Disgusting strike action on London underground.

[tinfoilhat]

I wasn't really trying to compare doctors with ticket office staff. I was simply pointing out that someone's right to strike is pretty crucial as far as I'm concerned and should be protected.

 

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.

 

Id agree its a slippery slope, but look at london (and laugh its not here!), look at the 1970s in general historically unions an strikes are not always a force for good - far from it. Do we try and protect the public from things like this?

[sgtkate]

Id agree its a slippery slope, but look at london (and laugh its not here!), look at the 1970s in general historically unions an strikes are not always a force for good - far from it. Do we try and protect the public from things like this?

 

Pass.

 

My dad used to work for a car manufacturer as a junior manager. One day his company wanted to change the contracted hours of their staff to reduce overtime as they felt it was being poorly managed (this is my dad's story so perhaps there was more to it but I trust his version as he saw it). Instead they proposed to increase the hourly pay of all staff by a pro-rota'd amount using up all the overtime budget, so in effect the company wasn't saving any money and everyone was better off not just the ones who did all the O/T. The union refused to enter into negotiations and forced all the workers out on strike, most of whom said publically they were totally happy with the proposed changes. The company then decided well 'sod you all', cancelled all overtime, hired in more staff instead and didn't give a single non contractual pay rise. Workers well and truly stuffed by their own union. So I am well aware of the damage unions can do, but in general I really don't think this happens anymore. Far less people are unionised for a start, which is a shame.

 

A big solution would be far more employee engagement on boards of companies. If people at the bottom can see and understand what the guys at the top are doing and why it would make a difference. Rather than having a them versus us culture with the unions and company at loggerheads, why not try to work together? So many companies see the unions as the enemy and somehow standing in their way of bigger profits, but most employees clearly want their company to be successful because in general a more successful company = more opportunities = more pay. Also having on the ground staff be able to give their opinions directly to the board is also a good thing. So often messages of dissatisfaction get eroded as they pass from staff through the middle 'yes men' managers. In my experience, directors tend to be very open to hearing from staff and will take action when they can, but they don't get to hear the truth often enough. Only an idiot won't listen to and try to fix problems on the shop floor.

Edited January 9, 2017 by sgtkate

[unbeliever]

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.

 

That's not what I said. It's there in writing above, but I can say it again if you like.

[sgtkate]

That's not what I said. It's there in writing above, but I can say it again if you like.

 

Ok, fine be allowed to sack people who strike. Semantics.

[unbeliever]

Ok, fine be allowed to sack people who strike. Semantics.

 

This is not a trivial difference. The correction is appreciated.

[sgtkate]

This is not a trivial difference. The correction is appreciated.

 

But the whole point of striking is to cause disruption to the company. If there was no disruption it would be pointless. Letting the company cover you or sack you removes the disruption unless you do a job that no one can cover.

 

The issue really is how do you 'hurt' a company who you feel is treating the staff badly or changing something that they really shouldn't without totally buggering things up for millions of innocent people trying to go about their lives? Answers on a postcard. A suggestion that will likely get ripped apart is that if a service/company is deemed of 'extreme public value', such as the police, TFL workers, doctors and so on, then the company MUST have a full contingency plan in place to handle a strike of a large proportion on the workforce. For government bodies which would be the massive majority (struggling to think of a private company that would fall into this category). Removing the purpose of striking is the wrong way to resolve this.

[3 Tuns]

It's against ticket office closures apparently. Millions of people have had their lives disrupted and looking at the pictures London it looks a right mess. I'd hate to try and get across London at the best of times but this is something else. They'll cave in very quickly and the strikers know it - they've got the city, rich and poor alike over a barrel.

 

Until such time as they introduce driverless trains.

[unbeliever]

But the whole point of striking is to cause disruption to the company. If there was no disruption it would be pointless. Letting the company cover you or sack you removes the disruption unless you do a job that no one can cover.

 

The issue really is how do you 'hurt' a company who you feel is treating the staff badly or changing something that they really shouldn't without totally buggering things up for millions of innocent people trying to go about their lives? Answers on a postcard. A suggestion that will likely get ripped apart is that if a service/company is deemed of 'extreme public value', such as the police, TFL workers, doctors and so on, then the company MUST have a full contingency plan in place to handle a strike of a large proportion on the workforce. For government bodies which would be the massive majority (struggling to think of a private company that would fall into this category). Removing the purpose of striking is the wrong way to resolve this.

 

 

There would inevitably be some additional costs from taking on temporary staff and a strike would still hurt any employer who benefitted from either the training or experience of their employees.

Strikes do occur and are sometimes successful in states where striking employees are no so protected. Sometimes however in these places the strikers are sacked.

 

For the employer, there's a hit from enduring the strike, a hit from caving in, and a hit from sacking the strikers. These are weighed up.

If you take away the employers right to sack people and take that hit, they're essentially powerless.

 

Police are already forbidden from striking by the way.

[sgtkate]

There would inevitably be some additional costs from taking on temporary staff and a strike would still hurt any employer who benefitted from either the training or experience of their employees.

Strikes do occur and are sometimes successful in states where striking employees are no so protected. Sometimes however in these places the strikers are sacked.

 

For the employer, there's a hit from enduring the strike, a hit from caving in, and a hit from sacking the strikers. These are weighed up.

If you take away the employers right to sack people and take that hit, they're essentially powerless.

 

Police are already forbidden from striking by the way.

 

Yes I know the Police are, I said that in an earlier post, also pointed out that the police are the lowest paid of all the emergency services. Coincidence?

 

Do you have any examples of how it could work? Does it work like you suggest elsewhere with an similar economy (i.e not Nepal)

[geared]

Until such time as they introduce driverless trains.

 

The tech is in use on (parts of) the London Underground already.

 

The unions kicked up such a stink that there now has to be someone on the train still 'monitoring' the system to make sure it doesn't break.