They can strike, they are not slaves. Does anybody think there might be even a soupcon of truth in the information that the workers and management are trying to reach a settlement, but the management have to go to the government to check (previously with Grant Schapps) and the government refuse to help get a settlement, and refuses to allow one?
No, they are not slaves... they earn relatively pretty good money, just pick a different day.
They can strike, they are not slaves. Does anybody think there might be even a soupcon of truth in the information that the workers and management are trying to reach a settlement, but the management have to go to the government to check (previously with Grant Schapps) and the government refuse to help get a settlement, and refuses to allow one?
Of course they have every right to withdraw their labour - and this is a valid weapon to cause the maximum cost in lost revenue and disruption to their employer, forcing them to the table (whether that be the rail operators or the Government). It should not be used to cause the maximum disruption to the public with the minimum cost to the workers, and I would hazard a guess that the London Marathon weekend was deliberately targeted.
The various rail operators see this and think 'well we lose revenue on the odd day now and again but save on labour costs on that day anyway'. If they believe they have a genuine grievance with their employer then why not go all out on strike?
It’s about the day chosen, but that stupid decision will get more people to think “well it’s pretty good pay really for sitting on your arse and holding a lever forward….” Which probably isn’t a look they should be going for
Every job is criticised isn't it? I mean why have midwives? Babies will pop out anyway. Or teachers with the long holidays, and all you need to be a banker is a pair of red braces. In a society where the overall social contract is broken, I don't see as how an appeal to the moral position of the workers will make a difference. When P&O wanted to save money they sacked the workers summarily, and are prepared to take any hit that might have followed. That kind of moral stance by bosses, is mirrored by workers. The rail workers called off action because of the sad death of the Queen didn't they?
Every job is criticised isn't it? I mean why have midwives? Babies will pop out anyway. Or teachers with the long holidays, and all you need to be a banker is a pair of red braces. In a society where the overall social contract is broken, I don't see as how an appeal to the moral position of the workers will make a difference. When P&O wanted to save money they sacked the workers summarily, and are prepared to take any hit that might have followed. That kind of moral stance by bosses, is mirrored by workers. The rail workers called off action because of the sad death of the Queen didn't they?
Nope. Have read that post three times now and still have no idea what point it is you're actually trying to make, comrade.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
So because P&O sacked all their staff its fine for the rail workers to fuck up the marathon?
Even by your usually baffling standards that's just loopy.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
No - the comments are related to the workers choosing to cause maximum disruption to the public rather than maximum disruption to the employer. I believe the dispute is between the union and the rail operators - no? Not the union and the public.
If they have a valid reason to withdraw their labour (and they may well have valid grievances but no employer can 'guarantee' no compulsory redundancies) then why don't they withdraw their labour. Strike means strike.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
So because P&O sacked all their staff its fine for the rail workers to fuck up the marathon?
Even by your usually baffling standards that's just loopy.
I don't think it is loopy at all. There have been a series of strikes, and settlements too, throughout the summer. It may only be a temporary increase in confidence by workers that they should be treated with respect, but the attitude of P&O is part of the zero hours type thinking that is now being resisted. RMT includes the word 'maritime', so how many degrees of separation are there between the antics of ferry company P&O and maritime workers who are members of the RMT? It isn't only the marathon happening, but also the Tory conference on those dates, so I would guess that the strikes are also supposed to be a reminder to the Government (who are blocking a rail strike settlement) that workers have power and won't be exploited any more. There is an ongoing strike by Barristers, Universities are going to be hit by strikes. The company building the new Everton stadium are trying to ban Union access to the workers, strikes at Ports such as Liverpool and Felixstowe (their first action in 30 years) are happening, Amazon workers in Coventry are balloting to take action. There has been action by postal workers. Bus drivers in London and Hertfordshire. Scaffolding workers in the North Sea, workers at Polyfloor. Public sector strikes loom on the horizon in Education and Health. I could go on and on. It doesn't take a 'loopy' person to see the pattern emerging. On the other hand Red Funnel workers have achieved an 18% pay rise, unionised leisure centre workers in Latchmere have achieved 16%. Once again I could go on. There is often a request on these boards to have a debate about the issues, and not to personalise. Of course calling a poster 'loopy', the passive aggressive 'comrade', and the enquiry if I am 'for real' is not debating the issues. All work is supposed to be of value, on any day it takes place. I think it is a shame that the Marathon will be affected, but speaking personally I believe it is because the government refuses to engage, not because overpaid rail workers are blackmailing. As I have posted here, the rail workers action is part of the emerging pattern of 2022, not the only thing that is going on.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
No - the comments are related to the workers choosing to cause maximum disruption to the public rather than maximum disruption to the employer. I believe the dispute is between the union and the rail operators - no? Not the union and the public.
