wrote:
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.


But what, exactly?


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.


NuLabour saw PFI, in particular, as a unique opportunity to spend
uniquely vast amounts of taxpayers' money on grandiose projects, some
socialist, without appearing to bankrupt the country as their Labour
predecessors always had.

Alas, they failed. The country is now even more bankrupt than any of
their Labour predecessors managed. :-(

On 29 May, 13:51, wrote:
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.

Senior bankers must have gone on strike an awful lot then.

Strikes result from fear and desperation and are a failure for both
unions and management. Good contracts result from organisation and
negotiation. I'd say that good union organisation results in better
contracts and working conditions.

Union organisation is also a prerequisite for a strike, but I don't
think that strikes have resulted in better contracts and working
conditions. They are just a symptom of conditions getting worse, for
economic or political reasons.

However, even when negotiation is taking place, it's the employer that
holds all the cards. My experience is that they'll, for example,
propose new contracts containing one or two outrageous proposals.

The unions will then effectively proof-read the document for the
management and point out the bits that are totally silly. The
management then issues the corrected version with the really silly
bits left out, and gets through the real change that they wanted to
make.

MIG wrote:

Dem narstee bossiz hav got braynz in dez heads en uss wurkas azzunt so we
is orlwaze da undadog

On 29 May, 14:57, "John Rowland"
wrote:
MIG wrote:

Dem narstee bossiz hav got braynz in dez heads en uss wurkas azzunt so we
is orlwaze da undadog-

No I didn't write anything of the sort.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
Strikes result from fear and desperation and are a failure for both

LOL! Fear and desperation , give us a break! Opportunistic bully boy
tactics more like.

B2003

On 29 May, 15:18, wrote:
I have watched this discussion with interest and can only suggest the
following:-

Offer a wage rise of inflation + a small amount and as a condition
impose a solution to any outstanding more minor issues, such as the
Sunday working problems with some TOC's.

If they do not agree sack those that do not turn up for work. *There are
now plenty of unemployed to fill the vacancies.

Manage with a reduced underground service for the time it takes to train
new staff. *After all we will be without the underground during a
strike.

If existing legislation does not permit this then change it. *That
threat may well worry other unions who may put pressure on the black
Crow.

That's the bare bones. *I will leave others to fill the gaps.

Malcolm

Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. I really doubt it.

On May 29, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:
Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

There are

Recliner wrote:

Earlier LU had said it believed the issues with the RMT could be
resolved without a strike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8071423.stm

Maybe LU should sack everyone who likes football... the real cause of the
strike is obviously the England Andorra match at Wembley on the 10th.

On May 29, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:
Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Agreed, and there are some people on this group who do believe that,
and they're wrong.

However, there is surely a reasonable case to be made that LU, which
is a public sector operation not an evil den of fatcattery, is closer
to Extreme 1 than Extreme 2. If that's true, then legislation that
shifted the balance slightly closer towards Extreme 2 wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing.

My wider perspective is that unions are overly powerful in the public
sector and insufficiently powerful in the private sector, presumably
reflecting the fact that in the public sector the chances of everyone
being thrown out of a job due to bankruptcy if you impose unrealistic
demands are somewhere between low and zero. Not *completely* zero
though: the UK would still have a coal mining industry today had
Scargill taken the 'nuclear' scenario seriously...

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

On May 29, 4:11*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Recliner wrote:

Earlier LU had said it believed the issues with the RMT could be
resolved without a strike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8071423.stm

Maybe LU should sack everyone who likes football... the real cause of the
strike is obviously the England Andorra match at Wembley on the 10th.

Ha ha, yes, in the football world that's one of the clashes of the
titans that can't be missed!