Bob Crow announces yet another rail strike

[junglejames]

It may not always be the right way to go about things, but he is right a heck of alot more times than he is wrong, last year the s*n tried saying he had a £££ company car etc etc when he only takes public transport, the s*n ADMITTED they were wrong and paid a sum to charity, shame they cant put that on their front page lol

Anyone who believes what The Sun says is pretty daft.
He may go everywhere by public transport, but it doesnt get away from the fact he is an idiot.
Whos the one that has a dog named after some dictator? Says it all me thinks.

 

[tbtc]

what is happening in the real world?

We have two and a half million people unemployed (a figure which keeps rising, despite the economy being out of recession)

We have millions of people having pay freezes (here in South Yorkshire council staff are being asked for a 5% pay cut)

We have millions of people kicked out of final salary pensions

Lots of companies have "outsourced" jobs to Third World countries

We have most companies with a freeze on recruitment (meaning existing staff have to work even harder to cover for colleagues who aren't being replaced)

We have millions of people under threat of losing their job, including compulsory redundancies in (previously "safe") areas like the Police. How many people feel safe in their jobs?

At the same time, Guards have had significant increases in salary since privatisation, they have complete job security, they aren't being asked to take a pay cut, they still have their good pensions, they aren't having to work harder to make up for redundant colleagues...

Can you see why (given the conditions the majority of people are in) it's hard to feel sympathetic for Guards arguing about getting paid extra like this?

 

[junglejames]

Actually i was talking about union members who do not support the unions action rather then non union members (and i will address that at the bottom of this message. Factually it is because these kind of people will slag the union down, say it has done nothing for them (despite 90% of the population wishing they had similar agreements), when the union asks them for support they go and (four letter word that upsets some people so i wont mention it).
As a member they are entitled by law representation, as a rep i can decline to represent said member and get someone from head office to do it.

With regard the issue of non members, well that is another story. If they get into trouble it is not for me to help them (how would that look to someone who pays contributions to get the same thing?). Why should they also get the same terms and conditions as those that have sacrificed in getting them?
You say these people shouldn't be treated any differently, so why does the law support these people more then they would me? Trade union reform law protects those that choose not to strike then those that do! Surely the law should treat everyone equal!

With regard the vicious rumour remark, i have been victim to this on more then one occasion, i had to just get on with it and prove the rumours wrong.
These people are not treated by me any differently, i just tell them and everyone how it is, if they don't like it that is there problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thanks GB my point.

I love it. A union is supposed to be there for workers. But here is someone who doesnt believe non union members should get the same payrise.
Well, the company has deemed they deserve the same payrise, so what is wrong in it? Its up to the company, and they have deemed this fair.
If the company offered them less money, im pretty sure the union would come out in support of them anyway. Wouldnt stand by their side in court, but would still slag off the company for it. Well any decent union would, because they are there for the workers. Remember, your subscription fees are there for slightly more than working out payrises.
These that dont belong to the union will not get the union sticking up for them against the company if the company is being unfair. Being able to say "I have spoken to my union" is often enough to make the company back down. Non union members cant say that if something unfair is happening to them. You also wont get the union backing you up in court. So, stop moaning about non members getting the same payrise. Your fees pay for more than this.

Also, regarding union members not striking. This is a very difficult decision to make, not striking during an official strike. But it doesnt deserve to be treated differently for.
Also, the strike depends on a vote. Some people will have voted 'NO'. Do you still expect these people to strike? If Bob Crow deserves to fight for what he believes in, then so do these union members who voted no. They dont believe in it, so they dont do it. However they may still believe belonging to the union is beneficial in the long run, so they still want to be members. Not everyone can agree with each other all the time. Paying union fees does not mean you have to agree with every single union member. If it did people would always be striking, because everyone would vote 'yes' for any little thing.
People have a choice. Let them believe in their choice.
They have had to make a difficult decision to start with, by deciding not to strike. A decision that is made harder by people like you.

