Brighton 2012. The Strike Olympics.

Loughton_Monkey

Now the 'Silly Season' is over, and before the party conferences, a really gay time is to be had in Brighton, with the smelly brigade uniting to overthrow the Imperialist Coalition Force of Evil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19535367

Apart from enjoying the fervent rantings from this bunch of complete time wasters, the main question on my mind is whether or not they have the appetite for a "Winter of Discontent".

I am convinced that they don't need to partake in too much strike activity before Cameron will change the strike rules. Add on a clause that says 50% or more of staff [unionised or not] of any employer must vote for a strike. This would effectively ban strikes forever.

They will be bleating about wage freezes (when they are lucky enough to have a job in the first place, at any salary). They will be bleating about pensions (when they are just about the only constituency left to have final salary pensions), and they will be bleating about Universal Credit (when this is more the domain of the poor sods who haven't got a job. Unlike these idle idiots.)

So come on!

Let's fill at least 5 pages of this thread with complete venom, insults, and abuse for the Trade Unionists, all of whom should be 'transported' to North Korea to experience first hand the 'perfect government' that they promulgate for this country.

michaels

Hmm - one bit of your analysis that I can disagree with is your expectation of DC's behaviour - given the number of u-turns this govt have made of late I would expect him to blink first.

Loughton_Monkey

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - one bit of your analysis that I can disagree with is your expectation of DC's behaviour - given the number of u-turns this govt have made of late I would expect him to blink first.

You are right. But I was assuming his position on the waiting list for a backbone transplant is getting near to the top.

Yorkie1

I can't see there being the appetite for mass strikes among the full range of public sector unions these days, compared to last November.

Loughton_Monkey

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I can't see there being the appetite for mass strikes among the full range of public sector unions these days, compared to last November.

Sure?

The Congress will see debates on holding strike action over freezes to public sector wages, with marches planned for October in London, Glasgow and Belfast.

Personally, I'd lower their wages. Give them something to strike about.

andyroberts1967

I'm one of the civil servants who will be happy to take part in any forthcoming action, particularly if it is focused on pay and pensions. I understand that a lot of private sector pensions have been decimated, but that's no reason to do the same with public sector ones. The longer the pay freeze goes on, the angrier that public sector workers will become, so I can only see the cry for action getting louder and louder. I can only hope that in 2015, all the public sector workers and their friends vote in either Labour or a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition which will be more friendly to workers and less friendly to greedy bankers.

torontoboy45

I thoroughly endorse the proposed change that would require a 50% yes vote before srike action could be taken.

and, while I'm coming over all democratic: we should insist a similar rule apply to any political party wishing to take power.

Rotor

---

"I'm one of the civil servants who will be happy to take part in any forthcoming action, particularly if it is focused on pay and pensions. I understand that a lot of private sector pensions have been decimated, but that's no reason to do the same with public sector ones."

---

Yes it is! It is the private sector that is paying for your greatly increasing pensions whilst paying more to fund ours

Loughton_Monkey

torontoboy45 wrote: »

I thoroughly endorse the proposed change that would require a 50% yes vote before srike action could be taken.

and, while I'm coming over all democratic: we should insist a similar rule apply to any political party wishing to take power.

All very well, but there is a minor flaw.

The implications of <50% of an employer's payroll not voting for a strike are that no strike takes place.

The implications of <50% of the voting register in any one Parliamentary constituency not voting for a specific candidate are that no MP is elected.

By definition, the latter would result in no Government. No Government tends to result in anarchy, military junta, revolutions, counter-revolutions, dictatorships etc.

Is this what you want?

Yorkie1

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Sure?

I should perhaps have emphasised the "full range" of unions.

If you think back to last November, some unions went on strike which had never done so before in their history. There were a whole range of issues which led to the members of those unions voting to strike, but one of those issues was pensions.

Since last November, some of those unions have accepted a compromise deal on pensions with the government and will no longer have an appetite for full strike action as envisaged by the more restless unions.

I know that those more restless unions (the usual suspects) will probably vote for ongoing strike action but my perception is that recent history has shown that the impact has been relatively minimal in changing Govt stance.

Generali

It sounds a lot like the TUC is threatening a General Strike if they don't get pay rises.

At what point does industrial action become an attempt at deposing a democratically elected Government? I think that is what lies behind these threats. I'm not entirely sure that this will work in Labour's favour however, in fact it is likely to put Labour in the same awkward position they were in during the miners strike.