If they have a valid reason to withdraw their labour (and they may well have valid grievances but no employer can 'guarantee' no compulsory redundancies) then why don't they withdraw their labour. Strike means strike.
Isn't that what they are doing, withdrawing their labour? If the ultimate employer is the Government (Grant Shapps refusing to engage or give the bosses autonomy), then the target is the Government not the travelling public.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
No - the comments are related to the workers choosing to cause maximum disruption to the public rather than maximum disruption to the employer. I believe the dispute is between the union and the rail operators - no? Not the union and the public.
If they have a valid reason to withdraw their labour (and they may well have valid grievances but no employer can 'guarantee' no compulsory redundancies) then why don't they withdraw their labour. Strike means strike.
Isn't that what they are doing, withdrawing their labour? If the ultimate employer is the Government (Grant Shapps refusing to engage or give the bosses autonomy), then the target is the Government not the travelling public.
No they are not. Withdrawing labour means withdrawing labour. What they are doing is occasional one day strikes, two days apart, where they get overtime on the days immediately after the strikes to get the network back up and running, with little or no loss of earnings.
If they are so aggrieved then they should go on an all out strike. With the rail network ground to a halt indefinitely a deal would be done.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
So because P&O sacked all their staff its fine for the rail workers to fuck up the marathon?
Even by your usually baffling standards that's just loopy.
I don't think it is loopy at all. There have been a series of strikes, and settlements too, throughout the summer. It may only be a temporary increase in confidence by workers that they should be treated with respect, but the attitude of P&O is part of the zero hours type thinking that is now being resisted. RMT includes the word 'maritime', so how many degrees of separation are there between the antics of ferry company P&O and maritime workers who are members of the RMT? It isn't only the marathon happening, but also the Tory conference on those dates, so I would guess that the strikes are also supposed to be a reminder to the Government (who are blocking a rail strike settlement) that workers have power and won't be exploited any more. There is an ongoing strike by Barristers, Universities are going to be hit by strikes. The company building the new Everton stadium are trying to ban Union access to the workers, strikes at Ports such as Liverpool and Felixstowe (their first action in 30 years) are happening, Amazon workers in Coventry are balloting to take action. There has been action by postal workers. Bus drivers in London and Hertfordshire. Scaffolding workers in the North Sea, workers at Polyfloor. Public sector strikes loom on the horizon in Education and Health. I could go on and on. It doesn't take a 'loopy' person to see the pattern emerging. On the other hand Red Funnel workers have achieved an 18% pay rise, unionised leisure centre workers in Latchmere have achieved 16%. Once again I could go on. There is often a request on these boards to have a debate about the issues, and not to personalise. Of course calling a poster 'loopy', the passive aggressive 'comrade', and the enquiry if I am 'for real' is not debating the issues. All work is supposed to be of value, on any day it takes place. I think it is a shame that the Marathon will be affected, but speaking personally I believe it is because the government refuses to engage, not because overpaid rail workers are blackmailing. As I have posted here, the rail workers action is part of the emerging pattern of 2022, not the only thing that is going on.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
No - the comments are related to the workers choosing to cause maximum disruption to the public rather than maximum disruption to the employer. I believe the dispute is between the union and the rail operators - no? Not the union and the public.
If they have a valid reason to withdraw their labour (and they may well have valid grievances but no employer can 'guarantee' no compulsory redundancies) then why don't they withdraw their labour. Strike means strike.