Oh, and your wrong to make out as if all non strikers who belong to the union will slag off the union or you. A lot do it because its what they believe is right.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

We have two and a half million people unemployed (a figure which keeps rising, despite the economy being out of recession)

We have millions of people having pay freezes (here in South Yorkshire council staff are being asked for a 5% pay cut)

We have millions of people kicked out of final salary pensions

Lots of companies have "outsourced" jobs to Third World countries

We have most companies with a freeze on recruitment (meaning existing staff have to work even harder to cover for colleagues who aren't being replaced)

We have millions of people under threat of losing their job, including compulsory redundancies in (previously "safe") areas like the Police. How many people feel safe in their jobs?

At the same time, Guards have had significant increases in salary since privatisation, they have complete job security, they aren't being asked to take a pay cut, they still have their good pensions, they aren't having to work harder to make up for redundant colleagues...

Can you see why (given the conditions the majority of people are in) it's hard to feel sympathetic for Guards arguing about getting paid extra like this?

so basically your argument is...
because other people are suffering so should everyone else???

also why do guards have the pension/security/salary? because of unions negotiating, on this occasion it has hit a brick wall (at least for now) you can not use other jobs as examples as every service/job etc etc is different with different rules/needs etc etc

btw Northern Guards are the lowest paid in the country (was TPE until they had their harmonisation go through)

 

[Invincibles]

I am very curious about that last point. Northern gaurds are the lowest paid. What does that mean?

I know what the answer will be. Northern guards get £x, TPE get £x + y.

But fundamentally that argument is wrong on so many levels. We could be philosophical and discuss what is £1?

My own position is that the seeming obsession with equality at the highest possible level makes the rail unions look like they are living on a different planet. Of course hardship elsewhere does not mean hardship has to come to the railway, but the argument goes both ways with prosperity elsewhere not meaning prosperity has to come to the railways. The rhetoric of Bob Crow would do well to reflect that.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I am very curious about that last point. Northern gaurds are the lowest paid. What does that mean?

I know what the answer will be. Northern guards get £x, TPE get £x + y.

But fundamentally that argument is wrong on so many levels. We could be philosophical and discuss what is £1?

My own position is that the seeming obsession with equality at the highest possible level makes the rail unions look like they are living on a different planet. Of course hardship elsewhere does not mean hardship has to come to the railway, but the argument goes both ways with prosperity elsewhere not meaning prosperity has to come to the railways. The rhetoric of Bob Crow would do well to reflect that.

How can that argument be wrong on so many levels, is the cost of living so much different from one side of the pennines to the other, yes that argument would work if say Northern V Southern but once u leave the south Cost of living is not very different at all, simple things like Harmonisation hasn't gone through because of different wages t&c etc on a Pound for Pound level Northern Guards ARE the Lowest paid heck even retail Managers on HST's are on significantly more money and they are not even Safety Critical

 

[Failed Unit]

We do have an odd situation in the UK. If a union is recognised then it is the only way you can negotiate with the company. If you are not a member of that union your views don't count. It is also illegal to force people to join the union.

So why not join it is only a small % of you salary?

The only reason I can see is if the union is only looking after a certain part of it's membership not something the rmt can be accused of. PCS on the otherhand did all their negotiation towards the call centre element of a business we worked. It came to a stage where everyone who didn't work in the call centre left the PCS to try and get another union recognised.

Going off topic a little I know but if the RMT negotiate you area, unless you totally object them having any of you money you may as well join. At least you get a voice, the TOC certainly has no interest in the non-union member. The union works for your T&C's like it or not so you may as well have your say on them!

 

[GB]

This may have already been answered, but is it written in your contracts that you will be paid extra for these two substitute bank holidays?

Some people will have voted 'NO'. Do you still expect these people to strike?

It is a difficult one, and with a few exceptions I would say generally yes... otherwise what is the point? UINION, the clue is in the name!

 

[Flamingo]

We have two and a half million people unemployed (a figure which keeps rising, despite the economy being out of recession)

We have millions of people having pay freezes (here in South Yorkshire council staff are being asked for a 5% pay cut)

We have millions of people kicked out of final salary pensions

Lots of companies have "outsourced" jobs to Third World countries

We have most companies with a freeze on recruitment (meaning existing staff have to work even harder to cover for colleagues who aren't being replaced)

We have millions of people under threat of losing their job, including compulsory redundancies in (previously "safe") areas like the Police. How many people feel safe in their jobs?

