Strike called off

[Napster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262829/National-rail-strike-called-OFF-High-Court-declares-illegal.html

 

[canveyshrimper]

Good news I think. I'll be interested to hear how Bob Crow explains away getting a ballot from a signal box that burned down a year ago. If NR's allegations are true then Crow has a lot of explaining to do to his members rather than waffle on about the twisting of the rules away from the union. I've said before Crow is spoiling for a fight and doesn't have the slightest regard for the people he is meant to represent.

 

[steveo]

Crow says its a fifteen round fight and hes ready for round two.

Does this bloke have any interest in a) Improving the conditions for his members, or b) Improving the Railway for the punters.

Sounds to me he is only interested in causing as much disruption to as many people as possible.

 

[Smudger]

All the dossers wanted was a few days off work anyway.....

 

[loz]

while Crow is a pretty odious character, and the RMT have for a while taken delight in stirring up trouble, the court ruling is still pretty concerning. There's no claim from anyone that the irregularities in the ballot would have affected the result, and the general pattern of a combination of an unaccountable judiciary and expensive lawyers stifling opportunities for workers to withdraw their labour (the same thing happened with BA initially, remember) represents another transfer of power to corporations and governments, away from working people. While you may disagree with the proposed rail strike, the long term consequences of decisions like this bear thinking about.

 

[Holy Joe]

while Crow is a pretty odious character, and the RMT have for a while taken delight in stirring up trouble, the court ruling is still pretty concerning. There's no claim from anyone that the irregularities in the ballot would have affected the result, and the general pattern of a combination of an unaccountable judiciary and expensive lawyers stifling opportunities for workers to withdraw their labour (the same thing happened with BA initially, remember) represents another transfer of power to corporations and governments, away from working people. While you may disagree with the proposed rail strike, the long term consequences of decisions like this bear thinking about.

I thought NR had said there were 300 dodgy votes and the majority for a strike was only 125 therefore the result was in doubt.

 

[loz]

I thought NR had said there were 300 dodgy votes and the majority for a strike was only 125 therefore the result was in doubt.

if that's the case then fair enough, i was going on an interview with an NR rep on radio 4 yesterday where she refused to claim it would have affected the result. the fact remains though that the rulings can still apply even where the majority was completely overwhelming; by all accounts the arguments in court yesterday were mainly about the economic cost of the strike rather than the validity of the ballot.

 

[Lord Football]

The problem here is several fold. BA managed to find the legal precident. All bosses know that union membership records are extremely difficult to keep accurately, for a variety of reasons. Basically, if the member hasn't told the union they've left, then they get a ballot paper. By law you cant remove a union member from a membership list unless they've not paid subs for 3 months. For our strike we've jumped through hoops to make sure that as far as possible those who should vote got a paper and those that shouldn't don't.

Loz is spot on. Bosses will now use the judicary to stop strike action.

Ideally, a union would like to hold a ballot on a show of hands at a meeting (or if its more than one workplace, a series of workplaces). Unfortunately Thatcher stopped all that, so ballots now have to be postal. It effects not only efficiency of the ballot but also the turnout.

Oh, and I know Crow. Aside from his Millwall tendendancies, he is not as you think he would be.

 

[The Big Shrimp]

The problem here is several fold. BA managed to find the legal precident. All bosses know that union membership records are extremely difficult to keep accurately, for a variety of reasons. Basically, if the member hasn't told the union they've left, then they get a ballot paper. By law you cant remove a union member from a membership list unless they've not paid subs for 3 months. For our strike we've jumped through hoops to make sure that as far as possible those who should vote got a paper and those that shouldn't don't.

Loz is spot on. Bosses will now use the judicary to stop strike action.

Ideally, a union would like to hold a ballot on a show of hands at a meeting (or if its more than one workplace, a series of workplaces). Unfortunately Thatcher stopped all that, so ballots now have to be postal. It effects not only efficiency of the ballot but also the turnout.
Oh, and I know Crow. Aside from his Millwall tendendancies, he is not as you think he would be.

