are industrial disputes ever legit?

vivatifosi

olly300 wrote: »

If there is a safety reason why they are striking then I'm all ears. Would you seriously like to be on a plane without enough crew to ensure you are safe?

If there was a safety implication from reducing the number of attendants on a flight, the CAA would be down on the airline like a ton of bricks. UK airlines have an excellent safety record and much has been done to improve it since the 1980s when we did have losses of lives on UK planes and again since 2001 when flying started to be about security. Flight attendants may well have legitimate issues, but safety is not one of them.

ERICS_MUM

julieq wrote: »

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.

Thank you for such a clearly written and unbiased post. I've book marked it if you don't mind.

Linda

abaxas

Just an 'interesting fact'.

In the current round of potential government redundancies. One of the factors used is 'time off work without pay'.

So if you are a member of the unions and have gone on strike, the chances of being made redundant are increased.

Before everyone says 'you cant do that'. The answer is 'yes you can'.

ERICS_MUM

I remember my history teacher at school telling us that only "slaves" did not have the choice to withdraw their labour.

I know this has moved on now and certain professions such as the police, armed forces etc are not allowed to strike, but I think the general principle still holds. (although obviously public and government support is influenced by why and how the strikes are staged and how they are resolved. )

vivatifosi

abaxas wrote: »

Just an 'interesting fact'.

In the current round of potential government redundancies. One of the factors used is 'time off work without pay'.

So if you are a member of the unions and have gone on strike, the chances of being made redundant are increased.

Before everyone says 'you cant do that'. The answer is 'yes you can'.

Out of interest abaxas, where did you hear that? I'm curious as I work in local government and haven't seen that anywhere.

StevieJ

EdgEy wrote: »

If your management is breaking the law, then sue.
The days of the Radium Girls are long gone.

Striking is more likely to make you look bad in the eyes of the public and your employer.
I know when I turn on the news and see cabin staff whining about 16 instead of 17 staff or whatever I think what a bunch of cocks, we have millions in this country trying to find work and you're being a !!!!ant.

There will be millions more if 16 becomes 15 then 14 etc :eek:

olly300

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

I remember my history teacher at school telling us that only "slaves" did not have the choice to withdraw their labour.

I know this has moved on now and certain professions such as the police, armed forces etc are not allowed to strike, but I think the general principle still holds. (although obviously public and government support is influenced by why and how the strikes are staged and how they are resolved. )

Nothing to stop the police and prison officers all to call in sick at the same time like the Spanish Air Traffic Controllers before XMas.

Unfortunately it's a bit difficult if you are in the armed forces plus they are taught to put their lives on the line for each other.

olly300

abaxas wrote: »

Just an 'interesting fact'.

In the current round of potential government redundancies. One of the factors used is 'time off work without pay'.

So if you are a member of the unions and have gone on strike, the chances of being made redundant are increased.

Before everyone says 'you cant do that'. The answer is 'yes you can'.

You can't make someone redundant for just being an active member of a trade union or a union rep.

Well you can but expect them to take you to an employment tribunal costing you a lot of money in legal fees even if the ex-employee can't prove it.

abaxas

olly300 wrote: »

You can't make someone redundant for just being an active member of a trade union or a union rep.

Well you can but expect them to take you to an employment tribunal costing you a lot of money in legal fees even if the ex-employee can't prove it.

Agreed,

But you can use attendance as a method of deciding who is going to go.

They may be linked, but they are not the same.

AndyGuil

Automate the underground completely like they do in other countries, bring it into the 21st century.