Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

Southend1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

True, although you should really support your colleagues today if you are to have any expectation of them supporting you tomorrow.

timbo58

Since I am an ex RMT member, I can only speak from experience, rather than dogma, so I can tell you, the RMT are a very effective insurance policy against unfair business practices, especially those that came in after privatisation.

The RMT very, very seldom ever go on strike on mainline Train operating companies, they might threaten to - to get a recalcitrant management team to the bargaining table or to be taken seriously (since they then have to prove by a ballot they have the sort of support a strike will have).

I only knew of one strike in the 15 years I was a member, and that was signal workers, so for train crew grades like me it meant no trains but we still had to go to work anyway.

However there were frequently hare brained schemes by managers with no knowledge or experience of the rail industry which all needed a united response from the hundreds of staff, some of which had been there years and others who were new, only a good union could have prevented losing rights that had been hard won since 1948.

It always makes me laugh when people outside of these trades think it's ok if a fantastic pension scheme or 'extra' holiday, seemingly 'high' pay are attacked by new companies running them just to line their own pockets.

Do people really not understand a job/career is a package deal?
i.e. the employee works ridiculous hours with little or no right to go home at the end of their allotted hours if the employer deems it an 'emergency', with no backup at busy times dealing with hundreds of aggressive/drunken customers and varying shift patterns that have proven long term damage for their health, if not family life & relationships also- in return for that they get a salary and some decent benefits in return.

If your employer gave you a fairly low wage but a ferrari as a company car and free petrol, how would you feel if he decided to give you a halfords bicycle instead?

FWIW I believe both LU/Tfl and the RMT are probably at fault in this case.
As I have detailed above, the RMT very rarely calls for action against the mainline operators, perhaps it's a case of them coming to sensible mutual decisions to keep trains running and staff at work, as opposed to LU/TfL and RMT trying to play a re-run of Scargill V Thatcher in all it's obscene macho posturing and sod everyone else whether they be passengers or staff.

I do not think for one minute that the RMT are always right, but as has been proven time & time again TfL have a very, very slick propaganda team.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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........

Quite right. I think they are a waste of time.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

So why don't unions follow your idealistic mantra? If they did, they wouldn't go on strike and p[ss off the general public that keeps them in their jobs.

I started work for a 'Blue Chip' company and joined the union. It wasn't a closed shop, but one of these things the management wanted all employees to join so that they got a representative membership. Nothing wrong with that. I paid my dues and thought nothing more of it.

A few years later, when moved up to Head Office, I was 'volunteered' to represent one of the 'sections' at the annual party conference. Reluctantly I turned up to the 3-day event at some seaside hotel.

It really opened my eyes. I had never in my life witnessed such a bunch of 'waste of space', useless, anoraked, complete !!!!!!! The first 2 days were taken up with 'smoked filled rooms' in which each motion was nit-picked, re-worded, and parcelled up into 19 different 'amendment motions' which nobody really understood except the raving left wing 'activists' trying to push them through.

The last day consisted of listening to speeches, amendments, amendments to amendments, proposals to refer an amendment to an executive policy sub-committee and we all showed our hands in the votes.

Little me pushed up my hand initially based upon an intelligent stab at what the motion was about. Halfway through, I resorted to voting as much as possible with 'the majority'. Further into the boring day I found myself voting purely at random. After all, I didn't really know who the hell I was representing, and nor did I know what they would have wanted.

How this sort of tripe in any way benefitted the staff I simply have no idea.

Time to make strikes perfectly legal, but prima-facie grounds for instant dismissal for all those who take part.

Southend1

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Quite right. I think they are a waste of time.



So why don't unions follow your idealistic mantra? If they did, they wouldn't go on strike and p[ss off the general public that keeps them in their jobs.

I started work for a 'Blue Chip' company and joined the union. It wasn't a closed shop, but one of these things the management wanted all employees to join so that they got a representative membership. Nothing wrong with that. I paid my dues and thought nothing more of it.

A few years later, when moved up to Head Office, I was 'volunteered' to represent one of the 'sections' at the annual party conference. Reluctantly I turned up to the 3-day event at some seaside hotel.

It really opened my eyes. I had never in my life witnessed such a bunch of 'waste of space', useless, anoraked, complete !!!!!!! The first 2 days were taken up with 'smoked filled rooms' in which each motion was nit-picked, re-worded, and parcelled up into 19 different 'amendment motions' which nobody really understood except the raving left wing 'activists' trying to push them through.