It also cuts out intimidation & bully for those members who don't want to strike. I've seen it happen & these scumbags have no place in the workplace or a union.

 

[Lord Football]

It also cuts out intimidation & bully for those members who don't want to strike. I've seen it happen & these scumbags have no place in the workplace or a union.

You are a lot older than you look then Rich. Thatcher stopped all that pre 1987.

 

[Kent Shrimper]

Oh, and I know Crow. Aside from his Millwall tendendancies, he is not as you think he would be.

Really, the man makes my skin crawl, he is a parasite and a ****ing ****** who seems hell bent on making a name for himself by disrupting as many peoples living and lively hood as possible. He talks utter ***** and thinks he is invincible, i cant stand him.

 

[canveyshrimper]

The problem here is several fold. BA managed to find the legal precident. All bosses know that union membership records are extremely difficult to keep accurately, for a variety of reasons. Basically, if the member hasn't told the union they've left, then they get a ballot paper. By law you cant remove a union member from a membership list unless they've not paid subs for 3 months. For our strike we've jumped through hoops to make sure that as far as possible those who should vote got a paper and those that shouldn't don't.

Loz is spot on. Bosses will now use the judicary to stop strike action.

Ideally, a union would like to hold a ballot on a show of hands at a meeting (or if its more than one workplace, a series of workplaces). Unfortunately Thatcher stopped all that, so ballots now have to be postal. It effects not only efficiency of the ballot but also the turnout.

Oh, and I know Crow. Aside from his Millwall tendendancies, he is not as you think he would be.

I'd say that the laws bought in by Thatcher were fair, and certainly it was one of the main planks of the 1979 Conservative Manifesto, and after the "winter of discontent", plus continual strikes at BL, the docks etc etc I'd say that the majority wanted to see these laws as they were fed up of successive Governments being held to ransom by wharever union had a grudge that week.

It's also interesting that Labour during their 13 years in power haven't exactly fallen over themselves to repeal these laws. These laws were inplace when Scargill staged his illegal strike by using his NUM members as cannon fodder to try and bring down the elected government. A strike that destroyed the NUM one of the proudest and most powerful unions, now reduced to being a tiny part of the TGWU. A strike that decimated and destroyed mining communities.

There is a place for Trades Unions and so there should be, but IMO Unite & the RMT strikes are more politically motivated than they are about protecting their respective membership.

 

[The Big Shrimp]

You are a lot older than you look then Rich. Thatcher stopped all that pre 1987.

I started working in 1981 & worked for the Inland Revenue, so I know what I saw!

As most people know, pressure is put on people to make decisions & by not knowing how you're going to vote means that the bully boys can't put pressure on those who want to work & support their families!

 

[steveo]

Unfortunately Thatcher stopped all that, so ballots now have to be postal. .

Why is that unfortunate? Surely no one in their right mind would want to return to days of random strikes by lazy wasters trying to bring the country to a halt at the first opportunity.

 

[Lord Football]

Really, the man makes my skin crawl, he is a parasite and a ****ing ****** who seems hell bent on making a name for himself by disrupting as many peoples living and lively hood as possible. He talks utter ***** and thinks he is invincible, i cant stand him.

He speaks highly of you too. At least he can string a contribution together without using censored adjectives. You should try it.

I'd say that the laws bought in by Thatcher were fair, and certainly it was one of the main planks of the 1979 Conservative Manifesto, and after the "winter of discontent", plus continual strikes at BL, the docks etc etc I'd say that the majority wanted to see these laws as they were fed up of successive Governments being held to ransom by wharever union had a grudge that week.

