Disgusting strike action on London underground.

[unbeliever 10]

Redundancy isn't illegal.

 

Retaliating in any way for industrial action is.

[sgtkate 10]

https://www.metfriendly.org.uk/services/police-finance-information/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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

You are right and I concede.

 

Police - http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Police_Officer/Salary £31,132

Firefighter - http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Fire_Fighter/Salary - £28,826

 

Doesn't take into account other aspects of work happiness etc. but they are not provable. Also your point about not striking affecting pay is disingenuous as you know, there is absolutely no way of proving that, in the same way as my original point was a bit daft as not only have I been proved totally wrong with the figures but comparing oranges and apples as I did doesn't prove much except my inability to read.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 15:50 ----------

 

Retaliating in any way for industrial action is.

 

So you honestly don't believe that if an employee goes on strike that the employer wouldn't simply sack them just to be petty? Of course they would and then they'd blame the union for striking and ruining everything when they failed to deliver on time because of a lack of workers. Also, your idea *might* work for the private sector as they as so profit driven that if it would cost them more to sack and replace you than to meet the demands then they aren't likely to sack you, however, for government bodies where profits don't play a part how would you managed that? The government seems pretty keen on bringing the NHS to a point where the general public would be convinced that privatisation is the only way forward as it's now so poorly run, so if the doctors striked to try to sort things out the government would probably sack them all then rehire them on a far worse private based contract. Just one not far fetched example.

[unbeliever 10]

You are right and I concede.

 

Police - http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Police_Officer/Salary £31,132

Firefighter - http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Fire_Fighter/Salary - £28,826

 

Doesn't take into account other aspects of work happiness etc. but they are not provable. Also your point about not striking affecting pay is disingenuous as you know, there is absolutely no way of proving that, in the same way as my original point was a bit daft as not only have I been proved totally wrong with the figures but comparing oranges and apples as I did doesn't prove much except my inability to read.

 

I appreciate the concession. Shows character.

 

I honestly don't want employees to be powerless. Nor do I want to prevent collective bargaining. I am a government employee myself.

UK law makes the unions jump through all manner of hoops before they can instigate industrial action and then limits the industrial action they can take. In return all manner of protections are in place for those who participate in industrial action.

Now I'm wondering out loud if we shouldn't liberate both sides from these shackles and see how that works.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

 

So you honestly don't believe that if an employee goes on strike that the employer wouldn't simply sack them just to be petty? Of course they would and then they'd blame the union for striking and ruining everything when they failed to deliver on time because of a lack of workers. Also, your idea *might* work for the private sector as they as so profit driven that if it would cost them more to sack and replace you than to meet the demands then they aren't likely to sack you, however, for government bodies where profits don't play a part how would you managed that? The government seems pretty keen on bringing the NHS to a point where the general public would be convinced that privatisation is the only way forward as it's now so poorly run, so if the doctors striked to try to sort things out the government would probably sack them all then rehire them on a far worse private based contract. Just one not far fetched example.

 

It seems a little far fetched to me. Clinical NHS staff are hard to replace and the privatisation thing is a conspiracy theory.

The employer does not really have the option of sacking a single employee. That employee if part of a union which has his/her back. The employer may however sack all the employees and pay the replacement costs. I suppose the employer to decimate the ranks as a bullying tactic. But that would only work on a very weak union.

[sgtkate 10]

I appreciate the concession. Shows character.

 

I honestly don't want employees to be powerless. Nor do I want to prevent collective bargaining. I am a government employee myself.

UK law makes the unions jump through all manner of hoops before they can instigate industrial action and then limits the industrial action they can take. In return all manner of protections are in place for those who participate in industrial action.

Now I'm wondering out loud if we shouldn't liberate both sides from these shackles and see how that works.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

 

It seems a little far fetched to me. Clinical NHS staff are hard to replace and the privatisation thing is a conspiracy theory.

The employer does not really have the option of sacking a single employee. That employee if part of a union which has his/her back. The employer may however sack all the employees and pay the replacement costs. I suppose the employer to decimate the ranks as a bullying tactic. But that would only work on a very weak union.

