We knew it would happen and now it has

[soloman]

Bob Crow calls for a wave of strikes. Nothing unusual in that request from a left wing militant who has lost his permit to operate by Labour losing the election.

This is his way of how democracy works; you support a corrupt Labour government, even feed it to keep it in power as long as he and his cohorts can do exactly as they like. He also believes that a government should effectively hire his members without jobs under the guise of many permutations of government initiatives.

A majority of the population at the election recognised that he and his kind were wrecking our country, aided and abetted by corrupt Labour ministers and policies.

Now that his gravy train system has been torpedoed, he intends to atteempt to bring the country to a halt; he clearly learnt nothing from the antics of Arthur Scargill who led his union members to a disastrous end of the mining industry. We are in fact at that coal face again. If everyone still in a job knuckles down then slowly the economy will start to arise from the depths driven to by Labour's profligacy.

All of us have to think carefully about what action we take from here, as there is absolutely no chance of any strike action having any beneficial effects; indeed if you do go on strike you are more likely than ever to send your company/industry into chronic decline.

For many people prospects must look pretty grim at the moment, and part of that feeling is because of the truthfulness of the coalition in making us all aware how grim things really are. But they are also planning a way out of this misery although they have only so far been able to go through the financial disasters created by Labour and there is much more to reveal over the coming months.

So think about your position hard before joining strike action; remembering particularly that we can all be successful again if we all pull together.

Following these inane union leaders is not the answer.

Rail union boss Bob Crow calls for 'wave of strikes' | Mail Online

[Don]

The man is seriously disconnected from reality. The even sadder part is that the rest of 'labor' is apparently ready to fall right in line, and, as he is trying to lay at the feet of Cameron and Clegg, consign a generation to the scrap heap.

[Barry]

There are millions of people on benefits who would love to take the jobs of the people who might be striking.
Sack the strikers, and use some of those jobseekers to replace them.

[soloman]

There are millions of people on benefits who would love to take the jobs of the people who might be striking.
Sack the strikers, and use some of those jobseekers to replace them.

A very positive response thank you Barry, and I sincerely hope your opinion is true. Possibly the only problem to your view is that inevitably the unemployed are nowhere near the vacancies?

[Midas]

With apologies for it being a screen print, but the electronic version of the paper is itself an image......




Source : Metro e-edition

[Opinionated]

Sack the strikers, and use some of those jobseekers to replace them.

Are you serious? You see nothing wrong in setting a legal precedent in allowing someone to be sacked for withdrawing their labour on principle? Wow, if only this thread weren't too young to invoke Godwin yet!

[Midas]

Are you serious? You see nothing wrong in setting a legal precedent in allowing someone to be sacked for withdrawing their labour on principle? Wow, if only this thread weren't too young to invoke Godwin yet!

Employees have to sign a contract of employment when they take a job, which is legally binding on both parties to the agreement. If anyone wishes to break that contract for any reason there should be a compulsory procedure for handling any dispute before any action is taken by either side, and strikes should only be allowed as a final resort after any dispute has been taken to independent arbitration which has found that the company is in breach of its part of the contract, and even then only if there is a majority of employees in any one company who are for it in a free vote. Strikes on such matters as "we're not getting paid as much as we think we're worth" or "we don't like your political stance" or "we're supporting our colleagues in another company" should be prohibited by law and anyone involved in them should indeed be sacked on the spot.

[soloman]

Employees have to sign a contract of employment when they take a job, which is legally binding on both parties to the agreement. If anyone wishes to break that contract for any reason there should be a compulsory procedure for handling any dispute before any action is taken by either side, and strikes should only be allowed as a final resort after any dispute has been taken to independent arbitration which has found that the company is in breach of its part of the contract, and even then only if there is a majority of employees in any one company who are for it in a free vote. Strikes on such matters as "we're not getting paid as much as we think we're worth" or "we don't like your political stance" or "we're supporting our colleagues in another company" should be prohibited by law and anyone involved in them should indeed be sacked on the spot.

Midas, in essence I agree with you. Apart from the end of your last sentence "should indeed be sacked on the spot" as this is bound to be inflamatory. Let an outside organisation decide the merits or otherwise of the reason for the strike - could be ACAS for example! The law would be there in the background, but usually is much too slow.

[Barry]

What an indictment to show how the communists and Marxists screw over the real workers.

