are industrial disputes ever legit?

torontoboy45

I'm bored bored bored with the dregs of this festive season and I've got a cold. mrs. toronto is hammering away at her laptop, catching up with work, which makes me persona non grata in my own house.

a few days ago I got involved in a bunfight over on the public transport board re the tube strike and it all got a bit silly (on both sides of the argument).

so with no info on the core subject of this board I'd lke to make small talk here (where generally speaking posters tend to be a bit savvier).

no point-scoring, please; no hysterical rants. just rational POV stuff.

to expand upon the question: are there any conceivable circs where industrial action is justifiable?

even I'll try to be nice, I promise:D.

mbga9pgf

Safety critical stuff.

For example, aircrew working hours. BALPA hasnt needed to strike,as they had the scientific basis to ensure UK flight time regualations were enforced.

If an employer wasnt meeting "as low are reasonably practicable" Risk practices, then Idaresay I would support action.

StevieJ

In a word YES :eek:

The strike was caused by the poor working conditions in the match factory, including fourteen-hour work days, poor pay, excessive fines, and the severe health complications of working with white phosphorus, such as phossy jaw,[1] but was sparked by the dismissal of one of the workers on or about 2 July 1888.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888

torontoboy45

StevieJ wrote: »

In a word YES :eek:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888

thanks for pointing out the historical evidence, although h and s legislation down the decades have rendered industrial action in this area redundant (I think).

mbga9pgf

Unfortunately, unless people take action, allH+S legislation does is mop up the mess and prosecute after there is a serious accident.

Generali

There are many strikes which are well justified, generally these days when employers try to force employees to break the law or not fulfill their side of the contract.

Then there are those which are not, eg politically motivated strikes aiming to circumvent democracy. Iirc Mr Scarghill put a motion to the TUC in 1987 calling for a General Strike with the aim of bringing down the Government.

torontoboy45

Generali wrote: »

There are many strikes which are well justified, generally these days when employers try to force employees to break the law or not fulfill their side of the contract.

Then there are those which are not, eg politically motivated strikes aiming to circumvent democracy. Iirc Mr Scarghill put a motion to the TUC in 1987 calling for a General Strike with the aim of bringing down the Government.

thank you for the input gen. but I'm more concerned with peeps perceptions of industrial disputes a la 21st c. as opposed to the commie larks of 25yrs ago (which, arguably damaged the raison d'etre of collectivism almost fatally and without the help of employment laws).

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

There are many strikes which are well justified, generally these days when employers try to force employees to break the law or not fulfill their side of the contract.

Then there are those which are not, eg politically motivated strikes aiming to circumvent democracy. Iirc Mr Scarghill put a motion to the TUC in 1987 calling for a General Strike with the aim of bringing down the Government.

You mean the govt that was hell bent on closing mines and putting his union members out of work :eek:

A._Badger

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean the govt that was hell bent on closing mines and putting his union members out of work :eek:

But why was the government 'hell bent' on that course of action?

Things don't happen in isolation.

Backbiter

A._Badger wrote: »

But why was the government 'hell bent' on that course of action?

Things don't happen in isolation.

Revenge for 1974?

julieq

Insurance costs are a far more effective driver of EHS practice in companies than unions. Hence even non-unionised firms have extremely stringent EHS regulations, because companies are liable to being sued by individuals.

It's oversimplistic to say that the Thatcher government was hell bent on closing mines for political reasons, but equally oversimplistic to suggest that that wasn't part of the objective. At that time, unions held disproportionate power and hugely restrictive working practices imposed as a result were destroying the competitiveness of the country. It was necessary to unwind union power by hitting a large and visible target, but at the same time the mining industry existed only because of large scale subsidies which we were all having to pay for. Scargill was therefore both a symbolic and a practical target.

You can't really object to unions engaging in politics, it's in the nature of the beast, and they are an important factor in providing a voice and legal protection to parts of the workforce. But because they often engage in rather dumb populism it's important that some of the claims they make are held up to scrutiny. It's about checks and balances, and the world would be an unfairer place without unions balancing the power of employers.