The Sun: No-strike plan for transport workers

[jimm]

There's 10 which are 100% owned by local authorities according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_bus_companies

Also, while they seem to being phased out some councils who don't operate their own bus services generally purchased some yellow school buses and own and operate them.

Don't think there's any question of them being "phased out". Those councils withstood heavy pressure to sell out to private firms throughout the latter years of the Thatcher regime after deregulation of buses outside London in 1986, and the Major government as well, and have shown no signs since of changing their minds.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's 10 which are 100% owned by local authorities according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_bus_companies

Looking at the link submitted where Nottingham has a 17% share owned by Trans-Dev, has the Trans-Dev parent company made any decision on their financial holding in that, as they appear to be in the process of reviewing all group operational matters in Europe ?

 

[ffm]

I support the right to withdraw labour as part of an organised strike as a last resort in an industrial dispute. Before it gets to that stage both sides should be bound into an arbitration process and a quorum of 50%+1 of the unions membership should vote in the ballot.

I am employed in a line of work where there is no right to strike with disputes being resolved through arbitration. It has seen inequitable decisions forced upon my terms and conditions with no right of recourse, and as a result a collapse in morale and a withdrawal of goodwill.

As hex says the same rule should then apply to all political elections, should it not? The recent PCC elections would have been unanimously disregarded, as not one reached the quota the position suggested. You have fallen into the Boris and Tory trap of believing how democratic that is! If 51%, or more, of the membership choose not to vote then they must not be ignored. They chose not to vote, that is their democratic right. To then say the vote is void denies them their rights. Should we make voting a legal requirement in ALL elections, if so how will you enforce this and then do we have to have a 'chose not to decide' option, just so we can find out how many wanted to abstain? Then is the vote valid if more than half vote abstain? Totally absurd. If you still think that the quorate position is required then consider parliament,the place where a law requiring this would have to be enacted. It does not require 50%+1 to pass an act.......

 

[Ferret]

Fireftrm, I'm a Union member, and I've never understood why some members don't vote! I mean, if you pay your subs to gain a vote, then you may as well use the ruddy thing, surely?!

 

[jon0844]

Should we make voting a legal requirement in ALL elections, if so how will you enforce this and then do we have to have a 'chose not to decide' option, just so we can find out how many wanted to abstain? Then is the vote valid if more than half vote abstain? Totally absurd.

I'm not sure how compulsory voting for ordinary people would work (as against a union member where you could quite easily make it a condition of membership) but do think less people would abstain if they HAD to vote than simply wouldn't vote because they couldn't be bothered.

I am conscious of the potential for fraud with other voting methods, like SMS or over the net, but even though I do postal voting (and would recommend everyone to do it this way) even that requires taking the time to get all the papers right, fold it this way, stick it in that way and take it to the post box (probably one of the ONLY things I ever post these days!).

People are generally lazy these days (having become used to everything being so easy) and so I'm sure not all of them didn't want to vote.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't think there's any question of them being "phased out". Those councils withstood heavy pressure to sell out to private firms throughout the latter years of the Thatcher regime after deregulation of buses outside London in 1986, and the Major government as well, and have shown no signs since of changing their minds.

I was referring to councils who didn't still operate the local bus operations themselves purchasing yellow school buses (when Tony Blair was PM), operating them themselves but then stopping the yellow bus operations to save money (since David Cameron has become PM.)

 

[ffm]

Just revisiting the union-bashing 50%+1 idiots.....how would the local council elections fare in their right wing ideal? Badly. 31% turnout would, of course, mean no councillor elected at all. Now please respond to how unions should be forced to have such a turnout,yet politicians don't?

 

[notadriver]

Simply because many are jealous of transport workers and/or believe they are lower than scum and are lucky to have a job.

 

[SS4]

Simply because many are jealous of transport workers and/or believe they are lower than scum and are lucky to have a job.

I've long said it comes down to jealousy or inconvenience. I'd bet all those slagging off the transport workers would love to be in a strong union. Once PCS is dealt with the government will be after the RMT

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

Because the Tories are not in power - it is a coalition and the LibDems are keeping the looney right wing in check.

Mind you, if UKIP get some power in the next General Election you can expect some union bashing - they call it "common sense politics".
And goodbye HS2.

 

[asylumxl]

Because the Tories are not in power - it is a coalition and the LibDems are keeping the looney right wing in check.

