Effect of strike on Tuesday 26 May?

[VauxhallandI]

But is wouldn't work as simply as that, it's against human nature. The imminent strike looming focuses both sides to sort the issues out to avoid the action absolutely nobody wants or benefits from. That period between the strike being announced and confirmed and actually starting is the most crucial and productive part of the talks.

My issue is that the suggestion to not carry on negotiating once the strike is confirmed is absolutely ludicrous and has no benefits to anyone. You would still be out of pocket as you are now. At least this way hundreds of thousands of others will be able to use the trains!

If you can't see it then you can't see it.

 

[A-driver]

If you can't see it then you can't see it.

I can see where you are coming from, of course I can, but as someone who has taken part in many negotiations on the union side I can tell you that it isn't as simple as you make out and wouldn't bring in any benefits.

And you still haven't answered the question about how you believe the majority of people would feel if for an entire week before a strike commenced all negotiations stopped and both sides threw in the towel leading to absolute certain disruption. I'm sorry but you are really in a very tiny minority to believe that it is better to go ahead it's a strike rather than try and sort the issues out and allow business as usual!

 

[Deerfold]

If you can't see it then you can't see it.

You're seriously suggesting it's better to hold a strike even if you've reached a settlement (or could have a chance of doing so) in the 7 days before it?

I've looked into all sorts of alternatives for this strike including booking somewhere cheap to stay on Monday night.

But I'm still glad it's been called off. I'm likely to travel Monday instead of Tuesday but it'll now be far less franctic.

 

[A-driver]

You're seriously suggesting it's better to hold a strike even if you've reached a settlement in the 7 days before it?

No, he's suggestion that you don't even bother to try and reach a settlement in the 7 days before...ludicrous!

 

[VauxhallandI]

No, he's suggestion that you don't even bother to try and reach a settlement in the 7 days before...ludicrous!

No I am suggesting that it is very quick to adjust the negotiating mindset that the deadline is a new date. You only get it wrong once.

There is no negotiation period after, they know the rules up front and the deadline is the deadline.

At the moment the deadline is what hours before walk out, it is now a day seven days previous, so you make your last minute offer then. If you don't you have failed, you do it once and you very quickly learn the new method and it all becomes very normal very quickly. You will NOT be turning down a late offer as the late offer period has moved. You can still accept a late offer but it is before the stand still. Can you not see that?

 

[TheKnightWho]

After that seven day deadline is reached then there are no more talks. It's just the same as reaching the strike date, or the agreed end of discussions, as at present, but with a longer lieu period following.

Are you serious?

The entire point of the strike is the threat. If you want the shock factor of a strike then that 7 day period of no talks just gives the company more time, not less.

It also sends a contemptuous message to the travelling public, when people sit around for 7 days doing nothing rather than trying to resolve issues before strikes get bad. Strikes are meant to be a method of last resort - not some party trick to cripple your employer, when your method doesn't even manage that.

 

[A-driver]

No I am suggesting that it is very quick to adjust the negotiating mindset that the deadline is a new date. You only get it wrong once.



There is no negotiation period after, they know the rules up front and the deadline is the deadline.



At the moment the deadline is what hours before walk out, it is now a day seven days previous, so you make your last minute offer then. If you don't you have failed, you do it once and you very quickly learn the new method and it all becomes very normal very quickly. You will NOT be turning down a late offer as the late offer period has moved. You can still accept a late offer but it is before the stand still. Can you not see that?

I can see that but I can also see the overwhelming criticism from the rest of the population which you seem to be unable to grasp...

Imagine the comments on this forum, Twitter, the newspapers etc from angry travellers who are having their travel plans hugely disrupted in a weeks time and now know that no one is making any effort to resolve the situation. The vast majority would prefer the current method that the planned action was cancelled so they can now travel by train.

Either way people would still need to make and pay for alternate arrangements. At least the way it is there is a possibility that suspending the action will alleviate the pressure on other transport and allow a lot of people to travel.

