Sheffield Forum

Disgusting strike action on London underground.

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
09-01-2017, 14:51   #41
tinfoilhat
Registered User
tinfoilhat's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Total Posts: 12,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
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?
_______
We get the world we deserve.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:04   #42
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoilhat View Post
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.

Last edited by sgtkate; 09-01-2017 at 15:06.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:05   #43
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:06   #44
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:07   #45
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
Ok, fine be allowed to sack people who strike. Semantics.
This is not a trivial difference. The correction is appreciated.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:15   #46
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:18   #47
3 Tuns
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Total Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoilhat View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:20   #48
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:25   #49
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
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.
Yes I know the Police are, I said that in an earlier post, also pointed out that the police are the lowest paid of all the emergency services. Coincidence?

Do you have any examples of how it could work? Does it work like you suggest elsewhere with an similar economy (i.e not Nepal)
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:54   #50
geared
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Total Posts: 11,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Tuns View Post
Until such time as they introduce driverless trains.
The tech is in use on (parts of) the London Underground already.

The unions kicked up such a stink that there now has to be someone on the train still 'monitoring' the system to make sure it doesn't break.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 15:56   #51
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
Yes I know the Police are, I said that in an earlier post, also pointed out that the police are the lowest paid of all the emergency services. Coincidence?

Do you have any examples of how it could work? Does it work like you suggest elsewhere with an similar economy (i.e not Nepal)
Before I comment on whether it's a coincidence.
Can you back up your assertion that the police are the lowest paid?
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:01   #52
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Before I comment on whether it's a coincidence.
Can you back up your assertion that the police are the lowest paid?
Starting salaries once qualified only as others are a bit hard to compare.
https://targetcareers.co.uk/career-s...gency-services

Ambulance technician - 22k
Firefighter - 22k
Police - 19k
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:15   #53
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
Starting salaries once qualified only as others are a bit hard to compare.
https://targetcareers.co.uk/career-s...gency-services

Ambulance technician - 22k
Firefighter - 22k
Police - 19k
It says once qualified (after initial training) a police officer would be on 23,000.

It also states that they get extra pay for overtime and for working in the London area.

"These allowances can add a significant amount to your salary; for example, if you join the Metropolitan Police as a new police constable, you could receive around 6,687 in London weighting and allowances in addition to a basic salary of 22,668."

Therefore a new police constable could get just under 30,000 a year in London. Not too shabby.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:18   #54
horribleblob
Registered User
horribleblob's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Total Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
...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...
In the case of transport workers: they don't strike but let everyone travel for free on the day of action.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:19   #55
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
It says once qualified (after initial training) a police officer would be on 23,000.

It also states that they get extra pay for overtime and for working in the London area.

"These allowances can add a significant amount to your salary; for example, if you join the Metropolitan Police as a new police constable, you could receive around 6,687 in London weighting and allowances in addition to a basic salary of 22,668."

Therefore a new police constable could get just under 30,000 a year in London. Not too shabby.
Yes thank you. I was going to respond, but now I only have to agree with you.

In addition, the lowest rank to work on an ambulance is Emergency care assistant, not technician and they start on 17k.

Therefore this point is invalidated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
Yes I know the Police are, I said that in an earlier post, also pointed out that the police are the lowest paid of all the emergency services. Coincidence?
And you have in fact succeeded in showing that allowing vital public sector workers to strike does not increase there pay and therefore does not need to be a protected action for them. Thanks.

Last edited by unbeliever; 09-01-2017 at 16:22.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:21   #56
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
It says once qualified (after initial training) a police officer would be on 23,000.

It also states that they get extra pay for overtime and for working in the London area.

"These allowances can add a significant amount to your salary; for example, if you join the Metropolitan Police as a new police constable, you could receive around 6,687 in London weighting and allowances in addition to a basic salary of 22,668."

Therefore a new police constable could get just under 30,000 a year in London. Not too shabby.
Firefighters and ambulance crew also get London weighting and overtime so that part is irrelevant. As is the bit about 30k not being too shabby, it's not but my comment was that Police earn less than their counterparts not that they don't earn enough or too much.

You are correct though that I did misread the Police salary part that it's 19k while in training and then up to 23k when initial training is complete. However, if you look at the other salary ranges of the ambulance and fire service then the police still earn less so I'm sticking by my point.

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 15:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Yes thank you. I was going to respond, but now I only have to agree with you.

In addition, the lowest rank to work on an ambulance is Emergency care assistant, not technician and they start on 17k.
Oh come on...you could argue that the lowest emergency care person is the guy who cleans the ambulances but that would just be ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:29   #57
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
Firefighters and ambulance crew also get London weighting and overtime so that part is irrelevant. As is the bit about 30k not being too shabby, it's not but my comment was that Police earn less than their counterparts not that they don't earn enough or too much.

You are correct though that I did misread the Police salary part that it's 19k while in training and then up to 23k when initial training is complete. However, if you look at the other salary ranges of the ambulance and fire service then the police still earn less so I'm sticking by my point.
https://www.metfriendly.org.uk/servi...on/police-pay/
Your original source is invalid for the pay range as it only mentions the pay for an Inspector.

Your narrative is that the police are paid less because they don't strike. This is false. You've demonstrated the reverse of what you intended and destroyed your own argument.
Vital public services do not need the right to strike without repercussions.
In fact nobody does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post

Oh come on...you could argue that the lowest emergency care person is the guy who cleans the ambulances but that would just be ridiculous.
That person does not go out with the ambulance, the emergency care assistant does. For all I know he/she may also clean the ambulance.

Now if you wanted to counter me, you could use the starting pay of a PCSO, they are front line but they start on about 16-17k outside London.
But anyway starting pay is irrelevant as is maximum pay. What matters is average total career earnings+benefits. I think you'll find that the police do pretty well overall.

Last edited by unbeliever; 09-01-2017 at 16:32.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:30   #58
3 Tuns
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Total Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by geared View Post
The tech is in use on (parts of) the London Underground already.

The unions kicked up such a stink that there now has to be someone on the train still 'monitoring' the system to make sure it doesn't break.
I expect that one day the drivers will go on strike and the trains will be switched to autopilot and the drivers won't be let back in. Didn't something similar happen with containerisation of our docks and the dockers union?

Last edited by 3 Tuns; 09-01-2017 at 16:32.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:35   #59
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3 Tuns View Post
I expect that one day the drivers will go on strike and the trains will be switched to autopilot and the drivers won't be let back in. Didn't something similar happen with containerisation of our docks and the dockers union?
Once again, this would be exactly the approach I would take with bolshie unions, but it's illegal because of the legal protections applied to industrial action and unions. Which is why I ask that the law be changed.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 16:39   #60
3 Tuns
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Total Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Once again, this would be exactly the approach I would take with bolshie unions, but it's illegal because of the legal protections applied to industrial action and unions. Which is why I ask that the law be changed.
Redundancy isn't illegal.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017