If that's what helps you sleep at night, you believe that ...

 

[tbtc]

Simply because many are jealous of transport workers and/or believe they are lower than scum and are lucky to have a job.

I've long said it comes down to jealousy or inconvenience. I'd bet all those slagging off the transport workers would love to be in a strong union

Similarly anyone criticising Bankers bonuses are just bitter that they aren't a banker?

Because the Tories are not in power - it is a coalition and the LibDems are keeping the looney right wing in check

Not doing a great job at keeping them in check, if you ask most LibDem voters (I used to be one). At least threatening to bash Unions is the kind of thing that tends to go down well with the "traditional" element of Tory support, which is why I'm surprised that the party haven't found a way of mobilising this.

 

[Oswyntail]

Just revisiting the union-bashing 50%+1 idiots.....how would the local council elections fare in their right wing ideal? Badly. 31% turnout would, of course, mean no councillor elected at all. Now please respond to how unions should be forced to have such a turnout,yet politicians don't?

As has been discussed at length in another thread recently, there is a significant difference between electing a representative such as an MP (where an abstention means, effectively "No preference", so lower turnouts are acceptable - the vote does not actually commit anyone to any action) and voting for a course of action. In the latter it is unclear whether an abstention is for the action, against the action, or "no view", and that is why "50%+1" is an important idea. If you allow a vote for an action to be carried simply on a majority of votes cast it gives an unfair advantage to those who wish to take that action.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.... At least threatening to bash Unions is the kind of thing that tends to go down well with the "traditional" element of Tory support, which is why I'm surprised that the party haven't found a way of mobilising this.

It could be because the party is actually trying to distance itself from the "traditional" element (which is not actually a "traditional" element at all).

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As has been discussed at length in another thread recently, there is a significant difference between electing a representative such as an MP (where an abstention means, effectively "No preference", so lower turnouts are acceptable - the vote does not actually commit anyone to any action) and voting for a course of action. In the latter it is unclear whether an abstention is for the action, against the action, or "no view", and that is why "50%+1" is an important idea. If you allow a vote for an action to be carried simply on a majority of votes cast it gives an unfair advantage to those who wish to take that action.

If you can't be bothered to vote then that person only has themselves and like minded individuals to blame if the vote does not go in their favour. I really don't know why simply having a majority vote is seen as unfair to some posters.

 

[ffm]

Oswyntail - why is the election of a representative different? Why does an abstention mean 'no preference'? If I abstain in an election I may well be saying that I am happy to go with the flow, the no preference, or that I think it worthless voting (the Labour voter in a very safe Tory seat?). The abstention cannot be treated as anything other than it is, that being a choice to not vote, to which everyone is entitled. In a ballot for industrial action the same applies. If I chose not to vote and a large number of colleagues do the same that does not remove the democracy of the situation at all. Why should my choice then be thrust upon others?

You use one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever come across, to justify your view - that being

If you allow a vote for an action to be carried simply on a majority of votes cast it gives an unfair advantage to those who wish to take that action

. Just why does that give those who vote for action an unfair advantage? If the others, who are eligible to vote, don't want action then they have a right and ability to vote against! Your argument is so easily transposed to 'If you allow a majority (5%+1) rule to apply then the abstainers suddenly become no voters and this removes their democratic right not to choose. the result being to give an extreme advantage to the no camp.' Of course that is exactly what the management and Tory fat cats want, keep the workers where they belong...under then thumb and with no power to complain. They should be lucky to have a job, more pay, rights, leave? Bah humbug!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Didn't Boris (who seems very keen on this 50%+1 thing) get elected as Mayor of London with about 20% of the vote?

 

[ffm]

38.1% turnout, so 61.9% abstained. He received 51.5% of the actual votes, which included second preferences. He had 44 % of first choice votes. So yes less than 1/5th of the electorate voted fir him. Of course I defend the right of the six in ten who chose not to vote and the election result. But the same rights apply in any democratic process and a union ballot is just that.....

 

[RichmondCommu]

Similarly anyone criticising Bankers bonuses are just bitter that they aren't a banker?

Well exactly! And believe me working for an investment bank is not the bed of roses that people on here assume it to be!

