Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

timbo58

I think it's also worth pointing out that since ballots can only be held within the grade concerned & within the company concerned - those 'voters' are likely to be the staff most affected by actually withdrawing their labour (no union actually reimburses lost wages/overtime and enhancements btw), then it's actually fairer than any other type of ballot in the UK, since it's one issue and directly affects the person voting.

i.e. During my career I saw catering staff sacked for refusing to contravene very clear H&S law (not guidelines or company rules mind -LAW), only by their fellows voting in favour of action (which, BTW doesn't HAVE to include strike action) was the union listened to with any degree of genuine interest and as a result all of the staff were reinstated.

I was at the coal face on that one: I saw what happened and I saw that local managers saw a way to get rid of what they saw as 'excess staff' and were deliberately ignoring the law and their own rules.
Ok not all disputes were as clear cut as that one, but staff know full well IME that a lot of disputes can well become 'test cases' in how THEY will be treated if they don't stand up and be counted.

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

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?

presumably you would use the police federation as an example of good trade union governance?

Generali

timbo58 wrote: »

Ok not all disputes were as clear cut as that one, but staff know full well IME that a lot of disputes can well become 'test cases' in how THEY will be treated if they don't stand up and be counted.

So the Tube drivers are striking so that they can all come to work drunk if they fancy it.

I think I'll take a cab next time I'm over.

timbo58

Generali wrote: »

So the Tube drivers are striking so that they can all come to work drunk if they fancy it.

I think I'll take a cab next time I'm over.

Errr. No.

Read the thread again and you can clearly see there is a lot to this dispute, none of which touches on workers rights to come to work over the railway limit (1/2 of the DD limit BTW).

But a nice attempt at a massive and incorrect generalisation anyway.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

So the Tube drivers are striking so that they can all come to work drunk if they fancy it.

I think I'll take a cab next time I'm over.

The union would rather you travel on a train driven by someone over the limit than see one of their 'effective union activists' sacked.

Generali

timbo58 wrote: »

Errr. No.

Read the thread again and you can clearly see there is a lot to this dispute, none of which touches on workers rights to come to work over the railway limit (1/2 of the DD limit BTW).

But a nice attempt at a massive and incorrect generalisation anyway.

Thank you.

From what I can see the dispute is about a drunk wanting to keep his job.

chewmylegoff

Southend1 wrote: »

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!

You only have to read the rmt's website to see their propoganda inciting strikes on the basis of misleading information. Much like any other form of politician in this country, union leaders care about their self interest first and foremost.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/dismissal--a-mcguigan--train-operator--morden/

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Thank you.

From what I can see the dispute is about a drunk wanting to keep his job.

Or at least someone who had been drinking and whose blood alcohol was in excess of the limit permitted, a limit which is there for the safety of the people using the network. The RMT are always very quick to emphasise the health and safety issues arising from pretty much any changes that TFL want to make - but suddenly not so concerned about health and safety of passengers when the job of "brother mcguigan" is on the line.

timbo58

Clearly the RMT are going to paint this issue the way they want it to be painted, just as TfL will paint it their way.

I think it's bit rich that an entire thread provocatively entitled has already acted as this mans judge & jury based on a few heavily biased stories (from both sides).

danothy

timbo58 wrote: »

Clearly the RMT are going to paint this issue the way they want it to be painted, just as TfL will paint it their way.

I think it's bit rich that an entire thread provocatively entitled has already acted as this mans judge & jury based on a few heavily biased sorties (from both sides).

There's no repainting gone on at all. It's clearly not disputed that the breath test was over the limit, and it's been known since they were invented that diabetes can imitate alcohol on the breath. There's only one question, and that is "Who is lying about the particular breath test used?".

So, do TfL/LU use devices that can't differentiate between a diabetic low and a drunk like the RMT say, or like TfL/LU say, do they use devices that can? Given that TfL/LU are specific about what kind of devices they use and their capabilities (i.e. that they are not affected by diabetes), while the RMT appear to simply say "nuh-uh", I know where I'm placing my bet.