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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

"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

"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!