At the same time, Guards have had significant increases in salary since privatisation, they have complete job security, they aren't being asked to take a pay cut, they still have their good pensions, they aren't having to work harder to make up for redundant colleagues...

Can you see why (given the conditions the majority of people are in) it's hard to feel sympathetic for Guards arguing about getting paid extra like this?

And if a TOC was losing money and not increasing fares your argument would have some validity. However, if the TOC has a healthy balance sheet, I personally have no problem expecting the workers as well as the shareholders benefiting from that.

Not every worker in the country is in the position you mentioned. Some businesses are doing very well, and the "It's the recession" or "it's the deficit" line is being trotted out too often for it to apply to every case.

 

[Clip]

Your absolutely right Clip, However I don't think i have contradicted myself, if i belong to a union that negotiates on my behalf, why then should those that don't belong to a union benefit?

They indeed should negotiate their own T&Cs then if they get a better deal it might encourage people to leave the unions and do their own T&Cs therefore everyone will be equal. That would mean you have got your workforce right where you want them and with a broom attached to their appendage to boot.
:

I bet you without any shadow of doubt the unions and their members would kick up more of a stink if non unionised people started negotiating their own T&Cs. But if you think this is a good Idea then why dont we do it? I actually dont see anything wrong with it but you think collective bargaining is the way to do things but you really wouldn't like it if people neg better T&Cs then you were getting and no doubt would go out on strike again.


Which then brings us full circle.

 

[Failed Unit]

I bet you without any shadow of doubt the unions and their members would kick up more of a stink if non unionised people started negotiating their own T&Cs. But if you think this is a good Idea then why dont we do it? I actually dont see anything wrong with it but you think collective bargaining is the way to do things but you really wouldn't like it if people neg better T&Cs then you were getting and no doubt would go out on strike again.


Which then brings us full circle.

Isnt that the reason why the unions won't let people joining today have different terms to those who joined in day 1. For example if Central trains had made all new starts sign contracts with Sunday as part of the working week, the people who didn't lose bargaining power. So let's include Sunday's in the working week - ballot members? Well I don't care as it is in my contract anyway. Only 26% disagree motion carried although it didnt effect 50% of staff. I know in the private sector the have and has not in terms and conditions cause ill-feelings and employers often bully the old school to move by only offering the best perks to those on new terms and conditions.

 

[Legzr1]

so basically your argument is...
because other people are suffering so should everyone else???

Certainly reads that way doesn't it?

 

[scotsman]

Actually i was talking about union members who do not support the unions action rather then non union members (and i will address that at the bottom of this message. Factually it is because these kind of people will slag the union down, say it has done nothing for them (despite 90% of the population wishing they had similar agreements), when the union asks them for support they go and (four letter word that upsets some people so i wont mention it)

A question I was asked in my Modern Studies exam: Why is it important that Union members support union action? (Or words to a simila effect)

 

[Invincibles]

How can that argument be wrong on so many levels, is the cost of living so much different from one side of the pennines to the other, yes that argument would work if say Northern V Southern but once u leave the south Cost of living is not very different at all, simple things like Harmonisation hasn't gone through because of different wages t&c etc on a Pound for Pound level Northern Guards ARE the Lowest paid heck even retail Managers on HST's are on significantly more money and they are not even Safety Critical

So would you rather be a retail manager on a HST? I have a feeling that being a guard is not only about the money that goes into your pocket at the end of the shift.

And when you say Northern what you mean is the ex First North Western side of things has a worse set of working conditions than the former arriva operation? I know I have read comments to that effect on this forum before.

So then how does harmonisation work, to the highest level?

It sounds to me that what the union is asking for is for the lowest end to be raised based on the argument that they are the lowest end?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

So would you rather be a retail manager on a HST? I have a feeling that being a guard is not only about the money that goes into your pocket at the end of the shift.

And when you say Northern what you mean is the ex First North Western side of things has a worse set of working conditions than the former arriva operation? I know I have read comments to that effect on this forum before.