It's also interesting that Labour during their 13 years in power haven't exactly fallen over themselves to repeal these laws. These laws were inplace when Scargill staged his illegal strike by using his NUM members as cannon fodder to try and bring down the elected government. A strike that destroyed the NUM one of the proudest and most powerful unions, now reduced to being a tiny part of the TGWU. A strike that decimated and destroyed mining communities.

There is a place for Trades Unions and so there should be, but IMO Unite & the RMT strikes are more politically motivated than they are about protecting their respective membership.

In a way I agree with your opening comment. Unions should be democratic, and the old "everyone out" style clearly needed updating. However, what Thatcher actually did was try and obliterate trade unions completely. She nearly succeeded.

UNITE are one of, if not the biggest, contributor to Labour funds. So I fail to see how their dispute can be politically motivated. I'd further suggest that the political motivation is from Willie Walsh whose agenda is one of smashing the union.

I started working in 1981 & worked for the Inland Revenue, so I know what I saw!

As most people know, pressure is put on people to make decisions & by not knowing how you're going to vote means that the bully boys can't put pressure on those who want to work & support their families!

Blimey... you are older than I thought!! I remember watching the pickets outside Alexander House on my home from school on the bus.

Why is that unfortunate? Surely no one in their right mind would want to return to days of random strikes by lazy wasters trying to bring the country to a halt at the first opportunity.

How many factual inaccuracies can you get in a three line post?

Strikes aren't random. Forget what Murdoch tells you, no union goes on strike for fun. We only go on strike when its the only option left open. Did you know BA had an agreement with UNITE, and then removed it. What do you expect the members in UNITE to do when their management just walk away from negotiations?

Lazy wasters? More Murdoch rhetoric. One of the reasons I am strike is so that we can do the job properly. Hardly lazy.

First opportunity. No it doesn't quite work like that.

Tell you what chaps.... you come on here spouting stuff left, right (mainly right) and centre. Some of you give the impression you are spineless, I'm all right Jack merchants, who so long as your life isn't compromised you are happy to slate those who are prepared to do something about theirs. I know for a fact that if any of you were in dispute over an unfair dismissal, pay cut, slashing of your terms and conditions, job losses etc, I'd be showing some solidairtity with you. I wouldn't be slating you, calling you lazy, or anything like that because I couldn't use your service for the day. (and thats not a dig direct at any individual user of this site).

Maybe before you dig at what I do, what union members are currently doing you want to have a look at yourself. Most of you don't know both sides of the argument. When I articulated my dispute, it was interesting that no one really disagreed with why we were doing it. Unfortunately it took me on a small football internet forum to get that message to you, because the media aren't interested (unless you read the Morning Star).

I am not aware of anyone here who wont be, at some point, in danger of being in the industrial mire post the General Election. I don't know of anyone here who when our services are cut wont find it a detriment. So why not show those us who can stand up for ourselves a bit of support. Or even a bit of respect, no matter how grudging.

EDIT.. sorry that is actually a rant :)

 

[steveo]

Im not doubting your personal motives Lord and when you declared your own reasons for striking some did seem pretty valid, but when people like Bob Crow ballot signal boxes that have been closed for 50 years, or burnt down a year ago, can you expect him to get any sympathy from the public?

Also, NR want to get rid of working practises that include teams of inspectors, rostered to, and being paid to, inspect railways in rush hour periods which is obviously not possible. When Crow asked about this he starts reeling off previous train crashes. The bloke doesn't have any answers to a lot of questions. You know him, when you see him, ask him about the bogus ballot and let us know the reason behind it please, possibly by posting on a small football internet forum.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Kent Shrimper]

He speaks highly of you too. At least he can string a contribution together without using censored adjectives. You should try it.



In a way I agree with your opening comment. Unions should be democratic, and the old "everyone out" style clearly needed updating. However, what Thatcher actually did was try and obliterate trade unions completely. She nearly succeeded.

UNITE are one of, if not the biggest, contributor to Labour funds. So I fail to see how their dispute can be politically motivated. I'd further suggest that the political motivation is from Willie Walsh whose agenda is one of smashing the union.



