.

B2003

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


Nonsense. RMT would be striking because management were unilaterally
imposing an unacceptable form of wage negotiation. That's a fundamental
issue and one that would form a perfectly legal basis for industrial
action. Comrade Crow would have no problem rustling up a vote against,
so all requirements of the industrial relations legislation would have
been complied with.


But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.


That's where you're wrong. Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. Nothing has changed. Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

And if anyone thinks that unilaterally imposing an unacceptable form of
wage negotiation is going to bring a day of reckoning, then they're
right. But it would be a day of reckoning for the management, on
account of their gross incompetence.

I don't think for a single minute that TfL are *that* incompetent.

wrote:

But I do think TfL needs to square up to the RMT because unless they get
a much needed kick up the backside this is only going to get worse the closer
we get to the olympics. Perhaps new legistlation along the lines of the
maximum legal length of strikes or maximum number of strikes allowed in a
year should be introduced since at least that would limit some of the damage
they could cause.

That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired
result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it
becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum, and the Union will
simply find some excuse(s) to strike for that number of days regardless
of whether their grievances have any real merit.

The workers will be quite happy to strike; Comrade Crow has shown them
that militancy gets results. They have gained handsomely over the years
as a result of past militancy so why would they not take action?

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired
result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it
becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum...

Thought you were talking about MP's allowances for a moment there...

:-)

Paul S

On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
On 28 May, 19:13, Tony Polson wrote:
disgoftunwells wrote:
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.

Nonsense. *RMT would be striking because management were unilaterally
imposing an unacceptable form of wage negotiation. *That's a fundamental
issue and one that would form a perfectly legal basis for industrial
action. *Comrade Crow would have no problem rustling up a vote against,
so all requirements of the industrial relations legislation would have
been complied with. *

Please read what I said - "legislation to remove the right to
strike ....and [enforce compulsory arbitration]"

This would be nothing to do with the management and the RMT. If the
RMT launches a strike then would be striking about Government
legislation - i.e striking against a third party which is illegal
under the 1984 act (I think - I studied it 20 years ago - but
certainly one of them)

But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.

That's where you're wrong. *Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. *Nothing has changed. *Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

I was thinking more generally. When was the last time the miners went
on strike? Even Rover workers turned a new leaf, though ultimately too
late to save themselves.

Workers keep getting what they ask for. The management can't do
anything. finally external stakeholders force the issue. In a
competitive market, external stakeholders are customers and act very
quickly.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:31:02 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired
result. The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it
becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum, and the Union will
simply find some excuse(s) to strike for that number of days regardless
of whether their grievances have any real merit.

In that case you fine the RMT heavily and/or jail some of the leadership or
even the members involved. Unions can get nasty , the establishment can
get REALLY nasty if they want to.

The workers will be quite happy to strike; Comrade Crow has shown them

Not if they end up in prison and unemployed they won't.

that militancy gets results. They have gained handsomely over the years
as a result of past militancy so why would they not take action?

Thats because no one has had the ******** to stand up to them. Ironically it
took a woman to do just that to the miners.

B2003

On 29 May, 12:49, wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:31:02 +0100

Tony Polson wrote:
That would be impracticable, and it certainly wouldn't have the desired
result. *The minute you set a maximum (of either kind, or both) it
becomes an expectation, indeed almost a minimum, and the Union will
simply find some excuse(s) to strike for that number of days regardless
of whether their grievances have any real merit.

In that case you fine the RMT heavily and/or jail some of the leadership or
even the members involved. Unions can get nasty , the establishment can
get REALLY nasty if they want to.

The workers will be quite happy to strike; Comrade Crow has shown them

Not if they end up in prison and unemployed they won't.

that militancy gets results. *They have gained handsomely over the years
as a result of past militancy so why would they not take action?

Thats because no one has had the ******** to stand up to them. Ironically it
took a woman to do just that to the miners.

Indeed, and Mrs Thatcher laid the groundwork carefully.

1980: First legislation
1982: 2nd legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Act_1982
1983: Build up coal reserves
1984: Miners strike

On 29 May, 12:45, disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:



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

Nonsense. *RMT would be striking because management were unilaterally
imposing an unacceptable form of wage negotiation. *That's a fundamental
issue and one that would form a perfectly legal basis for industrial
action. *Comrade Crow would have no problem rustling up a vote against,
so all requirements of the industrial relations legislation would have
been complied with. *

Please read what I said - *"legislation to remove the right to
strike ....and [enforce compulsory arbitration]"

This would be nothing to do with the management and the RMT. If the
RMT launches a strike then would be striking about Government
legislation - i.e striking against a third party which is illegal
under the 1984 act (I think - I studied it 20 years ago - but
certainly one of them)

But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.

That's where you're wrong. *Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. *Nothing has changed. *Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

I was thinking more generally. When was the last time the miners went
on strike? Even Rover workers turned a new leaf, though ultimately too
late to save themselves.

Workers keep getting what they ask for. The management can't do
anything. finally external stakeholders force the issue. In a
competitive market, external stakeholders are customers and act very
quickly.-

Cite a successful strike or an example of workers getting what they
ask for? The management invariably hold all the cards and always get
what they want.

Along the way, they may propose something beyond reasonableness in
order to wear out the unions, and then appear to back down to what
they wanted all along.

There was a brief period in the early 1970s when the unions appeared
to use the kind of tactics that all business use all day every day,
but basically unions have no power at all beyond the funding that they
provide to Labour oppositions, and that's all been squandered by a few
officials chasing knighthoods (with a few honourable exceptions like
Bob Crow) rather than representing the interests of their members.

disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 12:04, Tony Polson wrote:
Nonsense. *RMT would be striking because management were unilaterally
imposing an unacceptable form of wage negotiation. *That's a fundamental
issue and one that would form a perfectly legal basis for industrial
action. *Comrade Crow would have no problem rustling up a vote against,
so all requirements of the industrial relations legislation would have
been complied with. *

Please read what I said - "legislation to remove the right to
strike ....and [enforce compulsory arbitration]"

This would be nothing to do with the management and the RMT. If the
RMT launches a strike then would be striking about Government
legislation - i.e striking against a third party which is illegal
under the 1984 act (I think - I studied it 20 years ago - but
certainly one of them)


So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? ;-)


But ultimately, when faced with constant blackmail, a day of reckoning
has to arrive.

That's where you're wrong. *Decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes have led to more decades of simmering discontent and periodic
strikes. *Nothing has changed. *Nothing is bringing it to a head, so
there won't be a day of reckoning.

I was thinking more generally. When was the last time the miners went
on strike? Even Rover workers turned a new leaf, though ultimately too
late to save themselves.


Yes, when the majority of miners had been made redundant, strikes were
suddenly considerably rarer. Yes, when the majority of Rover workers
had been made redundant, strikes were suddenly considerably rarer.

So how are you going to make the majority of TfL workers redundant?


Workers keep getting what they ask for. The management can't do
anything. finally external stakeholders force the issue. In a
competitive market, external stakeholders are customers and act very
quickly.


Sounds good in theory. In practice, management does what is necessary
to keep disruption within limits with which their customers are
reasonably content. And that's where we are now.