The Sun: No-strike plan for transport workers

[jon0844]

Source: The Sun

PUBLIC sector transport workers could be banned from going on strike under plans being considered by the Government.
Senior Tory Richard Tracey yesterday suggested they should lose the right to stage walkouts — with disputes being referred to an arbitration panel instead.

Mr Tracey, the London Assembly’s Tory transport spokesman, said a poll showed six in ten Tube users say it is “too easy” for Underground staff to strike. Nearly half said industrial action should be banned. Mr Tracey said: “For too long Tube unions have been holding the public hostage, demanding ever greater pay deals and calling strikes at the drop of a hat.

“We need to urgently redress this imbalance.”

A Government source said: “If unions keep pushing irresponsible strike action, suggestions like this become harder to resist.”

But Bob Crow, head of rail workers union RMT, said: “One of the first things fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet did when they seized power was to ban transport workers from taking strike action.

“Anyone stupid enough to embark on such a policy is doomed to failure.”

Nice to see Godwin's Law proven yet again!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Source: The Sun



Nice to see Godwin's Law proven yet again!

I like how they always state irresponsible strike action.


Nothing to do with people fighting for their rights. Sooner this bunch of muppets (aka The Conservative Party) are assigned to the history books the better.

 

[jopsuk]

Boris was elected the first time on a platform that included coming to a "no strike" agreement with the unions. Instead, he's refused to meet with them over any industrial disputes.

Comrade Bob meanwhile doesn't do the public-facing PR from the unions any good with his hyperbole.

Note of course this is from The Sun, owned by the anti-union News international. NI does not recognise the NUJ or any of the modern print unions, instead only recognising a union that was set up with funding from NI.

 

[GadgetMan]

If they did ban striking and a TOC had 300 Guards or 300 drivers on their payroll and all 300 of them walked out for a day of action what could the TOC realistically do them? Can't sack them as their network wouldn't move for months while they recruited and trained replacements.

 

[northwichcat]

If they did ban striking and a TOC had 300 Guards or 300 drivers on their payroll and all 300 of them walked out for a day of action what could the TOC realistically do them? Can't sack them as their network wouldn't move for months while they recruited and trained replacements.

Maybe look at what Trenitalia's approach would be. In Italy there are 'protected services' which have to run even during industrial action so what would the Italians do if their workers refused to work the protected services?

What you can say for certain though is an illegal strike is a breach of contract and once the employees have breached their own contracts they can't expect the employer to keep their side of the contract. A breach of contract doesn't have to mean a contract termination though.

Anyway aren't there likely to be some employees who would be on a rest day or booked holiday on the unofficial strike day meaning those ones haven't breached their contract?

 

[michael769]

If they did ban striking and a TOC had 300 Guards or 300 drivers on their payroll and all 300 of them walked out for a day of action what could the TOC realistically do them? Can't sack them as their network wouldn't move for months while they recruited and trained replacements.

They go after the union in the courts; bankrupt it and seize its assets.

Yes the staff could go on strike outwith the union but that places them at risk of dismissal if not enough go out to create safety in numbers. What tends to happen in cases like that is that there is a gradual drift back to work as the harsh reality of bills and pressure from spouses and families mount - once enough go back to work combined with new workers with rushed training and lower pay - the remaining hard liners get sacked.

The end result is a badly damaged employer struggling to survive, severely weakened staff bargaining power (with no functioning union), a government even more determined to clamp down on unions and an enraged populace backing their anti union policies to the hilt.

Add in the huge inconvenience and economic loss and its a scenario that neither side of the debate (at least no one with a functioning brain) would want to provoke.

Fortunately this is not a senior conservative, but an local government politician mouthing off like a stupid person for a few column inches in the press. It's not going to happen.

 

[Michael.Y]

6 in 10 Tube users? They asked the passengers? The ones who complain about every tiny little thing that goes wrong as if it's the end of the world? The ones we saw in a documentary last year lambasting staff for closing the tube for daring to repair it and replace worn out track?

Clearly an objective sample then. And even then, 4 out of 10 disagreed.

 

[tbtc]

6 in 10 Tube users? They asked the passengers? The ones who complain about every tiny little thing that goes wrong as if it's the end of the world?

Yeah, how dare those people who use the service have an opinion, tsch...

(obviously this is a non-story, just a bit of cheap political sabre rattling to fill the press, but Mr Crow should be careful of his fascist comparisons, given that the one thing most people seem to be believe about old Benito was his ability to get trains running on time - whether apocrypha or not)

 

[A-driver]

Would it not be better to address the issues causing strikes? Its not about wanting more money and demanding it by striking-the reasons for the tube strike being balloted at the moment is a real issue.