So then how does harmonisation work, to the highest level?

It sounds to me that what the union is asking for is for the lowest end to be raised based on the argument that they are the lowest end?

On a yearly basis there isnt much diff between east & west, the main sticking points were commision rates & Sun/RDW rates (there are numerous small things but I believe those were the biggies so to speak)

 

[GB]

Why is it important that Union members support union action? (Or words to a simila effect)

Becuase otherwise it devalues or undermines the strength of a union.

 

[313103]

I love it. A union is supposed to be there for workers.

Actually Jungle James the union is there for its members, not for all workers, only workers who belong to said union!

But here is someone who doesnt believe non union members should get the same payrise.

Once again you have misread what i have said, and now trying to put words in my mouth. If you do not belong to union why should you benefit from any victory the union gets for its members? If you are that against a union then you should negotiate your own terms and conditions and if you get better T&Cs all power to your elbow.

Well, the company has deemed they deserve the same payrise, so what is wrong in it? Its up to the company, and they have deemed this fair.

No the company hasn't deemed that non union members deserve the same thing. The company pays everyone as they do not know who is in a union and who is not, so everyone gets the same payrise.

If the company offered them less money, I'm pretty sure the union would come out in support of them anyway.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't! If you have a group of staff who are so anti union, would they want and expect the union to support their causes ?

Wouldnt stand by their side in court, but would still slag off the company for it. Well any decent union would, because they are there for the workers. Remember, your subscription fees are there for slightly more than working out payrises.

First point Right they probably wouldnt stand stand by their side in court again why would a union represent workers who are not part of the said union? Yes they would slag off the company. Remind me what a decent union is ? A union that represents its membership or represents those not in a union? My subscription fees pays for my union to help me out with anything work related, it doesnt pay for me to subsidise those who choose not to join a union.

These that dont belong to the union will not get the union sticking up for them against the company if the company is being unfair.

Isn't that what I've been saying throughout this thread? But i am now at a loss now you have said this here because your previous points were not alluding to this.

Being able to say "I have spoken to my union" is often enough to make the company back down. Non union members cant say that if something unfair is happening to them. You also wont get the union backing you up in court.

Again see my point above, however just saying I've spoken to the union often doesnt work like you think it does.

So, stop moaning about non members getting the same payrise. Your fees pay for more than this.

I am not moaning i am stating a point of fact, the fact being that Non union part of workforce should not benefit off the backs of others in order to have an easy life. We are either all in this together or we are all alone there is no half way on this issue.

Also, regarding union members not striking. This is a very difficult decision to make, not striking during an official strike. But it doesnt deserve to be treated differently for.

I understand the exactly what your saying when it comes to striking. I have had to make this decision on more then one occasion so i completely understand what goes through peoples minds. Where the difference lies is if you feel that total solidarity will win the day whereas if the workforce are divided the management will step up its propaganda machine at those groups of staff who are wavering.

Also, the strike depends on a vote. Some people will have voted 'NO'. Do you still expect these people to strike? If Bob Crow deserves to fight for what he believes in, then so do these union members who voted no. They don't believe in it, so they don't do it.

That is quite an analogy to make. Yes a strike depends on the ballot result, just like when i voted in the Government elections, i voted for a party that did not get in, so does that mean i should NOT accept anything the party/parties in power give me or take away from me? Everybody expects a trade union should be totally open and democratic and that is right, but i also expect the government to be likewise. No one in this country was offered a vote as to whether we should have a coalition government, yet we have one and we are all expected to accept it.

However they may still believe belonging to the union is beneficial in the long run, so they still want to be members. Not everyone can agree with each other all the time. Paying union fees does not mean you have to agree with every single union member. If it did people would always be striking, because everyone would vote 'yes' for any little thing.
People have a choice. Let them believe in their choice.
They have had to make a difficult decision to start with, by deciding not to strike. A decision that is made harder by people like you.

