I never thought I'd ever agree with Teresa May but if the PCS strike it will be shameful

[Hassled]

Story is here.

I get that they're unhappy about threats to 8500 jobs and I sympathise, I really do. But don't fucking strike on a day that will cause massive disruption (how they can say it won't is beyond me) to people coming from other countries who did nothing to deserve it. Just let the Olympics happen.

They're shooting themselves in the foot - losing the opportunity of showcasing the UK in a positive light which could benefit everyone, giving us better job security and seeing a faster end to this recession. We'll all suffer. But never mind, because they're standing up for their rights - despite the fact that only 11% voted for strike action!!!

ttosca

Why?

Because I'm proud to be British and I want the world to see how great we are.

Their political views? They're striking for their working conditions.

Balderdash, this is part of the 'summer of rage' the TUC promised.

What's to showcase? How well the UK is willing to suck corporate cock? It certainly won't be to showcase how well-off and prosperous the British people are, who have the worst employment rights in the UK, work amongst the longest hours, and are, on average £8000 in debt (excl. mortgages). Showing off the levels of child poverty and wealth inequality in this country wouldn't be very impressive either.

Some examples - our traditions of tolerance and liberty (before Labour smashed them), our high-tech manufacturing, the superb quality of our produce, our environment, the extremely high standards of living in the UK, and the fact that we're prepared to put up with whining Trots instead of shooting them in the face like they deserve.

Because you say so? Because you don't like France? In actual fact, France is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world.

It's possible to be a popular tourist destination and to have people put off visiting by the strikes.

I like France. I like the French. In fact I like everywhere I've been in Europe.

You know this how?

Because I'm not wilfully blind.

You mean Tories, like yourself.

I'm not a Tory voter. But tell me, how certain are you that 'the country' supports these strikes? After all, the majority of the PCS doesn't.

It's already obvious that the majority of MNers support the strikers. I support them.

It's not 'obvious' at all. A small group of politically active MNers support the strikes. And MN is, as I've posted, about as representative of the country as The Guardian is.

Yes, which is why private sector wages are lower and private sector rights are worse than the public sector, in general. This is a great reason to promote unionism in the private sector.

No, private sector wages are lower because Labour spent 13 years artificially raising the salaries and improving the working conditions of public sector workers, and taxing the productive part of the economy to do it.

Yes FLAT you're right it does seem quite a narrow view but my point about it being useful to someone like me is genuine. Despite public sector parentage I work in a fairly hard hitting commercial environment where unions are viewed as from another planet so no one I know has any understanding of striking in general, let alone in this case. I think it is really important that we have some understanding of the different worlds we live in. The interesting thing for me is that while I feel very out of place reading threads like this, it's nothing like as bad as when I read the online comment sections if the Mail and Telegraph

It seems to me that the PCS is just trying it on, holding the country to ransom and bugger the consequences. We've paid out a Danegeld to the tube drivers and the bus drivers just so they won't wreck the Olympics by striking. Under these circumstances, anyone working for the public sector may as well try their luck. It isn't like it is real money that they are taking - just get Johnny Taxpayer to put his hand in his pocket for a bit more cash. If he doesn't pay, we'll imprison him - Simples!

The populace saw what the unions did for industry and manufacturing and, quite rightly, told them where to go - what with their closed shops and grubby militancy. So much so that the vast majority of the private sector does very well without unions. Unfortunately, not being subject to P&L or competition, our unreformed public sector is still infested with these parasites. So much so that just 11% of an organisation can vote to disrupt our Olympic games for personal gain. That is not a mandate for mayhem and I doubt the public at large will show them much sympathy.

I also find it interesting that for all the criticism of G4S and the private sector earlier this week, the 'oh so wonderful' public sector show their true colours by wilfully causing as much disruption as possible simply because they can. Let's face it, which private sector organisations have threatened to deliberately disrupt anyone?s lives through strikes in the last few years? - I can't really think of any.

flatpack-

^Why?

Because I'm proud to be British and I want the world to see how great we are.

Their political views? They're striking for their working conditions.

Balderdash, this is part of the 'summer of rage' the TUC promised.

Erm, the 'summer of rage' wasn't an idea which popped up because the unions thought striking would be a jolly good time. The 'summer of rage' was a promise that the relentless attacks (and they are relentless) on wages, rights and working conditions will be taken without a fight.