And as the aslef site says-exactly what have the Tories got planned to warrant this no strike rule? If they get it through then they can suddenly remove all t's&c's and put everyone on minimum wage overnight.

I can't see it coming to anything anyway-just hot air. Too many loopholes and the unions would appeal via human rights routes etc-I can't see any court allowing this.

Yeah, how dare those people who use the service have an opinion, tsch...

(obviously this is a non-story, just a bit of cheap political sabre rattling to fill the press, but Mr Crow should be careful of his fascist comparisons, given that the one thing most people seem to be believe about old Benito was his ability to get trains running on time - whether apocrypha or not)

I think the point is that passengers will say no to strikes as they don't care what they are about, only see it as a pain for them which is absolutely understandable BUT it has to be looked at beyond those who are inconvenienced by the strike. No ones saying that passengers shouldn't have an opinion.

 

[Seacook]

If they did ban striking and a TOC had 300 Guards or 300 drivers on their payroll and all 300 of them walked out for a day of action what could the TOC realistically do them? Can't sack them as their network wouldn't move for months while they recruited and trained replacements.

The article mentioned public sector transport staff. I may be missing something, but doesn't that mean East Coast is the only TOC affected? I'm not convinced London bus services fall under the public sector umbrella either - as I understand it, private sector companies operate under public regulation - operating staff are not employed in the public sector. (In the rest of the country, bus services are all private sector even if local authorities subsidise some routes.)

 

[michael769]

I would not recommend drawing any conclusions from the language and words used in a Sun article.

 

[SS4]

Would it not be better to address the issues causing strikes? Its not about wanting more money and demanding it by striking-the reasons for the tube strike being balloted at the moment is a real issue.

And as the aslef site says-exactly what have the Tories got planned to warrant this no strike rule? If they get it through then they can suddenly remove all t's&c's and put everyone on workfare overnight.

I can't see it coming to anything anyway-just hot air. Too many loopholes and the unions would appeal via human rights routes etc-I can't see any court allowing this.

FTFY.

Asking the passengers is not a ludicrous suggestion in itself but when the passengers are ill-informed in no small part to certain information is deliberately withheld from them by those with a vested interest. The Metro and Evening Standard and the tabloids are mostly Tory rags so is anyone surprised passengers believe them? In fact I would say the shock is that 4 in 10 do not think it's too easy.

I should be very surprised if their surveying methods would pass the standard for GCSE maths!

As ever I think it comes down to a mix of jealousy ("I don't have union protection, why should they?!") and the "I'm all right Jack" brigade.

 

[Temple Meads]

As much as I support trade unions, and support workers rights, Bob Crow really does them no favours at all with his rants and exaggerations.

 

[SS4]

As much as I support trade unions, and support workers rights, Bob Crow really does them no favours at all with his rants and exaggerations.

Often reported in anti-union press. What are the odds that he's being taken out of context? Sadly of course the version in the OP is what most people are fed and believe thanks to confirmation bias.

“One of the first things fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet did when they seized power was to ban transport workers from taking strike action.

“Anyone stupid enough to embark on such a policy is doomed to failure.”

Whereas the quote in full, parts in red are what the Sun didn't think worth reporting. Most telling is that it explains exactly what Crow meant when referring to fascist dictators.

“One of the first things fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet did when they seized power was to ban transport workers from taking strike action so the Tory group on the London Assembly find themselves in some high profile company on this one.

“This crowd have obviously over-dosed on their post-Thatcher adulation and are looking to ramp-up the anti-union rhetoric in advance of the publicly financed funeral on Wednesday. Of course, banning the fundamental human right to withdraw your labour, a right that distinguishes a free workforce from forced labour, is all the rage on the far right and anyone stupid enough to try and embark on such a policy is doomed to failure as Boris Johnson found out.”

 

[Tomnick]

As much as I support trade unions, and support workers rights, Bob Crow really does them no favours at all with his rants and exaggerations.

As an RMT member, I agree entirely - refer to his recent efforts to make a number of his members redundant by campaigning for the wholesale removal of all level crossings...!

 

[Geezertronic]

As an RMT member, I agree entirely - refer to his recent efforts to make a number of his members redundant by campaigning for the wholesale removal of all level crossings...!

As an outsider, he always gives me the impression that he should really engage his brain before his mouth

 

[Tomnick]

As an insider, I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[tbtc]

What are the odds that he's being taken out of context?

You shouldn't go to the press mentioning Hitler, Pop Pot and Mussolini when asked for a quote - that's fairly straightforward (unless you want to enter a battle of hysteria).