I'm guessing that despite you having to fly on Monday that the trains will be busy next week thus proving that suspending the strike days before is benificial to the hundreds of thousands who will be on the trains mon and tue next week. If I turn up to work Monday afternoon and am driving purely empty trains about as everyone else has made other plans then I'll let you know!

I can see what you are getting at but you miss the point that it benefits absolutely no one. Yes it may mean that no strike is announced at all but it also may lead to a vast increase in strikes.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes, because then people know full well whether they need to make alternate arrangements or not. None of this "will they, won't they" uncertainty a handful of days before they need to travel.

The vast majority of people are not travelling long distance that day. A strike occurring has a far worse effect on the economy than the threat of strike action does. You're just asking everyone else to lose money to suit you.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Are you serious?

The entire point of the strike is the threat. If you want the shock factor of a strike then that 7 day period of no talks just gives the company more time, not less.

It also sends a contemptuous message to the travelling public, when people sit around for 7 days doing nothing rather than trying to resolve issues before strikes get bad. Strikes are meant to be a method of last resort - not some party trick to cripple your employer, when your method doesn't even manage that.

I doubt there is that much they can do in seven days to negate the affect of a strike?

There are no spare drivers, buses etc we are told during delays. How far would they go to negate even given the time, it's not like they are going to hire every coach in Britain to cover it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Then at least my re-arrangement wouldn't have been a waste of time.

I can't cancel my re-arrangement so we are out of pocket to boot

Sunk costs. Look them up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt there is that much they can do in seven days to negate the affect of a strike?

There are no spare drivers, buses etc we are told during delays. How far would they go to negate even given the time, it's not like they are going to hire every coach in Britain to cover it.

So either they don't manage to prepare anything - bad for the general public - or they do, but it's not as good - *still* bad for the general public.

Either way, it's not helpful to anyone.

 

[sprinterguy]

You're just asking everyone else to lose money to suit you.

Again, there's no need to presume that this is to suit me. It makes very little difference to me personally, I'm simply arguing for what appears to make more sense in keeping the travelling public correctly informed.

I've addressed these points once and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Again, there's no need to presume that this is to suit me. It makes very little difference to me personally, I'm simply arguing for what appears to make more sense in keeping the travelling public correctly informed.

I've addressed these points once and I'm going to leave it at that.

Either they make rearrangements, which they'd have had to make anyway under your idea, or they don't make them before the strike is called off and they carry on as normal. People making rearrangements when the strike is called off are no worse off than they would be if the strike happened anyway - seriously, look up sunk costs.

Your plan just assures the worst state of affairs.

 

[A-driver]

I doubt there is that much they can do in seven days to negate the affect of a strike?



There are no spare drivers, buses etc we are told during delays. How far would they go to negate even given the time, it's not like they are going to hire every coach in Britain to cover it.

What?! This very strike was averted within the 7 days!

 

[VauxhallandI]

I can see that but I can also see the overwhelming criticism from the rest of the population which you seem to be unable to grasp...

Imagine the comments on this forum, Twitter, the newspapers etc from angry travellers who are having their travel plans hugely disrupted in a weeks time and now know that no one is making any effort to resolve the situation. The vast majority would prefer the current method that the planned action was cancelled so they can now travel by train.

Either way people would still need to make and pay for alternate arrangements. At least the way it is there is a possibility that suspending the action will alleviate the pressure on other transport and allow a lot of people to travel.

I'm guessing that despite you having to fly on Monday that the trains will be busy next week thus proving that suspending the strike days before is benificial to the hundreds of thousands who will be on the trains mon and tue next week. If I turn up to work Monday afternoon and am driving purely empty trains about as everyone else has made other plans then I'll let you know!

I can see what you are getting at but you miss the point that it benefits absolutely no one. Yes it may mean that no strike is announced at all but it also may lead to a vast increase in strikes.

The rest of the population will also understand the rules and know that the Compnay had their chance to avert and didn't take it, there is no reduced time given to the company and they have failed or the union have failed depending on your point of view.
I don't see it creating any different results.