Isn't that what they are doing, withdrawing their labour? If the ultimate employer is the Government (Grant Shapps refusing to engage or give the bosses autonomy), then the target is the Government not the travelling public.
No they are not. Withdrawing labour means withdrawing labour. What they are doing is occasional one day strikes, two days apart, where they get overtime on the days immediately after the strikes to get the network back up and running, with little or no loss of earnings.
If they are so aggrieved then they should go on an all out strike. With the rail network ground to a halt indefinitely a deal would be done.
An all out strike would be worth trying.
Wasn't there news a couple of months ago about the loss of earnings for rail workers because they have taken industrial action?
On the 27th July the Daily Telegraph (it is behind a paywall) reported
'Striking rail workers have already lost £1,500 from walkouts
Staff that walked out have lost the equivalent of more than two weeks’ wages'.
People will support most strikes as long as they see they are valid and for a certain period of time, trouble with this one it is now really starting to hurt the general public and it is going on far too long, and they will soon start to lose sympathy with the rail unions.
We have just voted to take strike action against our pay offer but in no way will it be prolonged and harm the general public, may make the company lose its reputation, and that's what they are worried about.
The objection to the strike is because of the Marathon, appealing to the workers sense of moral rightness. However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
No - the comments are related to the workers choosing to cause maximum disruption to the public rather than maximum disruption to the employer. I believe the dispute is between the union and the rail operators - no? Not the union and the public.
If they have a valid reason to withdraw their labour (and they may well have valid grievances but no employer can 'guarantee' no compulsory redundancies) then why don't they withdraw their labour. Strike means strike.
Isn't that what they are doing, withdrawing their labour? If the ultimate employer is the Government (Grant Shapps refusing to engage or give the bosses autonomy), then the target is the Government not the travelling public.
No they are not. Withdrawing labour means withdrawing labour. What they are doing is occasional one day strikes, two days apart, where they get overtime on the days immediately after the strikes to get the network back up and running, with little or no loss of earnings.
If they are so aggrieved then they should go on an all out strike. With the rail network ground to a halt indefinitely a deal would be done.
An all out strike would be worth trying.
Wasn't there news a couple of months ago about the loss of earnings for rail workers because they have taken industrial action?
On the 27th July the Daily Telegraph (it is behind a paywall) reported
'Striking rail workers have already lost £1,500 from walkouts
Staff that walked out have lost the equivalent of more than two weeks’ wages'.
Was curious as to south eastern jobs available as have always wanted to retrain as a driver, they have a platform staff position available for 21,673 a year - come on that’s ridiculous for a job where you get spoken to like shit by majority of the public and 42.5 hours a week
People seem to have forgotten that the strikes have been postponed because of the funeral. So when you say ‘pick a different day’. They already have.
And it is not timed to coincide with the marathon, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. It’s timed to coincide with the Tory party conference.
Strikes require a disagreement between two or more parties but it’s always the strikers who get the blame, never the management or the government. The lack of sympathy for working people on here really is quite alarming.
People seem to have forgotten that the strikes have been postponed because of the funeral. So when you say ‘pick a different day’. They already have.
And it is not timed to coincide with the marathon, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. It’s timed to coincide with the Tory party conference.
Strikes require a disagreement between two or more parties but it’s always the strikers who get the blame, never the management or the government. The lack of sympathy for working people on here really is quite alarming.
There’s a lack of sympathy for the train drivers, who are paid a ludicrous amount of money for a low skilled job already. I don’t think anyone lacks sympathy for workers with worthy reason to strike, including those who work for the railway networks.
People seem to have forgotten that the strikes have been postponed because of the funeral. So when you say ‘pick a different day’. They already have.
And it is not timed to coincide with the marathon, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. It’s timed to coincide with the Tory party conference.
Strikes require a disagreement between two or more parties but it’s always the strikers who get the blame, never the management or the government. The lack of sympathy for working people on here really is quite alarming.
The one in Birmingham?
Plenty of sympathy, not complained once on the multiple other occasions this year when they had strikes.
