"Paul Scott" wrote:
"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...

:-)


Oops! In both cases, of course, we are discussing human nature. ;-)

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.


The same woman had the great wisdom to know who to stand up to, and who
to humour. She chose her battles well.

She knew enough not even to attempt to privatise the railways, for
example. That was left to the weak leader who succeeded her, and who
gave in to the rampant free marketeers in his own party.

disgoftunwells wrote:

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


So using that as a basis, how should TPTB engineer a confrontation with
Comrade Crow's mob, and achieve total victory?

I suggest it cannot be done.

Thatcher's strategy to defeat militancy in the NUM, and destroy Comrade
Scargill en route, depended crucially on two major factors; (1) the
urgent commissioning of several nuclear power stations that were nearing
completion, and (2) the build-up of coal stocks at power stations
amounting to five months' supply.

Where are the comparable factors underpinning TPTB's campaign against
militancy in the RMT, destroying Comrade Crow en route?

I suggest there aren't any.

On May 29, 1:04*pm, MIG wrote:
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.

Sorry, how much do tube workers get paid again? How much does the
average skilled manual worker get paid again? Claiming that their
industrial militancy hasn't paid off, whether you approve of it or
not, is just odd.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
disgoftunwells wrote:

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.

In the private sector, given a competitive market, if management and workers
don't get things more or less right the business goes bust and they all lose
their jobs. But in the public sector (including quasi-private businesses
that government can't allow to fail) management and workers get bailed out
until the country goes bust.

Peter

On 29 May, 13:24, Tony Polson wrote:
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? *;-)

I'm sure some legislation regarding strikes in essential services will
come in if the Conservatives win.

There'll need to be general acceptance of this and making binding
arbitration more accessible will be welcomed by sectors which, for
professional reasons, don't like striking, or have been exploited by
having a monopoly employer (e.g. nurses).

The TGWU would complain about any restriction of strike action but
wouldn't strike because to do so would be illegal under the 1982
legislation, and if sold correctly the new legislation would have
broad support.

David Cameron is a master at selling things, and in this instance he
would have the full help of Bob Crow and the RMT, who have spent much
of the last decade trying to convince the public that such legislation
is required.

"Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .
disgoftunwells wrote:

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.

In the private sector, given a competitive market, if management and workers
don't get things more or less right the business goes bust and they all lose
their jobs. But in the public sector (including quasi-private businesses
that government can't allow to fail) management and workers get bailed out
until the country goes bust.


I don't see the country going bust because London Underground drivers
are overpaid.

There is more chance of the country going bust because of the botched
part-privatisation (via PFI) of London Underground, costing very many
times the wage bill of all LU staff, not just its train drivers. And
no-one can blame Comrade Crow or the RMT for any of that nonsense!

On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:27:30 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
The same woman had the great wisdom to know who to stand up to, and who
to humour. She chose her battles well.

True, but I suspect she would have done something about the RMT by now even
if was only behind the scenes manouvering.

She knew enough not even to attempt to privatise the railways, for
example. That was left to the weak leader who succeeded her, and who
gave in to the rampant free marketeers in his own party.

Yes, the tories did go through a rather unfortunate privitise everything
we own phase. Pity labour seemed hell bent on continuing the tradition.

B2003

disgoftunwells wrote:
On 29 May, 13:24, Tony Polson wrote:

So you want a General Strike, rather than just TfL? =A0;-)

I'm sure some legislation regarding strikes in essential services will
come in if the Conservatives win.

There'll need to be general acceptance of this

snip


OK, what's the USP? How will you get people to accept the inevitable
disruption that will occur, for benefits that are far from clear?


David Cameron is a master at selling things,


David Cameron is completely untested - he hasn't managed to sell
anything to anyone yet.


and in this instance he
would have the full help of Bob Crow and the RMT, who have spent much
of the last decade trying to convince the public that such legislation
is required.


If you think that there is widespread public support for such
legislation, then I think you are sadly mistaken.

There was a window of opportunity after the firemen's strike when the
public might have accepted no-strike legislation in the essential public
services - fire, police, ambulance, perhaps even the NHS. However, I'm
not sure that, even then, people would have had the stomach for seeing
such draconian legislation extended to workers in public transport. In
London, perhaps, but not nationally.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 13:39:05 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:


disgoftunwells wrote:

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


So using that as a basis, how should TPTB engineer a confrontation with
Comrade Crow's mob, and achieve total victory?

Simple. With the majority she enjoyed in the commons she could push through
the sort of legislation that I mentioned in another post legally limiting the
number of strike days per year to a rather low number. Wait for morons in RMT
to break the law then inflict massive fines on said union until they capitulate
or even better it goes broke and is dissolved.

Also pull rabbit out of hat in the form of tucked away clause that if strikes
do continue over the legal period then strikers can be arrested and charged
with public order offences and dismissed from their jobs on the spot. From
what I've heard people are queuing around the block to for tube driver jobs
even when there isn't a recession so LU won't have any problems replacing the
troublemakers.

B2003