you have to admire the filthy tube scum/drivers

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

True, but I would suspect there is an amount of the NUM and ASLEF trying to prove who is the hardest in this case.
Virtual quadruple time on a salary approaching 50k for working boxing day is ridiculous.
I would suspect a lot of time and effort is now being put into the viability of driverless trains due to these actions.

I agree. I was just responding to the rather simplistic 'Unions = SCUM' comment. As with all issues on here, it isn't that black and white. Some union leaders appear to like nothing better than hold people to ransom and play politcal games, but at the other end of the spectrum you have people who care and are supporting employees through issues. Without the union it would be difficult for them to get that support.

torontoboy45

Cleaver wrote: »

I agree. I was just responding to the rather simplistic 'Unions = SCUM' comment. As with all issues on here, it isn't that black and white. Some union leaders appear to like nothing better than hold people to ransom and play politcal games, but at the other end of the spectrum you have people who care and are supporting employees through issues. Without the union it would be difficult for them to get that support.

nail. head.on.

but it's no good trying to explain to the rabid, mouth-foaming express/mail believing myopics on here that the issues aren't that 'black and white'. these people don't see shades of grey because -by and large - they can't.

TU's are a bad thing led by bad people, right? they must be, because rupert murdoch, richard desmond and paul dacre say so. they've being telling us for yrs.

but the big lie, told often enough...

heathcote123

Cleaver wrote: »

I agree. I was just responding to the rather simplistic 'Unions = SCUM' comment. As with all issues on here, it isn't that black and white. Some union leaders appear to like nothing better than hold people to ransom and play politcal games, but at the other end of the spectrum you have people who care and are supporting employees through issues. Without the union it would be difficult for them to get that support.

You go to work, you do your job, and get paid. Most people manage this perfectly well without a union. They just seem to be there to extort employers.

movilogo

They are just shooting their own feet. If they behaved like gentlemen then we would have voiced against driverless train due to job loss it will create. But for these scums, I do think they should be sacked and new drivers should be recruited. But that will be too daring for our spineless politicians.

If sacking them is illegal, change the law so that it becomes legal. Simple.

Cleaver

heathcote123 wrote: »

You go to work, you do your job, and get paid. Most people manage this perfectly well without a union. They just seem to be there to extort employers.

You're completely correct, most people can manage this perfectly well without a union. However, there are some that can't, for a variety of reasons, and then a union representative can be really useful.

As an example, there was a cleaner employed at my last organisation. She didn't speak much English, which was common at my old organisation as English natives weren't keen on taking cleaning jobs, so we tended to employ recent immigrants. She was accused by another member of staff of stealing. Cut a long story short, there was no proof and, knowing the history of the accuser, the allegations were probably false. The organisation investigated and I'm not sure this lady would have coped without the support and guidance of her union. She knew very few people in the country, didn't speak much of the language and was highly distressed by the whole experience. The union representative was able to offer translation support, employment law support and be her voice against something she'd been accused off. She couldn't have afforded this support any other way and she kept her job.

More confident and assured people can cope with this type of stuff themselves, but many cannot. It's this side of unions we never see, and you can bet that cases such as the one above are currently playing out at hundreds of organisations.

Don't get me wrong, unions can be a complete pain in the ar*e and although I am eligable to join a union I haven't as I don't agree with the leader of that union. But for some they are a vital support network.

With specific regard to your line in bold, this is essentially the union you see on the news. Channel 4 news aren't really interested in reporting a story where a teaching assistant was being beaten by her husband and the union supported her when she was struggling in her performance at work.

Cleaver

movilogo wrote: »

If sacking them is illegal, change the law so that it becomes legal. Simple.

You would be favour of a law that allowed employers to sack employees for any reason they liked? Or to put it another way, for no given reason?

A._Badger

torontoboy45 wrote: »

nail. head.on.

but it's no good trying to explain to the rabid, mouth-foaming express/mail believing myopics on here that the issues aren't that 'black and white'. these people don't see shades of grey because -by and large - they can't.

TU's are a bad thing led by bad people, right? they must be, because rupert murdoch, richard desmond and paul dacre say so. they've being telling us for yrs.

but the big lie, told often enough...

I love the way the Left puffs up its chest in faux outrage, as it it is not exactly the mirror image of this characterisation.

If you read the Guardian, Indy or Mirror - or listen to the BBC - you'd get the exact opposite load of biased tripe.

Pot, kettle, back.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

You would be favour of a law that allowed employers to sack employees for any reason they liked? Or to put it another way, for no given reason?

I would not have a problem with that.
Generally if an employee is behaving themselves and making an organisation money they would be secure.
I do not see the argument where an employer should have to go on paying someone a rate for a job when there are others queing up who are perfectly willing and capable of doing it for a lower rate.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

I would not have a problem with that.

Just to clarify, you'd have no problem with having a law that states that employers can just sack anyone at will?

So, for example, a new manager comes in who is racist and sacks all black people. That would be okay?

Or, an employee reveals the support Liverpool and their Manchester United supporting boss sacks them.

Or a woman becomes pregnant, so the company sack them.

You'd be okay with all that?

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

Just to clarify, you'd have no problem with having a law that states that employers can just sack anyone at will?

So, for example, a new manager comes in who is racist and sacks all black people. That would be okay?

Or, an employee reveals the support Liverpool and their Manchester United supporting boss sacks them.

Or a woman becomes pregnant, so the company sack them.

You'd be okay with all that?

Racist acts are illegal, the rest are around employment law.

Why should an employer not be able to let a woman go for getting pregnant? She will be of little use to them for quite a long period.