Is everyone supporting the train drivers?

[I1L2T3]

No immediate effect.

 

No way of knowing that.

 

It would be quite easy to automate your posts though. Maybe they are already

[El Cid]

Thats like saying less people die in one hospital to another so it must be doing well.

 

The chances of a patient dying while in hospital or soon after vary hugely according to where he or she is treated.

 

But there is a league table, so it must be of some use.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15897345

[Penistone999]

Yet again Unions are holding employers to ransom and causing massive disruption . Its time unions were banned once and for all.

 

My support is with the train company .

[The Joker]

Yet again Unions are holding employers to ransom and causing massive disruption . Its time unions were banned once and for all.

 

My support is with the train company .

 

Hiya Penny, you alright flower ?

 

I think the government should teach them strikers a lesson and privatise the railwa-

 

Oh, never mind.

[max]

Yet again Unions are holding employers to ransom and causing massive disruption . Its time unions were banned once and for all.

 

My support is with the train company .

 

If you were to suggest that shareholders removing their money from a company that pays lower dividends than another be banned then you might have a point.

 

Unfortunately, we live in a world where the coin of capital is worth more than the coin of labour.

[willman]

This is the nature of the legal framework for unions. Replacing striking staff is illegal. The strike action is protected under law.

Now if we were to disestablish the unions the. They'd be free to strike as they saw fit but their employers would be free to sack them.

 

---------- Post added 17-12-2016 at 11:49 ----------

 

 

No immediate effect.

 

My apologies - i meant employ new staff to cover the overtime.

Not to replace strikers per se.

[Bob Arctor]

I notice that Thomas Cook have just lost an employment tribunal after sacking a pilot who said he was too exhausted to fly safely after flying the schedule Thomas Cook had given him. Because he refused to put the safety of 200 passengers at risk they fired him. His union (if he was in one, and I don't know if he was) could have called a strike to keep him in work. I would really like to hear from the people who always oppose strikes why they think a person should lose their job and income for doing the right thing rather than their union colleagues striking to keep them in work.

[El Cid]

I would really like to hear from the people who always oppose strikes why they think a person should lose their job and income for doing the right thing rather than their union colleagues striking to keep them in work.

 

I have a firm belief that strike action is a normal aspect of capitalism, others seem to just want companies to employs slaves with no rights.

[ECCOnoob]

I notice that Thomas Cook have just lost an employment tribunal after sacking a pilot who said he was too exhausted to fly safely after flying the schedule Thomas Cook had given him. Because he refused to put the safety of 200 passengers at risk they fired him. His union (if he was in one, and I don't know if he was) could have called a strike to keep him in work. I would really like to hear from the people who always oppose strikes why they think a person should lose their job and income for doing the right thing rather than their union colleagues striking to keep them in work.

 

The pilot in question took his grievance to the ET and won. The company was found wrong in their actions and judgment quite rightly found against them.

 

What would a union taking the rest of the workforce out of strike do to alter the above situation. It certainly wouldn't enhance it.

 

It was a personal issue. The pilot felt he had was unfairly treated by the company. He challenged it and the Tribunal agreed.

 

Chanting with placards might boost his ego and embarass the company but that's it. Wouldnt change the legal decison. Wouldnt sway the will of the Judge.

 

If you have a problem with your employer - you dealt with it. If you dont get anywhere you take it to tribunal.

 

Why do you need your colleagues out on strike? What PURPOSE does it actually serve to the individual concerned.

 

Outdated. Ineffective. Disruptive nonsense. A hangover from the millitant ages where companies and even working employees were held to ransom by the attitudes, behaviour and even physical actions of a few.

 

In answer to the OP no I certainly am not supporting the train drivers. Its pathetic. A dispute about who closes automatic operated doors on a commuter train service.

 

Not one logical argument has been put before me. It certainly aint safety and it certainly aint job losses. Its modernisation. We dont have slam door trains anymore. We have roles for the drivers - operate and drive the train. We have roles for conductors - deal with passengers onboard.

 

There are DOO transport systems all over the world. The tube has it as does many other major transport systems. We used to have lift operators but quelle suprise technology brought a single button control and amazingly we all survived without thousands of us getting trapped in the doors and decapitated.

 

The commuters and business itself has every right to be angry at the actions of the strikers. From the few reports I have seen looks like some of the justified grievances agaisnt the strikers have taken a punchy turn too. Maybe it will knock some sense into them.

[Bob Arctor]

The pilot in question took his grievance to the ET and won. The company was found wrong in their actions and judgment quite rightly found against them.

 

What would a union taking the rest of the workforce out of strike do to alter the above situation. It certainly wouldn't enhance it.

 

It was a personal issue. The pilot felt he had was unfairly treated by the company. He challenged it and the Tribunal agreed.

 

Chanting with placards might boost his ego and embarass the company but that's it. Wouldnt change the legal decison. Wouldnt sway the will of the Judge.

 

If you have a problem with your employer - you dealt with it. If you dont get anywhere you take it to tribunal.

 

Why do you need your colleagues out on strike? What PURPOSE does it actually serve to the individual concerned.

 

Outdated. Ineffective. Disruptive nonsense. A hangover from the millitant ages where companies and even working employees were held to ransom by the attitudes, behaviour and even physical actions of a few.

 

In answer to the OP no I certainly am not supporting the train drivers. Its pathetic. A dispute about who closes automatic operated doors on a commuter train service.

 

Not one logical argument has been put before me. It certainly aint safety and it certainly aint job losses. Its modernisation. We dont have slam door trains anymore. We have roles for the drivers - operate and drive the train. We have roles for conductors - deal with passengers onboard.

 

There are DOO transport systems all over the world. The tube has it as does many other major transport systems. We used to have lift operators but quelle suprise technology brought a single button control and amazingly we all survived without thousands of us getting trapped in the doors and decapitated.

 

The commuters and business itself has every right to be angry at the actions of the strikers. From the few reports I have seen looks like some of the justified grievances agaisnt the strikers have taken a punchy turn too. Maybe it will knock some sense into them.

 

When he was threatened with dismissal his colleagues could have threatened strike action to dissuade the company from sacking him. If successful (as strike action sometimes is in these situations) he would not have lost his job in the first place. You would rather see people dismissed, lose their income, default on their mortgage/rent, get into debt etc. and only then challenge it through an expensive and lengthy tribunal system than rightfully stay in their jobs.