But hey ho at least we are all still friends x.

 

[A-driver]

Again, there's no need to presume that this is to suit me. It makes very little difference to me personally, I'm simply arguing for what appears to make more sense in keeping the travelling public correctly informed.



I've addressed these points once and I'm going to leave it at that.

I think you'll find the majority of the travelling public would prefer to travel if possible rather than know a strike is happening and no one is doing anything at all to avert it!

 

[VauxhallandI]

What?! This very strike was averted within the 7 days!

Yes but that was under the current process, you cannot compare them.

 

[A-driver]

Yes but that was under the current process, you cannot compare them.

Yes you can-the entire point of this is to compare them!

 

[sprinterguy]

Either they make rearrangements, which they'd have had to make anyway under your idea, or they don't make them before the strike is called off and they carry on as normal. People making rearrangements when the strike is called off are no worse off than they would be if the strike happened anyway - seriously, look up sunk costs.

I'm fully aware of sunk costs, but it's a bit of a urine extraction to have to pay for a second journey on top of the original one, only to find out that the original one is then going to be valid anyway. No guarantees of a refund, full or otherwise. As I say, the damage has been done for these travellers whether the strike goes ahead or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you'll find the majority of the travelling public would prefer to travel if possible rather than know a strike is happening and no one is doing anything at all to avert it!

Aye, I agree - just a shame that folks couldn't be told that for definite a bit further in advance.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm fully aware of sunk costs, but it's a bit of a urine extraction to have to pay for a second journey on top of the original one, only to find out that the original one is then going to be valid anyway. No guarantees of a refund, full or otherwise. As I say, the damage has been done for these travellers whether the strike goes ahead or not.

Exactly. So there's no point going ahead with the strike, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place... Just because some people are inconvenienced doesn't mean everyone should be. I mean, I think the strike warning should be increased to 10 days so there's more warning, but that's a different matter altogether.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes you can-the entire point of this is to compare them!

Which bit is not getting through.

The last minute bid is now an hour before seven days before the strike.

Can you not see that last minute bids are now before the stipulated deadline.

Blame the company for not coming to a resolution within the deadline.

You cannot compare it as the rules will be changed and there is no bid time in the seven day period.

I think we can park it there as I am as frustrated as the other side.

I've explained to a couple of people and they think it makes perfect sense.

Maybe the medium of the forum is making it hard to discuss.

 

[Deerfold]

Exactly. So there's no point going ahead with the strike, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place... Just because some people are inconvenienced doesn't mean everyone should be. I mean, I think the strike warning should be increased to 10 days so there's more warning, but that's a different matter altogether.

I can see the point of that - gives more time for negotiations after the strike is called too.

 

[bb21]

But hey ho at least we are all still friends x.

Are we? I didn't know I had any friends.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Exactly. So there's no point going ahead with the strike, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place... Just because some people are inconvenienced doesn't mean everyone should be. I mean, I think the strike warning should be increased to 10 days so there's more warning, but that's a different matter altogether.

You a missing the point, the new idea doesn't mean strikes go ahead anyway even though there is a new offer on the table.

Sorry but I am bored now.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just because some people are inconvenienced doesn't mean everyone should be.

If the talks had taken place over the same length of time, just seven days earlier to allow for a "stand still" period, then the outcome of the talks shouldn't have been any different anyway and fewer people would have been inconvenienced as everyone would have know at least seven days in advance that the strike wasn't going ahead. Hence, a minority wouldn't have chosen to make alternate arrangements.

 

[Deerfold]

If the talks had taken place over the same length of time, just seven days earlier to allow for a "stand still" period, then the outcome of the talks shouldn't have been any different anyway and fewer people would have been inconvenienced as everyone would have know at least seven days in advance that the strike wasn't going ahead. Hence, a minority wouldn't have chosen to make alternate arrangements.

But was it how many days they'd been negotiating or how near the strike was getting that pushed NR's hand?

You a missing the point, the new idea doesn't mean strikes go ahead anyway even though there is a new offer on the table.