I know only to well that people do not agree with each other, if we did forums such as this would not exist. With regard choice see my above statement i don't have a government of choice. We all have choices to make throughout our lifetime some are hard, some are easy. When it comes to a ballot for industrial action it is always a difficult choice. However just like when I'm expected to accept a 'No' vote in this process when i have voted 'Yes' Then those that voted 'No' when a 'Yes' was declared i expect the same conclusion from them.

Oh, and your wrong to make out as if all non strikers who belong to the union will slag off the union or you. A lot do it because its what they believe is right.

I wasn't making out the insinuation that non strikers who belong to union slag off the union or me, trust me they do! Same have had the balls to tell me in my face, that i can accept. Whether they believe it is the right thing to do or not is a decision they alone must make.

 

[Greenback]

If you vote no in a free, secret ballot yet the majority vote yes, then of course, you should go along with the majority. That is what democracy is all about.

 

[scotsman]

Becuase otherwise it devalues or undermines the strength of a union.

Yes, I understand that (expected to get an A at Higher Level) - the point I was making was that it is expected that all Union members support union action

 

[GB]

What do you mean by "support" though? Do you mean that every member is expected to vote yes or do you mean everyone is expected to follow through on what ever action is sactioned?

If its the former than I can say without any doubt this is not the case. If its the latter then I refer to my previous post.

 

[Invincibles]

On a yearly basis there isnt much diff between east & west, the main sticking points were commision rates & Sun/RDW rates (there are numerous small things but I believe those were the biggies so to speak)

OK so really it is the harmonisation of the terms and conditions more than the pay that is the issue.

As someone often caught out by the ticket office at Deansgate I can imagine Northern would want my ticket revenue (although I would usually take TPE) when I travel to Preston.

I think it is something of a distraction to discuss the terms and conditions for the higher paid HST retail manager as it is really a different job.

My own feeling is that Bob Crow always portrays the markets as being about money yet I have never read an economics text book that says that they are (and I do read a lot of economics textbooks) so what the public are seeing is a lot of talk about more money at a time when more money is not on the table for most people. Further that this is seen as a right to catch up with people at the higher level rather than an aspiration after a process is a little bit at odds with the economic situation in the country.

If indeed the market needs a union to promote the interests of a group, so increasing their relative power in that market, then yes it has to be an effective threat to have any power. That is simple economics.

 

[scotsman]

What do you mean by "support" though? Do you mean that every member is expected to vote yes or do you mean everyone is expected to follow through on what ever action is sactioned?

If its the former than I can say without any doubt this is not the case. If its the latter then I refer to my previous post.

The answer would be because maintains the strength of the union, as a majority have voted for action. Therefore, the others shouls respect the democracy and support the action.

 

[Greenback]

What do you mean by "support" though? Do you mean that every member is expected to vote yes or do you mean everyone is expected to follow through on what ever action is sactioned?

If its the former than I can say without any doubt this is not the case. If its the latter then I refer to my previous post.

I fevery member is told (as opposed to recommended) which way to vote there is something deeply wrong with that union, as it would be completely undemocratic.

 

[CarterUSM]

The answer would be because maintains the strength of the union, as a majority have voted for action. Therefore, the others shouls respect the democracy and support the action.

Of course they should, but as I found out earlier on this year during our DOO dispute, some of the "no" voters weren't happy with a vast majority "yes" vote, and thus withdrew from the union and came into their work instead. I'd have more respect if they withdrew before they voted.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

OK so really it is the harmonisation of the terms and conditions more than the pay that is the issue.

As someone often caught out by the ticket office at Deansgate I can imagine Northern would want my ticket revenue (although I would usually take TPE) when I travel to Preston.

I think it is something of a distraction to discuss the terms and conditions for the higher paid HST retail manager as it is really a different job.

My own feeling is that Bob Crow always portrays the markets as being about money yet I have never read an economics text book that says that they are (and I do read a lot of economics textbooks) so what the public are seeing is a lot of talk about more money at a time when more money is not on the table for most people. Further that this is seen as a right to catch up with people at the higher level rather than an aspiration after a process is a little bit at odds with the economic situation in the country.

