to congratulate Tristram Hunt for crossing the picket line

[longfingernails]

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tom-watson-hits-out-at-scab-tristram-hunt-for-crossing-picket-line-to-give-marx-lecture-9121775.html

Shame about his lecture material...

Students aren't scabs. Obviously. And students with any sense can see that their interests are not being looked after by university management. This strike is not ridiculous, far from it.

No I support a variety of causes, but at the time I didn't agree with the reasons for their strike. That's allowed. I'm allowed to think that unions are not in the right 100% of the time.

Being a union does not automatically mean that the thing you are fighting for is a good thing and should be supported by all.

There are a huge amount of things I would fight for. I would fight for someone's right to strike if it was being removed. That doesn't mean I have to support every single strike that affects my daily life.

HopALong, you do realise you are contradicting yourself don't you? Supporting the right to strike whilst being a scab, is like an anti vivisectionist wearing a fur coat.

If you wanted to support the strike action without being on a strike, you could take sick leave, annual leave or unpaid leave. A strike is called to bring management back to the negotiating table and whether you agree with the cause someone is fighting for or not, you should support their right to have negotiations about changes that will affect them, their institution of the people they teach.

BrandNewIggi No, capitalism is the best way out of poverty for a society, not just the top of it.

As for Marx' evil ideas - well, for a start, those in the Communist Manifesto. You can throw in the ones in Das Kapital too.

It's working really well for us isn't it? I don't believe for a minute that capitalism supports the poor.

And if I can't afford to take sick leave, annual leave or unpaid leave?

If I vote not to strike, then it's because I don't believe in the terms being requested, or perhaps I think the management (who aren't all the devil, by the way) are being reasonable.

Supporting someone's right to negotiations doesn't mean I can't think the thing they are negotiating for is bollocks.

I support the EDL's right to go out and protest in the street because they're worked up about nothing, because we all have the right to a voice, and the right to protest. I don't have to support the actual protest because they're all a bunch of racist pricks And I don't think we should be forcefully silencing people because their opinion is unsavoury. That doesn't mean I agree with every protest out there, and I will carry on my day around them.

Hopalong do you know the issues at stake in this strike?

If you vote not to strike, that makes you a member of the union. If you're a member of the union and still cross the picket line, then you're worse than a scab. Do you not believe in abiding by the wishes of the majority?

And the idea that you should have to take leave on the day of a strike is kind of backwards anyway, surely? So you'll let me vote no to a strike, but make me do it anyway? Hardly democratic.

Hopalong I don't think you understand the concept of union membership. It's about solidarity and collective action based on the democratically expressed wishes of union members.

Hop along not sure if you meant to say that, that you'd actually cross a picket line if it was your own union striking? Let's hope you never need help Fromm the union if that is your attitude!

Hop along you're agreeing to abide by the majority decision. Just like you get to vote in elections but you still have to acknowledge whoever gets in even if you didn't vote for them.

I haven't a clue about this strike, the article was too busy condemning Hunt to bother with anything informative beyond 'pay dispute'. I have no idea if their complaints are valid, they probably are, but people are allowed to think that they aren't.

I'm not in a union (not relevant for my field) in my current role.

And Mr Hunt is not a member of the union that was striking.

So you support the EDL's right to a voice but not your colleagues

Will you also support their right to spout their racist diatribe by standing by and never opposing them? Or do you take action to counter it and do something positive. It's the same concept, you can stand by and allow your colleagues to face changes go their terms and conditions which they express opposition to, or you could cross the picket line, undermine the strike and eat biscuits while your employer rides roughshod over everyone's rights.

Your choice, we live in a democracy

So, your role does not fit with any of these industries? Hint, there is a miscellaneous option

www.worksmart.org.uk/unionfinder/

No, perhaps I support my colleagues right to strike about changes to terms that they disagree with, whilst thinking that those changes are actually reasonable and necessary and being willing to accept them myself?