Blimey... you are older than I thought!! I remember watching the pickets outside Alexander House on my home from school on the bus.



How many factual inaccuracies can you get in a three line post?

Strikes aren't random. Forget what Murdoch tells you, no union goes on strike for fun. We only go on strike when its the only option left open. Did you know BA had an agreement with UNITE, and then removed it. What do you expect the members in UNITE to do when their management just walk away from negotiations?

Lazy wasters? More Murdoch rhetoric. One of the reasons I am strike is so that we can do the job properly. Hardly lazy.

First opportunity. No it doesn't quite work like that.

Tell you what chaps.... you come on here spouting stuff left, right (mainly right) and centre. Some of you give the impression you are spineless, I'm all right Jack merchants, who so long as your life isn't compromised you are happy to slate those who are prepared to do something about theirs. I know for a fact that if any of you were in dispute over an unfair dismissal, pay cut, slashing of your terms and conditions, job losses etc, I'd be showing some solidairtity with you. I wouldn't be slating you, calling you lazy, or anything like that because I couldn't use your service for the day. (and thats not a dig direct at any individual user of this site).

Maybe before you dig at what I do, what union members are currently doing you want to have a look at yourself. Most of you don't know both sides of the argument. When I articulated my dispute, it was interesting that no one really disagreed with why we were doing it. Unfortunately it took me on a small football internet forum to get that message to you, because the media aren't interested (unless you read the Morning Star).

I am not aware of anyone here who wont be, at some point, in danger of being in the industrial mire post the General Election. I don't know of anyone here who when our services are cut wont find it a detriment. So why not show those us who can stand up for ourselves a bit of support. Or even a bit of respect, no matter how grudging.

EDIT.. sorry that is actually a rant :)

Firstly if i want to ****ing swear i shall, and dont need you to tell me whether i can or cant or whether it makes my argument less persuasive, i really couldn't give a ****.

Secondly and more importantly i commend anyone who stands up for what they beleive in, However when i have a problem with my boss or a situation i was in at work I would sort it. I wouldn't get all my colleagues together to cause my clients, suppliers, freinds or family problems by not doing my job. If i didn't like the response i got or felt that my job was in danger, i would find something else.

Now as i see it most of the redundancies that are occurring are because the funds aren't there to continue to employ people or they want to streamline to enable a profit. That's business and that's life.

Bob Crow keeps banging on about safety, again we live in a country that has the strictest or one of the strictest Health & Safety executive in the world, so i can only assume that this is about HIM wanting some air time, not about safety.

I don't like unions and in all honesty don't think we need them in the modern world, get back to ****ing work and if you don't like what your boss / company is doing then either take it up with HIM/HER/THEM or leave, don't disrupt the rest of us who are trying to earn a living or build something for our family's

 

[MK Shrimper]

Bob Crow keeps banging on about safety, again we live in a country that has the strictest or one of the strictest Health & Safety executive in the world, so i can only assume that this is about HIM wanting some air time, not about safety.

I've pretty much done this to death, but KS...

We run an antiquated asset maintenance system called Ellipse that is basically a cut & shut computer program from the early 80's that was developed for Australian mining system that, I believe up to now, has cost £800M. It looks like something from the film War Games...I kid you not.

Now assets have a "must maintain" date against them in days that will go into a backlog that senior management and HMRI get all arsey about if it gets too large - fair enough, that's safety and why incidents like Hatfield shouldn't happen again.

Due to the trains running later and track access time getting less and less, these backlogs grow - now to make themselves look good (or not so bad), the local managers "amend" these dates so they don't fall in backlog.

If Coucher wins his re-org battle, this "manipulation" will get worse as they expect us to maintain most assets in the dark during a 3/4 hour gap in service?

 

[osymandus]

Firstly if i want to ****ing swear i shall, and dont need you to tell me whether i can or cant or whether it makes my argument less persuasive, i really couldn't give a ****.