The last day consisted of listening to speeches, amendments, amendments to amendments, proposals to refer an amendment to an executive policy sub-committee and we all showed our hands in the votes.

Little me pushed up my hand initially based upon an intelligent stab at what the motion was about. Halfway through, I resorted to voting as much as possible with 'the majority'. Further into the boring day I found myself voting purely at random. After all, I didn't really know who the hell I was representing, and nor did I know what they would have wanted.

How this sort of tripe in any way benefitted the staff I simply have no idea.

Time to make strikes perfectly legal, but prima-facie grounds for instant dismissal for all those who take part.

You went to a conference as a representative without knowing who you were supposed to be representing or how they might like you to vote? Why? Didn't you feel any kind of responsibility to your colleagues to find out in advance? If not, why on earth did you agree to attend?

If it were permitted to dismiss striking employees then we would pretty soon find ourselves back in the early 1800s as far as wages and working conditions are concerned.

I take it you'll be voting UKIP in May?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

If London commuters are going to be disrupted because of a strike in support of a drunk driver it's not hard to see why RMT might not be flavour of the month.

It's a long why away from fighting injustice.

chewmylegoff

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

The membership vote when the leadership give them the opportunity to not when they fancy it - and obviously the leadership and their stewards always encourage the membership to vote for strikes (e.g. By circulating misleading propaganda about the sacking of "brother" members claiming that diabetes can cause false positives in certain breathysers regardless of whether that sort of breathylser was actually used) then all they need is a majority of those who vote which is invariably supported only by a minority of their actual membership.

Southend1

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The membership vote when the leadership give them the opportunity to not when they fancy it - and obviously the leadership and their stewards always encourage the membership to vote for strikes (e.g. By circulating misleading propaganda about the sacking of "brother" members claiming that diabetes can cause false positives in certain breathysers regardless of whether that sort of breathylser was actually used) then all they need is a majority of those who vote which is invariably supported only by a minority of their actual membership.

There has to be a ballot of members before industrial action is taken, by law. So it's not just about voting when the leadership "give them the opportunity".

It isn't at all obvious that shop stewards always encourage members to vote in favour of strike action. Most people know their own mind regardless of what others say. In my experience the usual message coming from the leadership is not to vote any particular way but for as many memebers as possible to vote and have their say.

There would be little point calling strikes that were only supported by a minority of the membership because very few would actually go out on strike.

I'm sure your beliefs about unions are very sincerely held but they are very far from the reality!

purch

These ballots.

Is it a majority of the total union membership that is required, or just a majority of those who voted ?

I know the answer, by the way.

timbo58

purch wrote: »

These ballots.

Is it a majority of the total union membership that is required, or just a majority of those who voted ?

I know the answer, by the way.

Good, then you'll know it's exactly the same as all of our fair elections in this country then?
If any government wants to change that they need to get their own house in order 1st.

The ballot can only include those in the grade at the company and fully paid up btw.

Even in general elections we often get less than 2/3rds of those able to vote actually bothering, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that isn't truly democratic either.

Fwiw I have some sympathy for the 'voting opportunity' argument as in a few instances where members are given a ballot it matters not what the issue on the paper is if there are unresolved, often long standing, grievances elsewhere.
Staff will often vote to strike to give the company a kick up their collective a*Ses.
The solution to that?
Keeping your staff reasonably happy and managers at ground level feeding back grievances to senior management.

Southend1

purch wrote: »

These ballots.

Is it a majority of the total union membership that is required, or just a majority of those who voted ?

I know the answer, by the way.

Clearly the higher the turnout in any ballot the better. However you can't force people to vote. If some people choose not to use their vote and let others decide for them then so be it. That's how it works in all elections, local and national government included. Yes, David Cameron wants to change that where industrial relations are concerned - Though he won't agree to hold politicians to the same standard will he?

Lots of posters on this board are expressing anti union views, though it seems that their beliefs are underpinned mainly by a distorted version of reality where some kind of communist bogeyman runs the show. No organisation is perfect, however you'd be hard pressed to find one more democratic than a trade union. Unions exist solely to further the interests of their members - If they weren't doing that then why would anyone pay their subs?