Bus Strike

[Richard Ap Rhys 10]

A more effective means of protest, which would still hit their bosses but not stop people getting to work (my friend is a cleaner at the Crucible and he has already lost wages he can ill afford to lose)... bus drivers should still work but refuse to sell tickets. effectively running free buses and hitting their bosses in the pocket.

[Abdul 10]

Originally posted by Richard Ap Rhys

A more effective means of protest, which would still hit their bosses but not stop people getting to work (my friend is a cleaner at the Crucible and he has already lost wages he can ill afford to lose)... bus drivers should still work but refuse to sell tickets. effectively running free buses and hitting their bosses in the pocket.

 

A good idea in theory (I think railway staff in Australia did something similar) but most buses on popular routes are always full anyway!

[max 13]

It would be a good idea to turn up for work but not to do the job you're paid for, viz. collectiing money, delivering letters, digging coal, etc. Unfortunately, they are all sackable offences whereas a legally held strike is still the only way for workers to protest their rights.

 

Before anybody condemns strikers think about this:

 

If an investor is unhappy with a company's performance, ie it isn't returning a decent dividend, he can withdraw his capital and re-invest it. A worker, who's only capital is his labour, does not have this luxury and so can only withdraw his 'capital' on a temporary basis, or strike.

 

In an ideal world we could all move between jobs as and when we wanted demanding ever improving conditions but there are very few semi or un-skilled jobs around these days so the majority of the workforce have to stick it out and make the best of a bad job (pun intended).

 

Sorry if this sounds like preaching but I feel that unions and workers get a bad press when 9 times out of 10 it is poor management which leads to strikes.

 

An interesting fact:

 

The higher a postion in a company held by the personnel function the more prone to industrial disputes is that company.

 

If there is an HR director then watch out but if the junior from accounts looks after HR then you're less likely to have disputes.

[LabHonesty 10]

Originally posted by maxt

It would be a good idea to turn up for work but not to do the job you're paid for, viz. collectiing money, delivering letters, digging coal, etc. Unfortunately, they are all sackable offences whereas a legally held strike is still the only way for workers to protest their rights.

 

Before anybody condemns strikers think about this:

 

If an investor is unhappy with a company's performance, ie it isn't returning a decent dividend, he can withdraw his capital and re-invest it. A worker, who's only capital is his labour, does not have this luxury and so can only withdraw his 'capital' on a temporary basis, or strike.

 

A perfectly adequate description of free will. However, the people from whom services are withdrawn also have rights. If I pay you to teach me fencing, and then you withdraw those skills, that's fine, but I would not expect to pay (that would be theft), and I would also expect to have the right to seek another trainer (or to give up fencing altogether if I wished - that would be my right). There are alternatives to the jobs you cite, and these alternatives become more attractive when the providers of those services fail to deliver, ie. "delivering letters" (I use email, but still use letters - I might however stop using letters if that became too difficult, and that would be my right), "digging coal". I have no problem with strikers or strikes at all, and am about to become one myself. The demonstration of the effect of services withdrawn can serve to galvanise minds, but can also backfire, and taking that gamble is a right. The risk of the gamble should be borne by those who take the gamble. Withdrawal of services should be that and only that (the person who has already paid for the fencing lesson, or the flight to Paris should not have to pay for that demonstration). Likewise, while I entirely supported the fire fighters strike in principle, I had already paid for a fire service I did not subsequently receive. The "worker" who does not wish to strike also has rights, and forcing others to strike against their will has to be wrong. It is easy to talk about these things in the collective - much harder when you consider individuals - me, my fencing trainer, and my lesson.

[Richard Ap Rhys 10]

Originally posted by Chloe

[bI think that bus drivers are more or less putting their own life on the line these days!! They even have to have big screens in front of them that lock, and there's stickers now on the windows saying that drivers should be able to do their job without fear of being intimidated or assaulted!!! What's happening here then!!??

 

It's madness, that's what it is!

Chloé [/b]

 

 

Anybody who works in any job that involves public contact is putting their life on the line.

 

The obvious ones are bank tellers, post office clerks etc at risk from robbery, also in this category are betting shop staff, off licenses, petrol station staff, most retail staff (including market traders). Then at risk of violence because their job brings them into contact with nutters (by which I mean anybody so unstable as to have insufficient self control not to resort to violence if they get ****** off) - teachers, DSS/DWP staff, traffic control staff, bar staff, emergency services, social workers, health service staff... need I go on.

 

And then theres those such as low paid security officers sat with an unreliable mobile phone as the only contact with the outside world and expected to be able to keep hordes of plant machinery obsessed gypsys off building sites.

 

The most insane thing I ever saw was an artist at the Fargate craft market headbutted by this guy that didn't like one of his paintings.

 

Public transport should never have been deregulated. So many people rely on it to earn their living that it should have remained in local authority control. Sure bus drivers should get more pay, but so should the average NMW retail assistant. But why should other people have to lose wages? Seems that is hitting the poorest members of the public in most cases, not their own fat-cat bosses who drive everywhere in jags and BMWs anyway.

 

Any money the bosses do lose they will claw back by investing in 6 less, or 12 less new buses next year, cutting cleaning staffs working week by two hours, increasing bus fares beyond a reasonable increase amount, withdrawing a couple of services, again, hitting the public.

 

Most people, in low paid jobs, if they strike, will simply be dismissed.