Secondly and more importantly i commend anyone who stands up for what they beleive in, However when i have a problem with my boss or a situation i was in at work I would sort it. I wouldn't get all my colleagues together to cause my clients, suppliers, freinds or family problems by not doing my job. If i didn't like the response i got or felt that my job was in danger, i would find something else.

Now as i see it most of the redundancies that are occurring are because the funds aren't there to continue to employ people or they want to streamline to enable a profit. That's business and that's life.

Bob Crow keeps banging on about safety, again we live in a country that has the strictest or one of the strictest Health & Safety executive in the world, so i can only assume that this is about HIM wanting some air time, not about safety.

I don't like unions and in all honesty don't think we need them in the modern world, get back to ****ing work and if you don't like what your boss / company is doing then either take it up with HIM/HER/THEM or leave, don't disrupt the rest of us who are trying to earn a living or build something for our family's

Your argument makes the assumption that those who want to work (in your view of work ethic ) are automatically better then those you perceive as not having the same work ethic as you . Which is ridiculous

You also say if a person has a complaint about their manager take it up with them ... well for starters that's why HR departments were created . A manager of any firm is there to organise and keep the adherance to teh structure and rules of the company , however if these rules need to be questioned and in some cases challneged IMHO experience some managers don;t know what they need to do or ignore their responsibilities at the expenses of those working under them and use intimidation and the few of poeple losing their jobs as a control mechanisum. (Hence why i'm in a tribunial and winning it thank you ).

Let me say this again, just because you were picked to work in a company and obtain a certain level (well done you ) you are not the perfect example of human morality or a paragon of achievement.


Heaven forbid others around you should challenge anything they may find wanting and attempt to change what they see as wrong , and band together to stick up for themselves as opposed to quietly getting on with things (and i am fully aware that a populist argument does not make anything right , but when many people are affected and all start to make noise you have to wander what's happening).

Now if we still had the work structure of the 1970's (ironic i know ) people could leave work at lunchtime and have a new one after a quick pub lunch . We don;t we haven't had that for 30 years.

 

[Kent Shrimper]

Your argument makes the assumption that those who want to work (in your view of work ethic ) are automatically better then those you perceive as not having the same work ethic as you . Which is ridiculous

You also say if a person has a complaint about their manager take it up with them ... well for starters that's why HR departments were created . A manager of any firm is there to organise and keep the adherance to teh structure and rules of the company , however if these rules need to be questioned and in some cases challneged IMHO experience some managers don;t know what they need to do or ignore their responsibilities at the expenses of those working under them and use intimidation and the few of poeple losing their jobs as a control mechanisum. (Hence why i'm in a tribunial and winning it thank you ).

Let me say this again, just because you were picked to work in a company and obtain a certain level (well done you ) you are not the perfect example of human morality or a paragon of achievement.


Heaven forbid others around you should challenge anything they may find wanting and attempt to change what they see as wrong , and band together to stick up for themselves as opposed to quietly getting on with things (and i am fully aware that a populist argument does not make anything right , but when many people are affected and all start to make noise you have to wander what's happening).

Now if we still had the work structure of the 1970's (ironic i know ) people could leave work at lunchtime and have a new one after a quick pub lunch . We don;t we haven't had that for 30 years.

I haven't got a clue what your banging on about Osy, Sorry.

At no stage did i say im better than anyone. My point was that if i have a problem with something then i deal with it. i don't agree with the strike mentality, either personally do something about it or move on, don't waste everyone's time by stamping your feet because you don't like the decisions that are being made and certainly don't inconvenience me in the process. Selfish? Most definitely, but i look after myself and i expect others to do the same.

Now that i own my own company i can see why redundancies have to happen, otherwise company's cannot continue to operate. i think people seem to think that there are bottomless pits of money that can be continued to be paid out, there isn't and it cant.