Sorry but I am bored now.

You're bored? Or losing a fatuous argument?

Did you not say that after 7 days before the strike it would go ahead anyway. Are you actually going to not allow negotiations to continue at that point? Assuming you aren't they could come up with an offer.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If the talks had taken place over the same length of time, just seven days earlier to allow for a "stand still" period, then the outcome of the talks shouldn't have been any different anyway and fewer people would have been inconvenienced as everyone would have know at least seven days in advance that the strike wasn't going ahead. Hence, a minority wouldn't have chosen to make alternate arrangements.

The nature of talks when a strike has been confirmed is different to the nature of talks before.

 

[sprinterguy]

But was it how many days they'd been negotiating or how near the strike was getting that pushed NR's hand?

It's most probably the latter, and granted that it often requires an imminent "event" to focus the mind, but whether it's an agreed deadline date or the strike itself approaching that they're working against then it shouldn't make much difference when the actual negotiation process is the same. Unfortunately when you consider the human element of this (as you have said below), it probably does.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The nature of talks when a strike has been confirmed is different to the nature of talks before.

The strike would be confirmed (privately, amongst those involved) prior to the deadline date, wherein a decision is announced to the public, in order to allow talks to take place though. As mentioned previously the main problem is how you then manage to keep that information from being leaked to the media before the deadline date.

 

[VauxhallandI]

But was it how many days they'd been negotiating or how near the strike was getting that pushed NR's hand?




You're bored? Or losing a fatuous argument?

Did you not say that after 7 days before the strike it would go ahead anyway. Are you actually going to not allow negotiations to continue at that point? Assuming you aren't they could come up with an offer.

There is no argument to lose, it is two different ways of doing something.

The fact that you cannot understand that a deadline has been moved and the causes and affects on that deadline are exactly the same in the new idea as the present way is the problem.

If everyone knows that the deadline is the deadline then they know when to table their last ditch bid. Do you really think there is a sudden flash of brilliance at the last second? They know their last ditch options and they can apply then at the new time.

It's not a massive change or a leap of faith.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The nature of talks when a strike has been confirmed is different to the nature of talks before.

You can create the same environment.

The ballot is done and the result is strike.

You then set a negotiation deadline, creating the pressure. There is no need to keep it a secret, in fact you want everyone to know the deadline.

If it is passed then the strike is 100% on.

The law then stipulates a period of seven days notice bfore thenwalkout therefore giving time for arrangements and arrangements that are not a waste of time.

 

[Deerfold]

There is no argument to lose, it is two different ways of doing something.

The fact that you cannot understand that a deadline has been moved and the causes and affects on that deadline are exactly the same in the new idea as the present way is the problem.

If everyone knows that the deadline is the deadline then they know when to table their last ditch bid. Do you really think there is a sudden flash of brilliance at the last second? They know their last ditch options and they can apply then at the new time.

It's not a massive change or a leap of faith.

You seem to have not answered any of my questions. I don't thing the causes and effects are the same as you have to take human psychology into account. In any case I really don't see what you gain and why you think there is any more chance of calling off a strike using your method.

It is a massive change. Which results in much negative publicity once your 7 day deadline kicks in and the pubic are incredulous that no-one is continuing to try to avert a strike.

You can create the same environment.

The ballot is done and the result is strike.

You then set a negotiation deadline, creating the pressure.

If it is passed then the strike is 100% on.

The law then stipulates a period of seven days notice bfore thenwalkout therefore giving time for arrangements and arrangements that are not a waste of time.

You're still not selling this.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You can create the same environment.

The ballot is done and the result is strike.

You then set a negotiation deadline, creating the pressure. There is no need to keep it a secret, in fact you want everyone to know the deadline.

If it is passed then the strike is 100% on.

The law then stipulates a period of seven days notice bfore thenwalkout therefore giving time for arrangements and arrangements that are not a waste of time.

Except you can't. In that week there will be millions of people hoping for and demanding a resolution.