[Midas]

Midas, in essence I agree with you. Apart from the end of your last sentence "should indeed be sacked on the spot" as this is bound to be inflamatory. Let an outside organisation decide the merits or otherwise of the reason for the strike - could be ACAS for example! The law would be there in the background, but usually is much too slow.

I have to admit I look at this very much from an employer's point of view having been in that position for almost 30 years. Although neither my own business nor that of the company I've recently left the board of had any serious labour issues, and neither recognised any unions, I'm only too well aware of how disruptive any employees who are potential trouble-makers can be to both production and general staff moral. If the law was faster, much faster, it might be a different matter, but if someone is clearly breaking their legally binding contract of employment without due cause, they should go, and the sooner the better.

[Opinionated]

What an indictment to show how the communists and Marxists screw over the real workers.

OK I agree it smacks of hypocrisy and I truly miss the days of principled men and women of the left (I'm thinking specifically of the Dennis Skinner's who I believe still only takes from his salary the average earnings of his constituency and gives the rest to charity); but for the sake of furthering debate I will point out that not only are these people democratically elected they take on an enormous work portfolio with the job, they also live in the real (capitalist) world and probably feel they are fairly compensated financially for the amount of work they do.

Employees have to sign a contract of employment when they take a job, which is legally binding on both parties to the agreement. If anyone wishes to break that contract for any reason there should be a compulsory procedure for handling any dispute before any action is taken by either side, and strikes should only be allowed as a final resort after any dispute has been taken to independent arbitration which has found that the company is in breach of its part of the contract, and even then only if there is a majority of employees in any one company who are for it in a free vote. Strikes on such matters as "we're not getting paid as much as we think we're worth" or "we don't like your political stance" or "we're supporting our colleagues in another company" should be prohibited by law and anyone involved in them should indeed be sacked on the spot.

Here's where we agree, threats of strike and actual action should be a last resort and only after consultation and democratic agreement with it's membership. As for your other caveats, that does rather depend on the circumstances as far as I am concerned.
Bare in mind at this point that, as you go on to say, you will inevitably come at this from the position of employer and therefore economic outcome is your top priority; I alternatively can only approach it from a sociological and emotive pov, which you will dismiss as unusual and extreme examples, but hopefully it will exemplify why unions and thus the right to strike are important tenets in a democracy.
So point by point (or caveat by caveat):

"we're not getting paid as much as we think we're worth"

Suppose for a second that the wage for public servants (nurses, teachers etc.) had fallen so far behind inflation that it was no longer a 'living wage', at what stage is it OK for them to take industrial action? Never? When their members are living so far in poverty they can't feed, house or clothe themselves? When MPs award themselves a pay rise?

"we don't like your political stance"

Always? What about the strikes in Iran over the hanging of "political dissidents" back in May this year (Guardian article)? The quote that jumps out at me from that article is:

"A regime which relates earthquakes to the way women dress has no credibility when it tries to link civilian activists to bombings," said Kaweh Ahangari, of the Kurdish Democratic party.

Trade Unions have always provided an important voice for opposition, that's the reason why every tyrannical regime has gone for them first; from the elites ruling Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see combination act 1799); through Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin et.al and on to Thatcher (pushing it I know, but I'm on my own here at the moment so allow me the leeway to channel my inner Socialist), Saddam Hussein etc. In fact if you want to find a government with an anti-democratic agenda anywhere in the world just look for anti-Trade Union legislation, that's why it is important to protect it.

"we're supporting our colleagues in another company"

Again, surely the validity of secondary action depends on how the outcome of any action would affect a union's members directly?

[Midas]

Here's where we agree, threats of strike and actual action should be a last resort and only after consultation and democratic agreement with it's membership. As for your other caveats, that does rather depend on the circumstances as far as I am concerned.
Bare in mind at this point that, as you go on to say, you will inevitably come at this from the position of employer and therefore economic outcome is your top priority; I alternatively can only approach it from a sociological and emotive pov, which you will dismiss as unusual and extreme examples, but hopefully it will exemplify why unions and thus the right to strike are important tenets in a democracy.
So point by point (or caveat by caveat):

Partial agreement at least - "...should be a last resort and only after consultation and democratic agreement with it's membership and the acceptance by an independent external arbitration service that the company was breaching its terms and conditions". There'll always be extreme examples in virtually every situation you can name, but surely, broad legislation can't be formed on the basis of extremes, it has to be set in what's the best interests of the majority on both sides, not just the employee's side; those extreme situations usually have to be resolved on an ad hoc basis, ideally by someone totally independent of the situation itself.