What's to showcase? How well the UK is willing to suck corporate cock? It certainly won't be to showcase how well-off and prosperous the British people are, who have the worst employment rights in the UK, work amongst the longest hours, and are, on average £8000 in debt (excl. mortgages). Showing off the levels of child poverty and wealth inequality in this country wouldn't be very impressive either.

Some examples - our traditions of tolerance and liberty (before Labour smashed them),

Oh yes, it's a Labour thing...

I don't think the Olympics will be a very good example of tolerance and liberty when all political protest around the Olympics is completely forbidden, and people aren't allowed to wear any t-shirts which may make the Olympic sponors unhappy, or any political slogans. I don't think the missle-launchers on rooftops of people's apartment buildings without their consent and without their wishes is a good example either.

our high-tech manufacturing, the superb quality of our produce, our environment, the extremely high standards of living in the UK, and the fact that we're prepared to put up with whining Trots instead of shooting them in the face like they deserve.

You don't have an extremely high standard of living. This is only true for the few. And the quality of life - arguably an equally important factor - is not so great when compared with most of europe.

Because you say so? Because you don't like France? In actual fact, France is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world.

It's possible to be a popular tourist destination and to have people put off visiting by the strikes.

That's very true, but seeing that it is simulatenosuly one of the most popular tourist destinations in europe as well as a country which has the most active and militant trade unions, your proposed effect - if indeed it exists at all - must be very, very small.

I'm not a Tory voter. But tell me, how certain are you that 'the country' supports these strikes? After all, the majority of the PCS doesn't.

I'm not certain yet. I am certain, though, that the majority of the population are pretty pissed off and fed up of being screwed by a minority of very wealthy people, and that things could boil over any minute.

Yes, which is why private sector wages are lower and private sector rights are worse than the public sector, in general. This is a great reason to promote unionism in the private sector.

No, private sector wages are lower because Labour spent 13 years artificially raising the salaries and improving the working conditions of public sector workers, and taxing the productive part of the economy to do it.

You've got a screwed up view of reality if you think collective bargaining for better wages and working conditions is 'artificial[ly] raising' them, but businesses trying to reduce costs by as much as possible by reducing wages is both completely 'natural' and acceptable. It's quite sad, really.

Judgey Pants-

The populace saw what the unions did for industry and manufacturing and, quite rightly, told them where to go - what with their closed shops and grubby militancy. So much so that the vast majority of the private sector does very well without unions

Actually, the private sector doesn't do very well without unions. At least not for the employees themselves.

Union membership is consistently correlated with higher wages for members and better working conditions.

In France, and other countries which have strong unions and large union membership, workers have better working conditions, more rights, more security, and better wages on average.

If you like, I can provide you with a few stats and graphs - but that isn't really necessary, is it?

I am underwhelmend about the Olympics, and think it is a total waste of money and am annoyed at the disruption to Londoners, and especially at the Zil lanes and the 'dignitaries' swanning about.
However, as it is happening, and a lot of people have trained for many years, sacrificing their family life and income to excel at their sport, and people have made travel plans and spent a great deal of money to buy tickets, it is utterly shameful for the PCS to spitefully choose the day they can cause the maximum amount of anxiety and distress to innocent victims. The dignitaries won;t suffer, as Heathrow will get priority - it will be families setting off from regional airports to Spain, people catching ferries, people like the person on a thread who desperately needs to get pasports for her DC...
Utterly shameful.

So when should unions strike? When it has the least chance of causing any disruption or inconveniencing anyone?

Only 11% have voted to strike. How is that representative of the opinion of the union members? Sadly, it's the old story of those with the biggest mouths being heard.

I am no longer proud of this country. I am ashamed. I couldnt give two shiny shites about the Olympics.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/18/food-banks-on-hand-outs

ttosca

"Actually, the private sector doesn't do very well without unions. At least not for the employees themselves."

I dunno - the bankers seem to do pretty well for themselves.

"Union membership is consistently correlated with higher wages for members and better working conditions."

The fact that the public sector has better pay and conditions than the private sector has been well documented elsewhere. Part of this is due to the unions strong arm tactics in getting Johnny Taxpayer to fork out for ever worse services. Similarly, these union blockheads prevent the public sector from economising and streamlining their head counts. Put these two factors together and it's clear that the unions exist in the public sector purely to rip off the taxpayer.

"In France, and other countries which have strong unions and large union membership, workers have better working conditions, more rights, more security, and better wages on average."

As well as higher unemployment, higher national debt, less entrepreneurialism and less productivity...

