milhouse
Newbie
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 33
Not on the politics sub-forum as I don't see this as political but common sense.
I note that the RMT intend to strike 2 x 3 days over two weeks in order to save the jobs of, er, TWO of their members. Here's a shock, they just happen to be senior union activists.
I don't wish to be cynical, but do you think that such strikes would have been proposed if they were ordinary members rather than activists? Let's think about that.......no, somehow or other these two guys have got a huge over-reaction from a union. Is that unlikely to have happened in response to any other members?
It's been in the news today that one of them had his claim for unfair dismissal upheld. Fine, but firstly, that wasn't known when the strikes were called and secondly, so what - he (not they, the other one's case is outstanding) should be reinstated or get compensation for unfair dismissal JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Unfairly dismiised or not, why should these guys get better treatment from their union than anyone else who's a member.
I'm not right wing. I'm not anti-union. However, this kind of cronyism gives unions a bad names. It's not only outrageous in principle, it's wholly disproportionate. Why are they calling on their members to strike for even longer than in support of a pay claim. What's more important to your average member? Good pay or some random bloke you don't know getting the bullet? If I were a member I think I would no the answer. So, what deserves the greater strike action?
I hope that the members are a bit more active in opposing their leadership next time they are asked to put their own neck (and pay) on the line to support one of their union barons. Sadly, though, so far, Sir Bob Crowe appears to have boosted his membership by this approach, so there's little sign of that.
I note that the RMT intend to strike 2 x 3 days over two weeks in order to save the jobs of, er, TWO of their members. Here's a shock, they just happen to be senior union activists.
I don't wish to be cynical, but do you think that such strikes would have been proposed if they were ordinary members rather than activists? Let's think about that.......no, somehow or other these two guys have got a huge over-reaction from a union. Is that unlikely to have happened in response to any other members?
It's been in the news today that one of them had his claim for unfair dismissal upheld. Fine, but firstly, that wasn't known when the strikes were called and secondly, so what - he (not they, the other one's case is outstanding) should be reinstated or get compensation for unfair dismissal JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Unfairly dismiised or not, why should these guys get better treatment from their union than anyone else who's a member.
I'm not right wing. I'm not anti-union. However, this kind of cronyism gives unions a bad names. It's not only outrageous in principle, it's wholly disproportionate. Why are they calling on their members to strike for even longer than in support of a pay claim. What's more important to your average member? Good pay or some random bloke you don't know getting the bullet? If I were a member I think I would no the answer. So, what deserves the greater strike action?
I hope that the members are a bit more active in opposing their leadership next time they are asked to put their own neck (and pay) on the line to support one of their union barons. Sadly, though, so far, Sir Bob Crowe appears to have boosted his membership by this approach, so there's little sign of that.