But you are of course right in that I'm thinking of this from an employer's position - I've been one for nearly 30 years - and as you say, economic outcome is my top priority, but employee relations are a very important part of that. Without a happy and content workforce, production inevitably suffers, which is one of the reasons I do think that it's best for everyone of any disputes are kept 'in house' and are not spread from company to company by over-zealous unions who, to be frank, are often as much, if not more, politically motivated than member welfare motivated. As for being democratic, I'd dispute that from having seen numerous instances in years gone by when strike action called by unions has been anything but democratic; even union membership is many instances is, or at least was, compulsory in many trades or professions. What is democratic is giving each and every employee the right to negotiate and determine his or her own rates of pay and certain other conditions of employment without the blanked imposition of union rates.

"we're not getting paid as much as we think we're worth"
Suppose for a second that the wage for public servants (nurses, teachers etc.) had fallen so far behind inflation that it was no longer a 'living wage', at what stage is it OK for them to take industrial action? Never? When their members are living so far in poverty they can't feed, house or clothe themselves? When MPs award themselves a pay rise?

All pay scales are very well documented in advance of anyone taking up employment, together with what the likely increments for both promotion and seniority are likely to be; if you don't like them, don't seek that type of job. I agree that some categories of employment, i.e., nursing, are underpaid in many respects, however it's also a free market in terms of wages, the more jobs there are available and the more people there are who are able to fill them, the lower the remuneration will be. If we start to artificially enhance wage scales based on perceived value, where will it end? How do you rate the value of a nurse in comparison to a plumber or to a policeman or to a train driver or to a miner? All are vital in their own way, but who is more so and why; isn't it best to let supply and demand set the rate, then at least everyone knows where they stand?

"we don't like your political stance"
Always? What about the strikes in Iran over the hanging of "political dissidents" back in May this year (Guardian article)? The quote that jumps out at me from that article is:

"A regime which relates earthquakes to the way women dress has no credibility when it tries to link civilian activists to bombings," said Kaweh Ahangari, of the Kurdish Democratic party.

Trade Unions have always provided an important voice for opposition, that's the reason why every tyrannical regime has gone for them first; from the elites ruling Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see combination act 1799); through Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin et.al and on to Thatcher (pushing it I know, but I'm on my own here at the moment so allow me the leeway to channel my inner Socialist), Saddam Hussein etc. In fact if you want to find a government with an anti-democratic agenda anywhere in the world just look for anti-Trade Union legislation, that's why it is important to protect it.

Apart from the fact that we don't have that situation in the UK, and the article linking earthquakes to women's dress to the hanging of dissidents is something of a red herring when it comes to discussing strikes, I'm not suggesting any form of anti-trade union legislation, just a much tighter control on the exact situations under which it's acceptable and legal for workers to go on strike, and fighting for 'causes' which are not directly related to their own terms and conditions of employment within their own company, however worthy they may be, is certainly not one of them! And including Maggie in that list is pushing it indeed The miners under Scargill were determined to cause widespread social unrest and to bring down the government for purely political reasons, most emphatically not what trade unions and union representation is about!

"we're supporting our colleagues in another company"

Again, surely the validity of secondary action depends on how the outcome of any action would affect a union's members directly?

How can the actions of workers in one company directly affect those in another, other than adversely, such as in the stopping of essential supplies from getting through, and what have rates of pay or working conditions etc., etc., in company 'A' got to do with workers in a totally different company 'B'?

Put yourself in the position of running a company, perhaps one which was struggling in hard economic times, and your workers decided to go on strike because they didn't like the way that another company or a government or whoever, was dealing with any given situation. Would you still say "Oh, that's OK then, carry on and ruin me, my business, my family and perhaps your own job and family security by your actions", or would you then put aside at least some of your socialist ideals and be looking for much tighter controls which legally kept any possible strike action to situations which were in your hands alone? There are always two sides to every story.

[soloman]

The dreadful shame is that the trade union leaders will carry on supporting the Labour party however discredited it has become, and in suppport of that idyll will do all they can to destroy the efforts of the coalition.

Just think of the effect of all British workers pulling in the same direction rather than a monority being manipulated by union leaders to be as destructive as possible.

In a sense this is the weakness of democracy which so often subversive influences have manipulated.