 

Perhaps, especially on your point above about both sides being too heavily restricted. Does this work anywhere? I did ask before but then we got into a argument about salaries so it might have been missed? Do other countries manage striking/workers/employers rights better? Is there a better way we can do things?

[unbeliever 10]

Perhaps, especially on your point above about both sides being too heavily restricted. Does this work anywhere? I did ask before but then we got into a argument about salaries so it might have been missed? Do other countries manage striking/workers/employers rights better? Is there a better way we can do things?

 

I don't know. I know things are quite different in the US. But then their system is extremely corrupt so I'm not inclined to copy it substantially.

 

This report is interesting:

http://www.etui.org/Publications2/Reports/Strike-rules-in-the-EU27-and-beyond

 

It seems clear that many states do not offer the same protections we do, and do not impose the same restrictions on the unions; yet do not end up in a USA-style mess. The variety is great, but it seems that it is broken down quite neatly in this report.

 

In many cases the question of punishing the strikers workers following the resolution of industrial action is handled as part of the union-employer negotiations, and in practise resolutions forbid punishment. However if all striking employees were simultaneously dismissed, then there would be no such resolution and therefore no recourse for the strikers.

Edited January 9, 2017 by unbeliever

[Penistone999 10]

how selfish of the striking underground " workers" sorry that should be the unions wanting to give the establishment a slap? what about the normal working man who is going to suffer with these strikes.

 

Its always the same mate . The militant unions trying to hold the government to ransom. Its time trade unions were outlawed once and for all. They are nothing but trouble.

[Jpeters 10]

Its always the same mate . The militant unions trying to hold the government to ransom. Its time trade unions were outlawed once and for all. They are nothing but trouble.

 

I think you go too far there mate. Some useful things have been secured by unoon in the past.

 

However, I don't believe in the right to strike. We are becoming a nation of moaners. If you don't like your job, hand your notice in and find a better one. Don't moan and bring other people down with your negativity.

[Jacktari 10]

Its always the same mate . The militant unions trying to hold the government to ransom. Its time trade unions were outlawed once and for all. They are nothing but trouble.

 

That's the spirit that made England what it is today.

[El Cid 221]

Its always the same mate . The militant unions trying to hold the government to ransom. Its time trade unions were outlawed once and for all. They are nothing but trouble.

 

I know railway workers are well paid, because they have strong unions. Would people vote to strike and lose pay to shove it up the Tories?

I think Government have very little to do with most strikes.

[Robin-H 11]

I know railway workers are well paid, because they have strong unions. Would people vote to strike and lose pay to shove it up the Tories?

I think Government have very little to do with most strikes.

 

The union for Southern Rail conductors paid strikers £300 a week when they were striking, but I am aware that not all unions give strike pay. Does anyone know if they are in this instance?

 

Regarding striking to 'shove it up the Tories' - some of the leaked emails and messages from the earlier doctors' strikes showed that in that case there was a big political aspect to the strikes, and it wasn't entirely about getting the issue resolved quickly, saying “the best solution may actually [be] to draw this right out” and proposed “a strategy that tied the DH [Department of Health] up in knots for the next 16-18 months”.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/huge-leak-of-data-reveals-junior-doctors-leaders-discussed-drawing-out-dispute-for-a-year-a7049716.html

[El Cid 221]

Regarding striking to 'shove it up the Tories' - some of the leaked emails and messages from the earlier doctors' strikes showed that in that case there was a big political aspect to the strikes, and it wasn't entirely about getting the issue resolved quickly, saying “the best solution may actually [be] to draw this right out” and proposed “a strategy that tied the DH [Department of Health] up in knots for the next 16-18 months”.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/huge-leak-of-data-reveals-junior-doctors-leaders-discussed-drawing-out-dispute-for-a-year-a7049716.html

 

That just means work to rule, I have heard similar said about the rail dispute; nothing wrong with working to your contract.

The rail dispute could spread to other areas, unless the Government stop forcing the issue around closing the doors.

[unbeliever 10]

That just means work to rule, I have heard similar said about the rail dispute; nothing wrong with working to your contract.

The rail dispute could spread to other areas, unless the Government stop forcing the issue around closing the doors.

 

That's nothing to do with the tube strike.