Example; due to serious budget cuts, previous employer had to restructure. Usual case of us all having to do more work, but for the same pay. Not fantastic, but given the climate and the field, I was happy to accept that. Restructure meant that one department had to alter it's jobs to an extent, and post restructure there was not enough work for the whole team, so two people were made redundant. Sympathies to those people, but management went down all possible avenues and negotiations before looking at redundancies. That department (biggest one) suggested that the two people could be kept on, if all staff across all departments took a 10% pay cut. Understandably, people (including me) were not keen. Should I have supported them and their protest? Even though I thought their demands were unreasonable and didn't make decent business sense? If we had been a union, they would have won a majority vote.

HopALongOn, your post doesn't make sense. How do you know there would have been a majority ballot if you never balloted? Also, if these is a reasonable explanation as to why small scale redundancies, particularly if they are voluntary, are necessary for the long term survival of an organisation and those people are properly compensated it's very rarely a strike issue.

We are talking about an employer making changes to terms and conditions that we contractually agreed upon, changes to pensions that have been paid into for years, changes to working practises which impact on the long term future of the organisation etc.

These were changes to working practises that altered the future of the organisation, and significant changes to terms and conditions. There would have been a majority ballot because when a mock secret vote was taken, the majority wanted the 10% cut (the department most affected was significantly larger than all others), the redundancies were not well received or voluntary. And they were compensated as per statutory requirements, so not exactly cushy. I would absolutely not have voted for a strike as I thought the proposed terms were fair, in the context of the organisation surviving.

If you had been in a union maybe this could have been resolved before it had ever got to that point.

If a strike had been called, would you have been able to look your colleagues in the eye if you had walked past them at the picket line and given the message that you don't care about their voice, or their rights to express them?

Am going to bed in a minute, but just wanted to say something on the issue of voting. I vote, and the party elected isn't the one I voted for. That doesn't mean I have to blindly go along and support everything they do, because I chose to buy into the idea of voting. I'm allowed to express my opinion on their policies, disagree with them and refuse to support any voluntary action they ask me to take.

Yes bump. Because I thought their position was wrong. I had sympathy for their personal positions, but in the wider context I disagreed with them

And no amount of pre-emptive action would have avoided what needed to happen. All other options had been exhausted. And management are not automatically scum. They didn't take joy in making changes that adversely affected everyone, but it had to be done.

He is a disgrace, it was a legal picket line

As for capitalism solving poverty ...Yeh good luck with that, how many more decades would you like for that theory to actually work

Bump, thank you for your posts on this thread, especially that of 23:16, which has helped me think of ways to articulate many of the issues at stake. As a lecturer and UCU member I of course honour collective action (based, I believe, on entirely reasonable grievances), but I do recognise that in our profession industrial action may appear to penalise students rather than management/decision makers.

That Hunt is not a union member complicates his decision. That he is a Labour MP makes it hypocritical. That he was lecturing on Marx moves it into the realm of farce.

This is UCU's letter to students explaining the union's position on industrial action. It is worth noting that while the current campaign concerns employers' refusal to negotiate on pay, issues relating to temporary and casual contracts, and to the treatment of support staff and technicians, are of at least equal union concern.

I don't see at all why crossing a picket line means someone 'doesn't care about the voice' of those choosing to strike, or 'their rights to express them'? It is perfectly possible to support the right to strike, and to care about strikers having a voice, without yourself agreeing with their argument. And the 'vivisectionist wearing a fur coat' analogy is nonsense. Supporting the right to strike (which I know perfectly well the Tories would love to diminish) is one thing, supporting the cause and argument being championed by a particular course of strike action is another.

UCU has made too little, too late a stand IMO. It has said little about casualisation and low pay in certain jobs for years, and didn't take a stronger stand against fees in 2010/11, so to claim now that this dispute is about more than academics' pay seems a little cynical. If any acceptable offer for academic pay is made, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other issues are hastily put aside as 'things to discuss further' and then quietly ignored for another 10 years. If they genuinely felt concerned about these things before, they should have spoken up earlier. It's not as if the position of temporary/technical staff etc is a new issue.

Ugh, and just as I was warming to him too! Scabs are scum. End of.