 

[Greenback]

I be that in general people are not keen on bonuses for failure. Although it has been fuelled by the media, what opponents to bankers bonuses see is money being paid out to employees while the bank is struggling. If a bonus is meant to be a reward for success, why is it being paid when results are poor?

At least, that's how I view it.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Sun journalists are always happy to inform you of how much people earn but when asked how much they themsleves earn respond with 'It's none of your bloody business'.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I be that in general people are not keen on bonuses for failure. Although it has been fuelled by the media, what opponents to bankers bonuses see is money being paid out to employees while the bank is struggling. If a bonus is meant to be a reward for success, why is it being paid when results are poor?
At least, that's how I view it.

HR departments like to personalise bonus incentives so that it is pass or fail for the individual.
As soon as you introduce "corporate" results into the equation you dilute the individual incentive.
I've worked in organisations where the bonus system pulled in both directions at once and destroyed the team effort.
And once your salary deals are skewed to high bonuses its very hard to wean people off them.
You end up consolidating bonus into salary which means high pay regardless.

 

[island]

I be that in general people are not keen on bonuses for failure. Although it has been fuelled by the media, what opponents to bankers bonuses see is money being paid out to employees while the bank is struggling. If a bonus is meant to be a reward for success, why is it being paid when results are poor?

At least, that's how I view it.

In the past, bonuses were heavily discretionary and paid essentially if your manager thought you did a good job. The rise of employment-related legal cases meant that they had to start taking more care. Additionally, activist shareholders demanded that particular mathematical formulae be satisfied as a condition of giving out bonuses to top management, rather than being at anyone's discretion. What has happened in some companies is that the targets, which may have related to cost reduction, customer service, delivery of a major programme, or sales as well as profits (and required, say, four out of six targets to be met), became fixed with no wiggle room, and these might have been mathematically met, triggering the bonus. The company was then completely tied up in knots and could not back out of it.

 

[northwichcat]

I be that in general people are not keen on bonuses for failure. Although it has been fuelled by the media, what opponents to bankers bonuses see is money being paid out to employees while the bank is struggling. If a bonus is meant to be a reward for success, why is it being paid when results are poor?

At least, that's how I view it.

The argument given against a ban on bank issuing bonuses except where there is an improvement in financial position is that if results from customer surveys show that people are happier with the branch staff than 12 months ago, some of whom are on around £15,000 per annum, then can the branch staff not have a bonus for improved performance even if the bank is less profitable than 12 months ago.

 

[ffm]

The real reason we are against bank bonuses is that they are excessive. They smack of greed, indeed I suggest that is exactly what they are. Furthermore the government used £500 Billion to bail out the various banks in 2008. This is over a third of our national debt and guess who is paying the price? The bankers? No. The rest of us.So any sympathy for bankers, or feeling that theirs is not a bed of roses? None at all. Just be lucky to have a job, accept no pay rises for the same period as others and never consider a bonus. Once the public has all its money back and the economy is thriving then maybe, but also make sure that you never get as greedy as you did in the 80s, 90s and 00s again.

 

[MacRae13]

As has been discussed at length in another thread recently, there is a significant difference between electing a representative such as an MP (where an abstention means, effectively "No preference", so lower turnouts are acceptable - the vote does not actually commit anyone to any action) and voting for a course of action. In the latter it is unclear whether an abstention is for the action, against the action, or "no view", and that is why "50%+1" is an important idea. If you allow a vote for an action to be carried simply on a majority of votes cast it gives an unfair advantage to those who wish to take that action.

What a laugh.

 

[tbtc]

I be that in general people are not keen on bonuses for failure. Although it has been fuelled by the media, what opponents to bankers bonuses see is money being paid out to employees while the bank is struggling. If a bonus is meant to be a reward for success, why is it being paid when results are poor?

At least, that's how I view it.

I keep getting told on here that I'm not allowed an opinion on rail staff because I'm not one (and must therefore be bitter/ jealous/ envious etc etc ), so I thought I'd apply the same "logic" to bankers.

 

[A-driver]

I keep getting told on here that I'm not allowed an opinion on rail staff because I'm not one (and must therefore be bitter/ jealous/ envious etc etc ), so I thought I'd apply the same "logic" to bankers.

I don't see any issue with people forming opinions of rail staff on here and I don't think anyone else does either.

What I do object to though is the constant trolling by people who post without having ANY of the facts correct, let alone all of them.

