to believe the RMT's purported reason

[longfingernails]

behind their latest tube strike

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11403238/Tube-drivers-go-on-strike-in-defence-of-colleague-caught-drunk-at-the-wheel-twice.html

is the most imbecilic yet? Even amongst stiff competition:

www.standard.co.uk/news/tube-strike-caused-by-dispute-over-two-sacked-men-6750745.html

I think this is the ideal case to demonstrate the case for reforms curtailing trade unions dramatically. Politicians should seize upon it. Sadly Cameron doesn't have the guts.

It does seem bizarre. Some breathalysers can give false positives when used to test people with diabetes. But not, it seems, the type that was actually used.

And the case has certainly been very carefully reviewed.

I support strikes about ticket office closures. But not this one.

Certainly seems idiotic OP. I've not read the Telegraph as I'm 2 blinks away from a deep and no doubt happy sleep dreaming of placing Ed Balls' head on a sharp stick but I'll have a look tomorrow

Bring on the fully automated tube trains.

Without unions we wouldn't have paid sick time, annual leave, maternity benefits. Thise things were not won through the good grace of the employers, they were fought for. Unions are our real protection against increased casualisation and zero hours contracts; they have been over curtailed as it is. I saw this story in the Telegraph today, I feel that there must be more to it than we are being told. The Torygraph is hardly an unbiased source.

The actions of the Radgy Malingering Tosspots are not a justification for a large-scale assault on people's rights. If anything, these bastards are playing into the government's hands.

Either that or, as RandomNPC says, they're not Radgy Malingering Tosspots at all and the guy was done up like a kipper by a kangaroo court... but you can't really argue with breath tests.

Don't get me wrong, if the story is true then he deserves all he gets.

I heard it reported like that on BBC R4 news so it's not just the Telegraph. I was in the car alone and recall saying something along the lines of 'Oh yeah - we should go on strike because someone's been sacked for being drunk in charge of a fucking tube train?! Really? Are you out of your minds?'

I'm with Random for all the points she raises but agree if this is true then they're just positioning themselves as work-dodgers and not people with a serious agenda for changing things for the better.

I looked on the RMT website and the BBC. There really isn't an additional agenda here. Unless the Union are using the sacking of one of their members to further some other agenda that hasn't even been hinted at.

This strike is solely about the one driver, and the full disciplinary processes had been followed. Yes, it could be unfair to diabetics if some breathalysers are used, but apparently this one is not affected as other are. The Union's position seems to be the utterly illogical 'Some breathalysers are unreliable. That is a breathalyser. Therefore it is unreliable'

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the benefits unions have achieved in the past. It's a decision now, and one I don't support.

The RMT seem to object to their members being sacked for anything, ever, no matter how justified.

I suspect that someone is trying to play the big man, after the death of Bob Crow. They want to be seen as 'standing up to the managers' and don't want to lose any ground.

They can't afford to lose any support from the workers they have either, so are making a point of sticking up for this driver in the face of every ounce of common sense/logic/fairplay.

It says a lot about their true regard for safety on the underground

And as usual, there was a low voting turnout.

42% turnout, I think I read.

299 'yes'
221 'no'
1 spoiled paper

Love to know how papers are spoiled.
Fuck off RMT hopefully

Perhaps the voter was drunk had a medical condition arla

Or an allergy to breathalysers.

I suspect that, as a PP said, there is a fair bit of posturing going on here from the new Union chief. Whatever the reason, it makes a mockery of the true purpose of Unions and everything that previous generations fought for in terms of workers rights.

Unions were useful for helping to have employees' rights recognised. But now we have legislation for that all they do is bring about a two tier system. Standard employment rights for most of us. Enhanced rights for the few, mostly in industries that have huge impacts on the rest of us.

The deputy gen sec of RMT was vile, rude and incredibly abusive to the presenter of LBC this morning.

On this one they're hardly winning hearts and minds. If the PP was right re turnout it's disgusting to see so many commuters go through another round of crap for

This is a ludicrous issue. Yes, there may be problems with breath testing diabetics but not in this case so what the hell is there to dispute?

I'm in the RMT and don't support the proposed strikes (I wasn't balloted though as I'm not a tube worker). The RMT itself is the main union for the work I do but I don't think it is the most effective union in the railway industry; I generally prefer the way ASLEF operate. I would never be without union representation though and think that a large number of those who (generally, not posters above) moan about the unions a) wish they still had one and b) have no freaking idea what they stand for - RMT is in favour of renationalisation for example, which precisely no passenger I've ever spoken to understands. RMT also protests fare increases, which again, no passenger I've ever spoken to knows.

Unions were useful for helping to have employees' rights recognised. But now we have legislation for that all they do is bring about a two tier system. Standard employment rights for most of us. Enhanced rights for the few, mostly in industries that have huge impacts on the rest of us.

I'm a bit at this. If you don't have 'enhanced rights' (such as getting up at 2am and never being able to commit to something like an evening class, for example? 10 years off your life expectancy?) then, um, fight for them. You know, with a union or something. The legislation we have isn't doing much to combat zero hour contracts now, is it?

I've stumbled up the Daily Mail website (no idea how that happened...) - apparently Comrade Hedley repeatedly asked his interviewer if he'd stopped beating his wife yet. Is that right - and if so, what on earth was the purpose of the question?

I think Hedley was alluding to the loaded question he was asked to start the interview "Why are you supporting a drunk driver?"

However given his former partner Caroline Leneghan's blog concerning his alleged domestic abuse, it probably wasn't the cleverest point to make

Unions are very important for things like protecting workers' rights.

However those do not include the right to drive a train while drunk :-/

Unions are very important for things like protecting workers' rights.

However those do not include the right to drive a train while drunk :-/

We have employment tribunals to determine whether a dismissal was fair.

The sooner a ballot requires half of those entitled to vote to say Yes the better. And where the dispute falls within the scope of the tribunal the strike should be unlawful.

scaevola Not only is nobody being sacked to close the ticket offices - there is a queue for the redundancy offer and many who want it will be turned down. The dispute there is about making people leave the nice warm office where they don't meet the public and go out among the people who pay the fares - and about doing it even without the permission of the unions. As obvious a matter for management as you could hope to see. In any case the ticket offices have closed now.

The sooner a ballot requires half of those entitled to vote to say Yes the better

Couldn't agree more.

I've just heard the Hedley interview. It's astonishing.

I hope the strike goes ahead. The long-term reputational damage to the RMT and other unions will will be worth one day of painful commuting.