Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Strikes

48 replies

FarAwayHills · 16/12/2016 22:13

Southern conductors, Southern train drivers, Post office staff, Argos delivery drivers, BA cabin crew, Virgin pilots and airport ground workers...all on strike over Christmas. It is just miserable for anyone with travel plans or for those just trying to get to work or run a business. Seems like the unions are co ordinating these for maximum impact and as usual it is the ordinary working people that suffer.

OP posts:
Unescorted · 18/12/2016 08:15

time has come to have strikes in public services made illegal.
No everybody should have the right to wiothdraw laour. If we don't it mearly gives more power to the wealthy union barons with political machinations.
Fast forward 10 years when they decide that the minimum wage does not apply or minimum health and safety standards are a cost they don't want to keep on paying. Except instead of people going on strike they lose their jobs or have to put up with unfair & and unsafe working practices. That is not a place I would like to live in.

NickNacks · 18/12/2016 08:15

My dh has already had the right to strike taken away from him. No one gives a shut if they aren't paid or treated fairly yet I hear regularly people on here slagging them off about the service.

GinIsIn · 18/12/2016 08:18

Believe funnily enough those of us being held hostage by southern rail were initially understanding. After a year of being held hostage, we are losing our jobs, not seeing our families, and having to move house so the people here most certainly do not support the strike! And it IS a question of modernisation I'm afraid. They can claim it's a safety issue all they want, but driver operated doors have been in use for a few years now on GWR, Thameslink, South Eastern to name but a few, with no increase in safety incidents so it's not exactly a dangerous or radical modernisation. Southern are proposing to cut zero jobs, and nobody is going to lose pay, it's simply a change to job function. And who does or does not press the button for the doors has brought over 300,000 people to their knees, so whilst it may not be a game, it's beginning to feel like a hideous joke!

Eve · 18/12/2016 08:18

...and yet people voted for brexit to exit Europe that imposes things like the working hours directive and other workers rights.

GinIsIn · 18/12/2016 08:20

Sorry - I got caught up in my anger there. Let me rephrase that. I support the right to strike in general. I believe in workers rights and fair pay. However this is not a fair and reasoned strike situation. This is us being held hostage, for a year, and it must stop. It is pointless to strike over something which is already in affect and successful on the majority of train lines - the writing is on the wall.

GhostofFrankGrimes · 18/12/2016 08:22

yes the Brexit thing is quite a paradox. Lets take back control by reducing employment rights and banning unions...

Believeitornot · 18/12/2016 08:25

IF you check my post you'll see that I too use southern trains. I am not being held hostage.

And I've seen more disruption on non strike days than the few days of strikes we've had.

I didn't say it was about safety. I don't think it is. I'm not usually this cynical but if it were a simple change of job then why would the conductors be up in arms.

Drivers having to operate doors on 12 carriage trains on curved platforms when they can't see along the platforms is a safety issue. Conductors tend to be based in the middle of the train so can see better.

If there are no job losses then why do southern need to make the change? They could leave it as is.

Modernising the railways actually needs to be done by network rail. The train operating companies have little wiggle room - they dont maintain the tracks or signal equipment which is where the biggest changes need to be made.

So, sorry, I don't buy the southern line at all. They're driven by profit so somewhere down the line, it will be about cutting costs.

DoctorTwo · 18/12/2016 08:39

If they ban strikes on the railways they will just 'work to rule'. Southern are shortstaffed so that will cause chaos too. I wonder who they'll blame for that...

Believeitornot · 18/12/2016 08:46

They already are working to rule (drivers). Quite right too. Southern don't have enough drivers to operate a normal service without overtime. That's terrible.

scaryclown · 18/12/2016 08:56

Why the FUCKING HELL are you blaming the strikers??

People on shitty wages WILLINGLY SUBSIDISE normal operations. When it gets too much, they raise disputes. Management that resist sensible compromise get strikes. These precede collapse of the market that provides workers.

Whem you have met and interacted with some of the utter jaw dropping incompetents in management youll realise that some of them can't make a decision unless you slap them in the face with the best solution and take them to court to enforce it.

Bad exploitative management have aggressive unions, well managed organisations dont. The industries we have here disproportionately recruit managerial staff from public school routes.. and that's why these companies have an 'east india company ' idea of class, workers and unions.

British workers with british (public school, deferential) management is less productive than british workers with good management following more 'overseas' models..especially japanese ..

its management viewing the employment market incorrectly that causes strikes, yet we seem to be ok with middle class demands for £40k upwards, yet freak if working class jobs pay living wage.

ridiculous.

SouthWestmom · 18/12/2016 09:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears train drivers earn £49,000? Happy to look up pilots as well.

Strikes
exLtEveDallas · 18/12/2016 09:09

I don't think anyone is 'blaming' the strikers.

Just pointing out that the people being affected by the strikes aren't the people that can make the changes. They are the one suffering (as much as the strikers), not the owners/managers/fat cats/Government. This strike is unlikely to detrimentally affect me, but I can emphasise with the people that it will, as well as the strikers themselves.

