On 28 May, 17:04, MIG wrote:
On 28 May, 14:54, rail wrote:



In message
* * * * * Mizter T wrote:

On May 28, 12:38*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
About 10,000 Tube workers have voted to strike on two separate disputes
over pay deals and proposed job losses.

The vote, by members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union,
was rerun after London Underground (LU) legally challenged a previous
ballot.

Workers will go on a 48-hour strike which will begin at 1859 BST on 9
June and end on 11 June.

The strike is expected to bring havoc to the Tube network, used by more
than three million passengers a day.

The RMT said the ballot result was "overwhelmingly" in favour of strike
action with 2,810 voting for and 488 against.

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

Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally
liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has
departed?

As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the
original ballot was in favour of stike action.

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.

These things are negotiating positions, which need to be followed by
negotiation. *When the management won't negotiate, they refer to
"demands", but how does anyone state a negotiating position that
couldn't be described by someone else as a demand?

Strikes are generally the result of a management refusal to negotiate,
rather than the expectation of a "demand" being met in full.

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.

"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.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Recliner
gently breathed:

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.

True.

But the current government is about to get spectacularly booted out by
the Conservatives, who might be more minded (especially if they thought
they had the support of ordinary Londoners, some of whom might think
that strike-caused disruption was putting their own jobs at risk) to
smash RMT's ability to cause utter chaos in the capital once and for
all.

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories. Lets just
hope this time it doesn't lead to a re-run of the Major period ten years
later.

NP: Cybercide - Further.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- Wisefire Promotions, Goth & Metal. http://www.wise-fire.com
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.


It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

Tony Polson wrote in
:

Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.


It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in
1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now.

This surely cannot be coincidental.

On May 30, 2:57*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.

It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

Haha, win!

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

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.

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.