TBH I'm surprised that the Tories haven't clamped down on Unions more in their three years of "power" - I'm sure in 2010 most of us would have expected some kind of legislation by now from them

 

[Oswyntail]

.....TBH I'm surprised that the Tories haven't clamped down on Unions more in their three years of "power" - I'm sure in 2010 most of us would have expected some kind of legislation by now from them

Why? I may be being a bit forgetful in my old age, but have there been any major abuses of union power in the last three years? I get the impression that, when unions concentrate on their day job, industrial relations have been fairly smooth in that time. Of course, there have been a number of showboating "spokesmen" and the odd "Tories Out" frivolity, but nothing to require legislation.

 

[A-driver]

FTFY.

Asking the passengers is not a ludicrous suggestion in itself but when the passengers are ill-informed in no small part to certain information is deliberately withheld from them by those with a vested interest. The Metro and Evening Standard and the tabloids are mostly Tory rags so is anyone surprised passengers believe them? In fact I would say the shock is that 4 in 10 do not think it's too easy.

I should be very surprised if their surveying methods would pass the standard for GCSE maths!

As ever I think it comes down to a mix of jealousy ("I don't have union protection, why should they?!") and the "I'm all right Jack" brigade.

Firstly what does FTFY mean?!

But I completely Agee with you. At a guess the question asked (possibly to commuters leaving the tube at the end of the rush hour) was along the lines of "tube drivers who are on over 50k a year and supported by militant unions can call a strike even if the majority if workers don't vote. They are able to demand hugely inflated pay rises and if they don't get their own way they can bring the city to a stand. Do you think this is acceptable?"

Possibly they would get a different result if they asked something more along the lines of : "did you know that jubilee line drivers were threatening strike action after a number of complaints of managers bullying staff, the areas designated for their meal breaks were not being cleaned and quickly becoming unusable and very unhygenic with basic facilities such as kettles and running water becoming restricted and to top it all the only toilets they have access to whilst spending 9hours mostly underground with no time to leave the stations on their breaks are currently largely unusable due to very poor cleaning and maintenance. Is it justified for them to strike when management have refused to meet with them and discuss/rectify these basic issues?"

The press are not stupid (although many of their readers often are when it comes to these kind of articles). journalists only ever ask questions in a way that they can gruntee getting the answer they want. You will often find during strikes that a lot of people write into newspapers saying that whilst they are annoyed by the inconvenience they actually support the cause of the strikers.

Lets get one thing clear here-unions don't walk into pay talks and tell management they want a 6%pay rise and an extra 3 days holiday a year or else they will strike. Very few strikes are due to pay and pay rises are only awarded above inflation when the union can justify it by either an increase in productivity, an increase in company profits linked to increased productivity or the sale of terms and conditions. Most strikes or strike threats are an absolute last resort during a serious or total breakdown in relations normally over a collection of issues which most people would sympathise with and would want to be supported on if it happened to them in their industries.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Mr Crow should be careful of his fascist comparisons, given that the one thing most people seem to be believe about old Benito was his ability to get trains running on time - whether apocrypha or not)

If reference is being made to leaders of countries at war during the period of the Second World War where the fascist leadership applied, has Mr Crow ever made any comparative statements on the rights of the transport workers under Comrade Stalin and the communist party in the then USSR and how these "rights" were "protected" under that regime ?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Firstly what does FTFY mean?!

But I completely Agee with you. At a guess the question asked (possibly to commuters leaving the tube at the end of the rush hour) was along the lines of "tube drivers who are on over 50k a year and supported by militant unions can call a strike even if the majority if workers don't vote. They are able to demand hugely inflated pay rises and if they don't get their own way they can bring the city to a stand. Do you think this is acceptable?"

Possibly they would get a different result if they asked something more along the lines of : "did you know that jubilee line drivers were threatening strike action after a number of complaints of managers bullying staff, the areas designated for their meal breaks were not being cleaned and quickly becoming unusable and very unhygenic with basic facilities such as kettles and running water becoming restricted and to top it all the only toilets they have access to whilst spending 9hours mostly underground with no time to leave the stations on their breaks are currently largely unusable due to very poor cleaning and maintenance. Is it justified for them to strike when management have refused to meet with them and discuss/rectify these basic issues?"

The press are not stupid (although many of their readers often are when it comes to these kind of articles). journalists only ever ask questions in a way that they can gruntee getting the answer they want. You will often find during strikes that a lot of people write into newspapers saying that whilst they are annoyed by the inconvenience they actually support the cause of the strikers.

Lets get one thing clear here-unions don't walk into pay talks and tell management they want a 6%pay rise and an extra 3 days holiday a year or else they will strike. Very few strikes are due to pay and pay rises are only awarded above inflation when the union can justify it by either an increase in productivity, an increase in company profits linked to increased productivity or the sale of terms and conditions. Most strikes or strike threats are an absolute last resort during a serious or total breakdown in relations normally over a collection of issues which most people would sympathise with and would want to be supported on if it happened to them in their industries.

