Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU a strike without popular support is doomed to fail?

129 replies

Mistoffeleze · 13/12/2016 15:23

Along with tube drivers and other workers (teachers) who have stricken (?) in recent years, without the general population behind you, you are doomed to fail and this most recent strike by RMT is a cynical bid to get money for your staff at the expense of anything else in nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to justify the existence of unions.

Good news for Uber, at least. Anyone have shares?

OP posts:
McT123 · 13/12/2016 15:32

The strike is not about money, it is about safety.

It may also be about long term job security but neither the RMT nor ASLEF are asking for more money.

shivermytimbers · 13/12/2016 15:34

Dunno. But I support those out on strike today and think that the union's generally do a fantastic job.

PNGirl · 13/12/2016 15:37

I think driver-only trains are a ridiculous proposal. YABU.

NickyEds · 13/12/2016 15:37

I agree McT. It's also about the government trying to ban strike actions removing workers rights to withdraw their labour. And protecting disabled passengers wanting to use public transport. No one wants to strike.

SaucyJack · 13/12/2016 15:38

I support the strikes.

I don't want driver only trains- especially late at night.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 15:38

The unions are striking about safety and individual strikers are losing money by striking and also by not doing overtime on which the rosters depend.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 15:42

Saucy no me neither. Nor do I want the proposed on board staff to be downgraded. Currently trains have a member of staff other than the driver who is qualified to safely escort passengers from a train in the event of an emergency but that requirement is being removed.

Original poster
Mistoffeleze · 13/12/2016 15:42

No one wants to strike.

In the short term. I don't believe for a second that they are striking out of pure concern for others. Do you?

McT123
The strike is not about money, it is about safety.

Is it, bollocks. What do you base this gem on?

OP posts:
BitchPeas · 13/12/2016 15:45

Mist

McT is not talking bollocks, it isn't about money! I work in the industry and it 100% is not a demand for more money. Why do you think it is?

fannyfanackapan · 13/12/2016 15:47

I'm of the thinking no strikes at all should be allowed across any public facing service.

Just like most of us, we aren't being employed against our will. If they don't like it, find another job, end of.

'If' it is purely safety related I would expect that the operators would have to have plans in place for contingency/emergency reasons.

RNBrie · 13/12/2016 15:52

I'm not a southern customer, but I don't buy the safety argument. Don't Thameslink trains use the same stations and have the same trains but are managing just fine without conductors?

I also don't buy the argument from Southern that no jobs will be lost. Sure the conductors might be found other roles now, but how long will they keep them for?

One way or another, this is about money even if no one is asking for a pay rise.

To your point though, I do believe that it's very hard for strikes to succeed without popular support. However the rmt seem to manage without it and the junior doctors did have popular support and still got fucked. So there's no clear cut rule...

Wondermoomin · 13/12/2016 15:52

Mistoffeleze I think the current RMT/ASLEF strike on Southern is ridiculous as well. It's for their own protectionist reasons, not for the benefit of the general public as they'd have you believe. They're jeopardising the livelihoods of thousands of people who rely on the train service to get to work. Essential workers are left unable to get into work (police, hospital staff...). It's a selfish strike. I'm not completely anti-striking but on the whole I don't think it should have a place nowadays - it's for the era of exploitative employers whose employees don't have recourse through employment law. Employees have a lot of protection in law nowadays without holding a country to ransom by striking like this.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 15:55

fanny as I said, the operator doesn't actually have enough staff in place for normal operation. I would be extremely surprised if they have any contingency or emergency plans except those that require a bare bones service.

Original poster
Mistoffeleze · 13/12/2016 15:56

bitchpeas

because there are laws regarding safety. This is about money. Please stop pretending it's for the good of others. At least keep your dignity.

I broke the 'line' when teachers were pretending to strike on behalf of their students. The most sickening part was the hypocrisy. Had they been demanding fair pay then at least I would have admired their honesty.

OP posts:
DinosaursRoar · 13/12/2016 15:58

The point of a strike is to hurt either the employer (by costing them money by not being able to produce their product/having to refund customers/missing customer deadlines to supply the product), or in the case of those who provide a service to the public, by pissing off that public so much they put pressure on the employer to resolve the problem.

Every time I hear a union boss/striker saying "we don't want to inconvinence anyone but..." I want to shout "that's crap, that's the whole point of striking!" If you don't piss off the customer/service user, if you don't inconvience rail passangers/parents of school children/those wanting to access non-emergancy medical service, then there's no point in the strike as it won't put pressure on the employer to fix it.

This is why the postal union is threatening strikes next week - they know it's a key week for service users, they need to get their last minute parcels and cards to people on time. The threat will work because customers care next week, it doesn't really matter as much the rest of the year, we'll work round post being a couple of days late. They do want to upset customers or else it won't work as a bargaining chip to get what they want. (and why they aren't striking this week as they know people will cope if stuff arrives next week)

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 15:59

Employees have a lot of protection in law nowadays and getting less all the time. You have practically no protection if you've need employed for under 2 years. Or can't afford tribunal fees.

YelloDraw · 13/12/2016 16:00

The strike is not about money, it is about safety.

It is not about safety. Several lines run with driver operated doors and the unions aren't striking on those.

The unions are flexing their muscles because anything they give NOW means that driver less trains are one step closer.

havingabadhairday · 13/12/2016 16:00

^I'm of the thinking no strikes at all should be allowed across any public facing service.

Just like most of us, we aren't being employed against our will. If they don't like it, find another job, end of.^

fannyfanackapan so if an employer wants to do something which you genuinely think is unsafe you just accept it or leave?

I'm not a southern customer, but I don't buy the safety argument. Don't Thameslink trains use the same stations and have the same trains but are managing just fine without conductors?

RNBrie then I think Thameslink are wrong. Just because somebody else is doing something it doesn't mean it's right. I'm sure anyone who has used a train regularly has either seen some dodgy stuff happen or has directly experienced it. Do you think that will get worse or better with less staff around?

hotmail124 · 13/12/2016 16:03

www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-responds-to-grayling-move-to-ban-strikes/
Darn those pesky elitist train drivers utilising their legal right to strike! Grin

originalmavis · 13/12/2016 16:03

Bastards. It's really a whole week of shit (yesterday was horrible and I cant see Thursday being ok) after weeks of cancellations and delays to flex their muscles.

Being late costs me in late room fees. Strikes cost me £40-60 a day on taxis to get to school, then work, then repeat.

Really really pissed with this strike.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 16:04

Different versions of DOO are in use. This is not the same version. The qualifications of on board staff are not the same. ScotRail have reached a compromise that the unions have indicated they would accept. Southern Rail have mounted a massive campaign of lies and OR in this dispute whilst attempting to run their regular service with too few drivers and overtime. The service is a shambles without strikes.

GemmaWella81 · 13/12/2016 16:04

It's got sod all to with safety....

Plenty of operators run Driver Only Operation...

This is about the union being seen to be tough, they won't concede a single point.

It's the way the industry is going, they refuse to modernise.

Nobody is being offered redundancy, all jobs are to be absorbed into the business.

hotmail124 · 13/12/2016 16:06

www.cwu.org/media/news/2016/december/12/post-office-bosses-provoke-christmas-week-strike/
Darn those those liberal moaning postal workers too. Wink

originalmavis · 13/12/2016 16:06

There are other ways. I was in a union before and we never strikes. DH was in a very strong union and he has never been on strike either.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 16:06

Same union reached a compromise with ScotRail.