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

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

"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. ;-)

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

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 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

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.