I work with some people who would like to join a union. A couple of reps came to talk to them about it. They couldn't justify the union subs (£14 and £17), so didn't join. They also couldn't afford to lose a day's pay by striking if and when they did join. Those people could probably do with the unions helping them, but can't afford to. How is that right?

Believeitornot · 18/12/2016 09:34

Drivers aren't striking about their salary.
So why is that relevant?

And how much do southern bosses earn? For their incompetent running of the railway?

Eve · 18/12/2016 10:21

Why has no one pointed out the obvious solution.

Get the slam door trains back! Then no more bloody arguments over who pushes the bloody button!

:-)

SouthWestmom · 18/12/2016 10:46

My post was in response to scary clowns trying to suggest it was poor people on minimim wage being shafted by middle class management on 40k. Just pointing out it isn't.

periwinklepickspoppies · 18/12/2016 15:58

Yes NickNacks and the same if teaching assistants went on strike and left numerous SEN children without 1:1 support and others with no extra help to support them in lessons.

scaryclown · 18/12/2016 21:58

noeuf my point was that we get all weird about working class jobs being paid good rates. train drivers earning 49k is fruatrating to many as they think it's a working class job that anyone could learn. That may be the case but training someone is expensive so rail companies don't train enough staff ..but this restricts the market and makes the maker rate for drivers high. it could be managed by training more drivers and making the market more saturated ..but that's not done ..so drivers can commamd good salaries. we don't wine about marketing execs doctors, solicitors, architects, academics doing this ...so why train drivers ??? .

Class nastiness thats why...

SouthWestmom · 18/12/2016 22:41

Scary that's not actually what your post said at all. I have no idea what you are in about really. You originally said something like its people not earning much that subsidise employers. Now you're saying they are earning a lot but middle class people don't care about their working conditions?

Whatever really. I don't think you know what point you are trying to make.

scaryclown · 19/12/2016 08:32

Nooo.. what i am saying is that people pressured to work at a lower rate than the market rate..or who are paid not enough to live on and are borrowing just to live are subsidising employers by taking financial risk themselves in order to keep the company going.
Senior folk arent doing that, they are always trying to take more money out of the company than the minimum needed for them to do their jobs..otherwise they withdraw their labour. Those union bashers are just saying its ok to threaten to withdraw your labour if you are posh, professional, or senior, but if you are working class, its your 'duty' to take lower pay than you ought to get.

In fact its the duty of management to ensure that the financial structure of a business allows appropriate pay to maintain safety, motivation, and if not, maintain an appropriate reserve supply of labour.

In this case an appropriate supply of labour, appropriate staffing levels or appropriate pay has been maintained. .because management were focused on shareholders, themselves and profit. Tge consequence of this..deficient, or 'high risk' strategy..depending on how you frame it, is that the risk of not paying enough, and hoping existing staff will accept below market rate AND overloading of job role AND safety risks has not paid off, and caused extremely damaging employer-employee relationships.

An analogy would be buying a cheap pair of walking boots, going up a mountain, hoping to get away with it, not doing, and shouting at the shoes. Good managers will be aware that they were pushing the limits to try to put money in their back pockets, and the gamble didn't pay off.

in the shoe example, you might have money still in your bank account. inthe southern rail example, spare money is taken away by banks, shareholders and directors.

Clearly what they were hoping to do is ride on that sense of 'duty' and screw their employees long enough to report profits ..they haven't got away with it.

Thats (bad) business. so its managerial error, poor risk management, and bad assumptive thinking.

The weird thing is that those same failed management, will have the authority to give thenselves bonuses for managing the strike. its a ridiculous world!

longfingernails · 20/12/2016 19:10

The 'safety' argument is palpable nonsense. This is 2016; the image recognition technology in any common or garden search engine alone is sufficient to determine whether anything is caught in the doors; let alone low-tech solutions like pressure sensors and live camera feeds. Not to mention the obvious: exactly the same trains are operated driver-only on exactly the same routes in many cases, just by a different operating company.

The union barons themselves say that the strikes are nakedly political (at least in private); see for example:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

I have previously discussed my proposals for union reform:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/a1088369-Some-musings-on-how-to-neutralise-the-unions

The management at Southern Rail do seem to be particularly woeful. They should have contracts with strikebreakers available in advance when ASLEF decide to go on strike. They should automatically cancel perks for striking conductors and drivers - free travel and the like should only be a luxury available for those who choose to work. It's depressing that Southern have merely 'reassigned' the conductors to non-safety critical roles; sacking them would have been a far better decision. They should also be looking to bring the trains kicking and screaming into the 1990s, and ensure that all trains are converted to be fully driverless.

Tanith · 27/12/2016 13:43

I'd be interested in your opinion on the Fuel protests, though they were carefully not referred to as strikes. They were, however, politically motivated with the Conservative party taking an active role. Is it different when it's the unions or do you condemn all strike action?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom

Suppermummy02 · 28/12/2016 23:47

selfish

scaryteacher · 30/12/2016 15:41

time has come to have strikes in public services made illegal Already are for HM Forces, and they have to pick up the slack for some who do strike.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page