Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

Tromking

michaels wrote: »

I presume the best way to avoid strikes on LU is to vote in a Labour govt who have MPs funded by the unions involved and no doubt will make sure that whatever they demand is acceeded to without any dispute hence no strikes?

I think it's the London Assembly that you will need to vote Labour representatives to in this case, besides as someone who has withdrawn his labour (illegally) and been threatened with court action by the government of the day, it may surprise you that it was a Labour government. It's a Tory myth that Labour are in any way pro- union or pro-strike.

michaels

So the unions pay all that money to labour for no reason...about as likely as that the Tory donors hand over all their millions without expecting any influence on policy

Tromking

michaels wrote: »

So the unions pay all that money to labour for no reason...about as likely as that the Tory donors hand over all their millions without expecting any influence on policy

There's a great deal of talk amongst many unions as to whether the support they give Labour is now worth it for the influence they get.
Never seen the problem with unions putting forward the case for ordinarily working people to the political class myself.

michaels

I beleive the unions were instrumental in the selection of Ed Milliband rather than his better qualified brother to lead the party...I would describe that as influence....

chewmylegoff

Tromking wrote: »

There's a great deal of talk amongst many unions as to whether the support they give Labour is now worth it for the influence they get.
Never seen the problem with unions putting forward the case for ordinarily working people to the political class myself.

The only case the RMT are putting forward is their own lunatic self interested 70s throwback communist fantasies - they have no regard to the interests of their members or anyone other than themselves. they give trades union a bad name which makes it more difficult for those who do represent the interests of "ordinary working people" to do their job properly.

Tromking

michaels wrote: »

I beleive the unions were instrumental in the selection of Ed Milliband rather than his better qualified brother to lead the party...I would describe that as influence....

Very true, whether that support for Miliband manifests itself in real influence over a future PM Miliband somehow I doubt. I think your average millionaire Tory donor gets more bang for his buck than any Union does.

Tromking

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The only case the RMT are putting forward is their own lunatic self interested 70s throwback communist fantasies - they have no regard to the interests of their members or anyone other than themselves. they give trades union a bad name which makes it more difficult for those who do represent the interests of "ordinary working people" to do their job properly.

The RMT are a very effective Union by today's standards and rather than having no regards to their members I would wager that most of those members are very happy with their representatives.
In an era where the balance has in my opinion now tipped too much in favour of employers the RMT are a welcome counterbalance to that.

chewmylegoff

Tromking wrote: »

The RMT are a very effective Union by today's standards and rather than having no regards to their members I would wager that most of those members are very happy with their representatives.
In an era where the balance has in my opinion now tipped too much in favour of employers the RMT are a welcome counterbalance to that.

All they seem to achieve is getting loadsa money for a few tube drivers often at the expense of millions of ordinary people. The vast majority of RMT staff are not tube drivers.

Occasionally they call a futile strike when someone has been drinking on duty and fail to get the person reinstated, just costing their membership lost pay.

Not to worry though, senior union staff are well paid. It's just jobs for the boys. These boys just like pretending to be communists rather than getting drunk and smashing up restaurants or whatever.

Southend1

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Occasionally they call a futile strike when someone has been drinking on duty and fail to get the person reinstated, just costing their membership lost pay.

Who is they? They are the membership! Members understand when they vote in favour of strike action that they will lose pay. Much as your fantasy would like it, there isn't some crazy communist dictator calling strikes willy nilly, they are called by majority vote of the membership because they feel strongly about an issue and the management are refusing to negotiate.

Graham_Devon

It's clear that many people do not like unions. They often cause aggrivation for the rest of us trying to get on with our lives.

Some see them as oppressive to big business.

However, having never been part of a union myself...I always remember my dad saying "everyone hates the unions.....until you suffer injustice yourself and the union is fighting your cause".

Seems rather powerful really. Once the shoes on the other foot, maybe it's your son, your mother who is suffering a misjutice....suddenly the unions come good and make sense. Until then, they are just another slight inconvinience to your day.

Live and let live. Tommorow you may well need the support of those you put down today.