Jump to content

Disgusting strike action on London underground.

Recommended Posts

So they want a job that is effectively to be on hand in case of emergency.

 

That's a valid job, but the people who used to work in the ticket offices would likely not be the same ones employed for such a function and anyway there would be a great many fewer of them. Also they'd probably be in a different union (if they chose to join one).

Edited by unbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe withdrawing your labour is a human right.

 

it certainly is and i will defend anyones right to do that.

it should also be any employers right to sack anyone who does that in the form of a strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest to the striking ticket office staff that they look into whether they can disable the ticketing machines which have replaced them using shoes.

In other words, they're a bunch of Luddites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 12:47 ----------

 

it certainly is and i will defend anyones right to do that.

As will I.

 

it should also be any employers right to sack anyone who does that in the form of a strike.

 

Yes it should be, but it isn't. They may even be taken to court for failing to promote an employee with a history of striking in favour of one without such a history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctors and ticket office workers aren't really the same thing. One is highly trained and carries life and death in his or her hands at all times and one, well, doesn't but with their union power can disrupt a captital city when public opinion and let's face it, good sense dictates their job is probably numbered. i still think TfL will cave to some degree - the union is very strong. And that's what's going to "win" this not common sense, not an economic argument, not the hassle they're putting everyone else through but union power.

 

Now el cid makes a valid point - is it a safety issue. I don't know either but there only so much they can do in an office, that in my very limited experience they are reluctant to leave.

 

I wasn't really trying to compare doctors with ticket office staff. I was simply pointing out that someone's right to strike is pretty crucial as far as I'm concerned and should be protected.

 

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't really trying to compare doctors with ticket office staff. I was simply pointing out that someone's right to strike is pretty crucial as far as I'm concerned and should be protected.

 

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.

 

Id agree its a slippery slope, but look at london (and laugh its not here!), look at the 1970s in general historically unions an strikes are not always a force for good - far from it. Do we try and protect the public from things like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Id agree its a slippery slope, but look at london (and laugh its not here!), look at the 1970s in general historically unions an strikes are not always a force for good - far from it. Do we try and protect the public from things like this?

 

Pass.

 

My dad used to work for a car manufacturer as a junior manager. One day his company wanted to change the contracted hours of their staff to reduce overtime as they felt it was being poorly managed (this is my dad's story so perhaps there was more to it but I trust his version as he saw it). Instead they proposed to increase the hourly pay of all staff by a pro-rota'd amount using up all the overtime budget, so in effect the company wasn't saving any money and everyone was better off not just the ones who did all the O/T. The union refused to enter into negotiations and forced all the workers out on strike, most of whom said publically they were totally happy with the proposed changes. The company then decided well 'sod you all', cancelled all overtime, hired in more staff instead and didn't give a single non contractual pay rise. Workers well and truly stuffed by their own union. So I am well aware of the damage unions can do, but in general I really don't think this happens anymore. Far less people are unionised for a start, which is a shame.

 

A big solution would be far more employee engagement on boards of companies. If people at the bottom can see and understand what the guys at the top are doing and why it would make a difference. Rather than having a them versus us culture with the unions and company at loggerheads, why not try to work together? So many companies see the unions as the enemy and somehow standing in their way of bigger profits, but most employees clearly want their company to be successful because in general a more successful company = more opportunities = more pay. Also having on the ground staff be able to give their opinions directly to the board is also a good thing. So often messages of dissatisfaction get eroded as they pass from staff through the middle 'yes men' managers. In my experience, directors tend to be very open to hearing from staff and will take action when they can, but they don't get to hear the truth often enough. Only an idiot won't listen to and try to fix problems on the shop floor.

Edited by sgtkate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.

 

That's not what I said. It's there in writing above, but I can say it again if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what I said. It's there in writing above, but I can say it again if you like.

 

Ok, fine be allowed to sack people who strike. Semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, fine be allowed to sack people who strike. Semantics.

 

This is not a trivial difference. The correction is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a trivial difference. The correction is appreciated.

 

But the whole point of striking is to cause disruption to the company. If there was no disruption it would be pointless. Letting the company cover you or sack you removes the disruption unless you do a job that no one can cover.

 

The issue really is how do you 'hurt' a company who you feel is treating the staff badly or changing something that they really shouldn't without totally buggering things up for millions of innocent people trying to go about their lives? Answers on a postcard. A suggestion that will likely get ripped apart is that if a service/company is deemed of 'extreme public value', such as the police, TFL workers, doctors and so on, then the company MUST have a full contingency plan in place to handle a strike of a large proportion on the workforce. For government bodies which would be the massive majority (struggling to think of a private company that would fall into this category). Removing the purpose of striking is the wrong way to resolve this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's against ticket office closures apparently. Millions of people have had their lives disrupted and looking at the pictures London it looks a right mess. I'd hate to try and get across London at the best of times but this is something else. They'll cave in very quickly and the strikers know it - they've got the city, rich and poor alike over a barrel.

 

Until such time as they introduce driverless trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the whole point of striking is to cause disruption to the company. If there was no disruption it would be pointless. Letting the company cover you or sack you removes the disruption unless you do a job that no one can cover.

 

The issue really is how do you 'hurt' a company who you feel is treating the staff badly or changing something that they really shouldn't without totally buggering things up for millions of innocent people trying to go about their lives? Answers on a postcard. A suggestion that will likely get ripped apart is that if a service/company is deemed of 'extreme public value', such as the police, TFL workers, doctors and so on, then the company MUST have a full contingency plan in place to handle a strike of a large proportion on the workforce. For government bodies which would be the massive majority (struggling to think of a private company that would fall into this category). Removing the purpose of striking is the wrong way to resolve this.

 

 

There would inevitably be some additional costs from taking on temporary staff and a strike would still hurt any employer who benefitted from either the training or experience of their employees.

Strikes do occur and are sometimes successful in states where striking employees are no so protected. Sometimes however in these places the strikers are sacked.

 

For the employer, there's a hit from enduring the strike, a hit from caving in, and a hit from sacking the strikers. These are weighed up.

If you take away the employers right to sack people and take that hit, they're essentially powerless.

 

Police are already forbidden from striking by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.