In order to make a valid post you need to have facts backing it up. When someone from outside the industry says 'train driving is easy and drivers are overpaid as their unions bully management' its a stupid post as there is not factual content to it!

 

[island]

If you allow a vote for an action to be carried simply on a majority of votes cast it gives an unfair advantage to those who wish to take that action.

But if you require a majority of those balloted in order to carry a vote, you deny the option to abstain to people who do not have a strong opinion or who are happy to fall in with the majority, giving an unfair advantage to those who oppose that action.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

Good old comrade Bob can always be relied upon to quote his favourite "Fascist" dictators as an example of worker suppression, but once again, he reveals his customary "blind-spot" about another comrade from Soviet Russia, good old Uncle Jo Stalin, who most surely would have gone out of his way to ensure that rail workers got his full backing in any attempt to withdraw their labour. Indeed, he would have ensured that the NKVD and their compassionate employees would personally have gone into Ukraine to ensure that extra food rations were obtained for those rail staff to help them through the dispute.....

.....or not, as may have been the case.

 

[Greenback]

HR departments like to personalise bonus incentives so that it is pass or fail for the individual.

Everywhere I have worked it has been the case that there was a very small element of personal performance related bonus payment (if any), but a huge dependence on the organisation meeting its Key Performance Indicators for the year.

As soon as you introduce "corporate" results into the equation you dilute the individual incentive.

The theory was that if everyone performs at a satisfactory level or above, then the organisation will do well. That's clearly not always the case, and I have no argument with someone earning a small bonus if they have performed exceptionally over the course of a year despite the organisation struggling.

What we have in the banking industry, though, seems to be a culture where bonuses can be very high for some, and seemingly only based on individual targets and performance. I think that is what people find objectionable.

I've worked in organisations where the bonus system pulled in both directions at once and destroyed the team effort.
And once your salary deals are skewed to high bonuses its very hard to wean people off them.
You end up consolidating bonus into salary which means high pay regardless.

I bow to your own personal knowledge about team effort being destroyed. Perhaps the balance between the individual and corporate results was not right?

In the past, bonuses were heavily discretionary and paid essentially if your manager thought you did a good job. The rise of employment-related legal cases meant that they had to start taking more care. Additionally, activist shareholders demanded that particular mathematical formulae be satisfied as a condition of giving out bonuses to top management, rather than being at anyone's discretion. What has happened in some companies is that the targets, which may have related to cost reduction, customer service, delivery of a major programme, or sales as well as profits (and required, say, four out of six targets to be met), became fixed with no wiggle room, and these might have been mathematically met, triggering the bonus. The company was then completely tied up in knots and could not back out of it.

Yes, I can see how our increasing litigation culture has impacted on the system of bonuses.

The argument given against a ban on bank issuing bonuses except where there is an improvement in financial position is that if results from customer surveys show that people are happier with the branch staff than 12 months ago, some of whom are on around £15,000 per annum, then can the branch staff not have a bonus for improved performance even if the bank is less profitable than 12 months ago.

I am not against that, provided that the bonus is proportionate to salary and clearly linked to significantly improved performance within the unit.

I don't think it would be right to pay double or treble the salary if, for example, overall customer satisfaction with the branch had improved from 52% to 54%. If the target was to get the satisfaction up to 65%, which would result in a 5% bonus, or 70% for a 10% bonus payment, then that would be different!

The real reason we are against bank bonuses is that they are excessive. They smack of greed, indeed I suggest that is exactly what they are. Furthermore the government used £500 Billion to bail out the various banks in 2008. This is over a third of our national debt and guess who is paying the price? The bankers? No. The rest of us.So any sympathy for bankers, or feeling that theirs is not a bed of roses? None at all. Just be lucky to have a job, accept no pay rises for the same period as others and never consider a bonus. Once the public has all its money back and the economy is thriving then maybe, but also make sure that you never get as greedy as you did in the 80s, 90s and 00s again.

I can't argue against much of that. even if it is factually incorrect, it's how many people feel when they are being told that 'we are all in it together' then hear about seven figure bonuses for some in the industry.

I keep getting told on here that I'm not allowed an opinion on rail staff because I'm not one (and must therefore be bitter/ jealous/ envious etc etc ), so I thought I'd apply the same "logic" to bankers.

You are entitled to have an opinion, and to express it, provided that it is not in contravention of the forum rules!