If indeed the market needs a union to promote the interests of a group, so increasing their relative power in that market, then yes it has to be an effective threat to have any power. That is simple economics.

its the small things that add up, for example (now I am assuming to a point here as im not 100% certain) West side we get no walking time so say we pull in on platform 14 at picc and we have a 30 minute pnb we are expected to walk to 3rd floor in the west building heat/cook the food, eat it and walk back to your train (we get approx 5-10 minutes to actually eat, whereas the east getting walking time i think its only about 5 mins each way but it makes all the difference

 

[GB]

The answer would be because maintains the strength of the union, as a majority have voted for action. Therefore, the others shouls respect the democracy and support the action.

Which is pretty much the point I was making...minus the democracy part.

I fevery member is told (as opposed to recommended) which way to vote there is something deeply wrong with that union, as it would be completely undemocratic.

I don't think I said otherwise. I certainly did not imply that members should be told which way to vote.

 

[Greenback]

I realise that. I was merely saying it before someone tried to claim that this is what normally happens!

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Well as the power of all knowledge Barlow Boy what is happening in the real world?

In the real world out there thanks to the last Labour government taking away the Bank of England controls on the banks they were left to run riot. People were encouraged to spend other people's (ie the bank's) money using credit cards that were secured against assets that they didn't yet own (their houses). As a result the entire country is in hock. Gordon Brown didn't lose control as some have suggested, he never really had control in the first place over a massively strong economy that he inherited and about which his cohort Bliar had to finally admit that "we just got lucky". Meanwhile Bliar had commited us to an illegal war in Iraq and an unwinnable war in Afghanistan (history, it always comes back to bite you) that is bleeding us dry of money and youth. To gain more finances the mean son of unwed parents then went on a pensions raid which was of a size that put the crook Maxwell in the shade. Don't forget too that it was Bliar and his mob - no doubt urged on by his money grubbing wife and other lawyers on the make - who presed so hard for the Human Rights act to be introduced. How much has that cost in both money and more importantly, basic standards. The Tories privatisation of the railways doesn't come anywhere near the catastophic Labour sell-offs of the utility groups and airports to foreign companies that are mostly in debt themselves. That's just the tip of the national debt that we're in and the best a simpleton like Crow can come up with is calls for national strikes!
Like I said, he lives - like all socialists - in an airy fairy dream world.

 

[Zoe]

Like I said, he lives - like all socialists - in an airy fairy dream world.

Sorry but socialist is one thing I certainly would not call New Labour.

 

[Greenback]

In the real world out there thanks to the last Labour government taking away the Bank of England controls on the banks they were left to run riot. People were encouraged to spend other people's (ie the bank's) money using credit cards that were secured against assets that they didn't yet own (their houses). As a result the entire country is in hock. Gordon Brown didn't lose control as some have suggested, he never really had control in the first place over a massively strong economy that he inherited and about which his cohort Bliar had to finally admit that "we just got lucky". Meanwhile Bliar had commited us to an illegal war in Iraq and an unwinnable war in Afghanistan (history, it always comes back to bite you) that is bleeding us dry of money and youth. To gain more finances the mean son of unwed parents then went on a pensions raid which was of a size that put the crook Maxwell in the shade. Don't forget too that it was Bliar and his mob - no doubt urged on by his money grubbing wife and other lawyers on the make - who presed so hard for the Human Rights act to be introduced. How much has that cost in both money and more importantly, basic standards. The Tories privatisation of the railways doesn't come anywhere near the catastophic Labour sell-offs of the utility groups and airports to foreign companies that are mostly in debt themselves. That's just the tip of the national debt that we're in and the best a simpleton like Crow can come up with is calls for national strikes!
Like I said, he lives - like all socialists - in an airy fairy dream world.

The central points you make are pretty sound, but your argument could do without the petty party political points scoring and personal attacks. Most people are thoroughly sick of that side of politics!

As I have said elsewhere, none of the Tory leaders made many calls for more regulation of the banks, and I doubt things would have been very different under a different coloured government. We would still have had a banking crisis, and we would still have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but socialist is one thing I certainly would not call New Labour.

Agreed, though I think he was referring more to Bob Crow rather than Labour!

Now, can we go back on topic?!!