Very well said

 

[GB]

As an RMT member, I agree entirely - refer to his recent efforts to make a number of his members redundant by campaigning for the wholesale removal of all level crossings...!

This is nothing new. He was spouting the same stuff when I was a crossing keeper over 5 years ago.

 

[A-driver]

And I should also add that I believe that the survey asked around 300 people (who as I say are probably carefully selected) so hardly a fair view point!

 

[northwichcat]

And I should also add that I believe that the survey asked around 300 people (who as I say are probably carefully selected) so hardly a fair view point!

Probably 300 people who were actually going to use the train on a proposed strike day, opposed to asking a load of people who couldn't really care less and give responses dependant on how the questions are worded.

 

[SS4]

Firstly what does FTFY mean?!

"Fixed That For You" Essentially used when changing one or two words in a quote, in this case changing minimum wage to workfare.

But I completely Agee with you. At a guess the question asked (possibly to commuters leaving the tube at the end of the rush hour) was along the lines of "tube drivers who are on over 50k a year and supported by militant unions can call a strike even if the majority if workers don't vote. They are able to demand hugely inflated pay rises and if they don't get their own way they can bring the city to a stand. Do you think this is acceptable?"

Possibly they would get a different result if they asked something more along the lines of : "did you know that jubilee line drivers were threatening strike action after a number of complaints of managers bullying staff, the areas designated for their meal breaks were not being cleaned and quickly becoming unusable and very unhygenic with basic facilities such as kettles and running water becoming restricted and to top it all the only toilets they have access to whilst spending 9hours mostly underground with no time to leave the stations on their breaks are currently largely unusable due to very poor cleaning and maintenance. Is it justified for them to strike when management have refused to meet with them and discuss/rectify these basic issues?"

The press are not stupid (although many of their readers often are when it comes to these kind of articles). journalists only ever ask questions in a way that they can gruntee getting the answer they want. You will often find during strikes that a lot of people write into newspapers saying that whilst they are annoyed by the inconvenience they actually support the cause of the strikers.

Lets get one thing clear here-unions don't walk into pay talks and tell management they want a 6%pay rise and an extra 3 days holiday a year or else they will strike. Very few strikes are due to pay and pay rises are only awarded above inflation when the union can justify it by either an increase in productivity, an increase in company profits linked to increased productivity or the sale of terms and conditions. Most strikes or strike threats are an absolute last resort during a serious or total breakdown in relations normally over a collection of issues which most people would sympathise with and would want to be supported on if it happened to them in their industries.

I concur (and I'm on the outside)

 

[tbtc]

TBH I'm surprised that the Tories haven't clamped down on Unions more in their three years of "power" - I'm sure in 2010 most of us would have expected some kind of legislation by now from them

Why? I may be being a bit forgetful in my old age, but have there been any major abuses of union power in the last three years? I get the impression that, when unions concentrate on their day job, industrial relations have been fairly smooth in that time. Of course, there have been a number of showboating "spokesmen" and the odd "Tories Out" frivolity, but nothing to require legislation.

Why? Because they are Tories - because that's what they do.

I'm not saying that Unions have too many rights or too few rights, there's no point in having that argument on here, I'm just saying that (considering the Tories have been in power for three years now and "Dave" needs to throw some red meat at some of his more "fanatical" party members) I'm surprised that we've not seen any attempt to "bash" the Unions from this current Government.

 

[michael769]

And I should also add that I believe that the survey asked around 300 people (who as I say are probably carefully selected) so hardly a fair view point!

And asking tube travelers when there is talk of a tube strike - hardly an unbiased cross section of the population....

At the end of the day many people are selfish and will put themselves first.

 

[HSTEd]

You shouldn't go to the press mentioning Hitler, Pop Pot and Mussolini when asked for a quote - that's fairly straightforward (unless you want to enter a battle of hysteria).

TBH I'm surprised that the Tories haven't clamped down on Unions more in their three years of "power" - I'm sure in 2010 most of us would have expected some kind of legislation by now from them

The Trade Union movement is dead.

There has been no "clamp down" because there are virtually no unions to clamp down on.

 

[Starmill]

From a dispassionately analytical point of view, I've always thought that non-striking agreements are have the potential to be mutually beneficial. The firm gets increased stability and probably a more flexible labour force and the workforce get fixed additional concessions in exchange from them rather than whatever they might get by threatening to strike. The union then becomes a vehicle for constructive dialogue without the coarse threat of strikes and risk of the whole 'irresponsible' backlash.