They can strike, they are not slaves. Does anybody think there might be even a soupcon of truth in the information that the workers and management are trying to reach a settlement, but the management have to go to the government to check (previously with Grant Schapps) and the government refuse to help get a settlement, and refuses to allow one?
You keep bringing slaves up. Do you know what slavery is? You are such a tw*t.
Slavery means having no choice whether you can work or not.
no. slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. slavery. Don't make up your own definition.
Slavery means having no choice whether you can work or not.
no. slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. slavery. Don't make up your own definition.
If you contemplate ‘deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons’ it will help you understand what I am getting at.
I know what your trying to get at. They have a right to withraw their labour. Leave it at that. But don't use over emotive words which are at best stupid.
I know what your trying to get at. They have a right to withraw their labour. Leave it at that. But don't use over emotive words which are at best stupid.
Your judgement is that my words are stupid, my judgement is that they are illustrative.
They can strike, they are not slaves. Does anybody think there might be even a soupcon of truth in the information that the workers and management are trying to reach a settlement, but the management have to go to the government to check (previously with Grant Schapps) and the government refuse to help get a settlement, and refuses to allow one?
You keep bringing slaves up. Do you know what slavery is? You are such a tw*t.
Comments
I mean why have midwives? Babies will pop out anyway. Or teachers with the long holidays, and all you need to be a banker is a pair of red braces.
In a society where the overall social contract is broken, I don't see as how an appeal to the moral position of the workers will make a difference.
When P&O wanted to save money they sacked the workers summarily, and are prepared to take any hit that might have followed. That kind of moral stance by bosses, is mirrored by workers. The rail workers called off action because of the sad death of the Queen didn't they?
However bosses don't do the same thing (moral rightness), so the workers are thinking why should we be morally blackmailed.
Even by your usually baffling standards that's just loopy.
There have been a series of strikes, and settlements too, throughout the summer.
It may only be a temporary increase in confidence by workers that they should be treated with respect, but the attitude of P&O is part of the zero hours type thinking that is now being resisted.
RMT includes the word 'maritime', so how many degrees of separation are there between the antics of ferry company P&O and maritime workers who are members of the RMT?
It isn't only the marathon happening, but also the Tory conference on those dates, so I would guess that the strikes are also supposed to be a reminder to the Government (who are blocking a rail strike settlement) that workers have power and won't be exploited any more.
There is an ongoing strike by Barristers, Universities are going to be hit by strikes. The company building the new Everton stadium are trying to ban Union access to the workers, strikes at Ports such as Liverpool and Felixstowe (their first action in 30 years) are happening, Amazon workers in Coventry are balloting to take action. There has been action by postal workers. Bus drivers in London and Hertfordshire. Scaffolding workers in the North Sea, workers at Polyfloor. Public sector strikes loom on the horizon in Education and Health. I could go on and on.
It doesn't take a 'loopy' person to see the pattern emerging.
On the other hand Red Funnel workers have achieved an 18% pay rise, unionised leisure centre workers in Latchmere have achieved 16%. Once again I could go on.
There is often a request on these boards to have a debate about the issues, and not to personalise. Of course calling a poster 'loopy', the passive aggressive 'comrade', and the enquiry if I am 'for real' is not debating the issues.
All work is supposed to be of value, on any day it takes place. I think it is a shame that the Marathon will be affected, but speaking personally I believe it is because the government refuses to engage, not because overpaid rail workers are blackmailing.
As I have posted here, the rail workers action is part of the emerging pattern of 2022, not the only thing that is going on.
If the ultimate employer is the Government (Grant Shapps refusing to engage or give the bosses autonomy), then the target is the Government not the travelling public.
Wasn't there news a couple of months ago about the loss of earnings for rail workers because they have taken industrial action?
On the 27th July the Daily Telegraph (it is behind a paywall) reported
'Striking rail workers have already lost £1,500 from walkouts
Staff that walked out have lost the equivalent of more than two weeks’ wages'.
We have just voted to take strike action against our pay offer but in no way will it be prolonged and harm the general public, may make the company lose its reputation, and that's what they are worried about.
Plenty of sympathy, not complained once on the multiple other occasions this year when they had strikes.