Judgeypants-

"Actually, the private sector doesn't do very well without unions. At least not for the employees themselves."

I dunno - the bankers seem to do pretty well for themselves.

A minority of top bankers do, yes. The majority of the public who work in banking and finance aren't paid anything like those at the top.

Those who are either highly skilled or have skills which are in high demand will always be able to command a higher salary, with or without unions. So what?

Are you suggesting that just because CEOs award themselves million pound salaries without unions then so can teachers?

In any case, those at the top don't need unions, they award themselves bonuses or buy poilitical influence which affects their businesses or the business they are in.

"Union membership is consistently correlated with higher wages for members and better working conditions."

The fact that the public sector has better pay and conditions than the private sector has been well documented elsewhere. Part of this is due to the unions strong arm tactics in getting Johnny Taxpayer to fork out for ever worse services.

It's not 'strong arm tactics' to fight for a fair wage. It's perfectly reasonable and just. Wages have stagnated for the bottom 80% of earners since the late 1970s. The only people who have had runaway wages are those at the very top, with most of the increase in earnings (and wealth) going to the top 5%. If anything, the unions are constantly on the defensive to protect the meagre work rights and wages they have now and have enjoyed historically.

Similarly, these union blockheads prevent the public sector from economising and streamlining their head counts.

Ah yes, firing people and making fewer people work harder for less. That's a recipe for success and prosperity.

Put these two factors together and it's clear that the unions exist in the public sector purely to rip off the taxpayer.

No, they exist to fight for the rights and wages of employees, public sector or private sector. In both cases, whether you work for in the public sector or a private company, your wages are likely, on average, to be higher if you join a union.

I noticed you didn't deny that you seem to think workers fighting for their wages is 'bullying' and 'strong arm tactics', but businesses fighting to suppress wages is perfectly normal and 'natural'.

"In France, and other countries which have strong unions and large union membership, workers have better working conditions, more rights, more security, and better wages on average."

As well as higher unemployment, higher national debt, less entrepreneurialism and less productivity...

That's not necessarily true at all.

Here is a list of productivity as measured by GDP per hour:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_hour_worked

The top 10, as of 2009 are:

Norway 76.8 1
Luxembourg 74.5 2
Netherlands 65.1 3
United States 59.0 4
Belgium 58.5 5
France 54.7 6
Ireland 54.0 7
Germany 53.5 8
Austria 51.9 9
Australia 51.6 10

Norway is practically communist, according to many right wingers. The majority of the remainder are social democracies. The US is the highest ranking country with the most 'free market' economic policies.

Here's the unemployment rate:

www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate

Countries below the UK (having lower unemployment rates), comes:

Germany, Brazil, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Japan, etc. etc.

errr carernotasaint I think you are on the wrong thread - what does that article have about penpushers spitefully and pathetically attempting to hold the cuntry to ransom. I doubt they will spend the day helping out at food banks, more likely sitting in the sun with a pint of lager.

I'm not sure it's terribly patriotic to call the UK a 'cuntry', tbh...

:o at cuntry

A night's sleep and a day's work hasn't changed my view. As I said, I have no issues with unions or with the right to strike. But MrsGuyofGisborne sums it up well - the Olympics are happening, and they are a chance for the UK as a country to a) shine and earn some tourist money or b) reveal ourselves as the shambles we probably are. And whether that "we" means the government or the people is absolutely irrelevant from the perspective of the tourist who's failing to enjoy their time here.

sorry, country

I think we are actually losing out on tourism because of the Olympics btw - hotel bookings are down, according to the Standard. People who haven't got tickets are avoiding London.

also, I work in Paris part of the the time, and my colleagues there are smug gits gleeful that booking are considerably up in Paris this summer, as people are avoiding London

Wish I was in Paris this summer instead of London!

well I wish Paris has won it instead of us and then had all of the hassle...

Very true.

It would seem that Flatpack knows more about guardian reporting than I do. Do you read it often?

I think it's a great time to strike, cause the maximum inconvenience to the torry toffs. I couldn't give two hoots if it ruins someone's day out.

does anyone really think 'Tory toffs' will actually be inconvenienced? Touchingly naive. As always, it is the 'poor, bloody, infantry' that suffer - the ones that pay the taxes and abide the laws

Well mini, you sound really nice to know. The Olympics is not political, and quite how the Tory toffs will be inconvenienced more than others I don't know

Hope you have some lovely days out in the summer too.