24 Hour Tube (strike) 8th July

[Herr Tubthumper]

From what I've read (admittedly, not a great deal) I have some sympathy for them. Regardless of the pay element, to suddenly be told you could be working nights and weekends with no real limitation or warning is a bit ridiculous, the whole concept of a work/life balance would go straight out the window.

Totally agree. I struggle to comprehend some of the attitudes to employment and employers people have. "I say how high" was one rather depressing post. I'm sure as hell grateful for employment but I work quite hard and professionally so equally I feel my employers are grateful for having me and we work well together. And this is how it should be. Employment is a two way street.

 

[El Presidente]

Mocking someones job says everything i need to know about you, #****

I'm not mocking the job. Someone has to do it.

 

[El Presidente]

Totally agree. I struggle to comprehend some of the attitudes to employment and employers people have. "I say how high" was one rather depressing post. I'm sure as hell grateful for employment but I work quite hard and professionally so equally I feel my employers are grateful for having me and we work well together. And this is how it should be. Employment is a two way street.

It isn't a two way street for some though and that's where unions can play a part. There are many jobs, especially for unskilled and low paid positions where the employers can be unscrupulous.

I used to work for a firm of receivers and we went in to a number of companies that had gone bust. The unions were good to deal with, fair in their requests for information in what was a stressful time for the staff, and flexible in terms of dealing with job losses that often arose.

I'm a member of two unions myself these days. One is affiliated to the TUC and the other isn't. There are some idiots who think it's the 70's but they tend to be ignored. Those who are quick to criticise the strikers ignore the fact that you lose a day's pay when you strike, so there is a financial cost on the striker.

As for the proposed tube strike. 98% vote in favour on an 81% turnout is a far greater mandate than the present government has.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

very well paid people that strike over money are cAnts

Politics of envy by chance ? Firstly £50k isn't VERY WELL paid, it's a decent salary but not VERY WELL paid. Secondly, they are striking because they are being asked to suddenly work nights and unlimited weekends for a poxy £22 extra a week. Would you, if your employer told you to do so, suddenly work nights for virtually nothing extra ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It isn't a two way street for some though and that's where unions can play a part. There are many jobs, especially for unskilled and low paid positions where the employers can be unscrupulous.

I used to work for a firm of receivers and we went in to a number of companies that had gone bust. The unions were good to deal with, fair in their requests for information in what was a stressful time for the staff, and flexible in terms of dealing with job losses that often arose.

I'm a member of two unions myself these days. One is affiliated to the TUC and the other isn't. There are some idiots who think it's the 70's but they tend to be ignored. Those who are quick to criticise the strikers ignore the fact that you lose a day's pay when you strike, so there is a financial cost on the striker.

As for the proposed tube strike. 98% vote in favour on an 81% turnout is a far greater mandate than the present government has.

I totally agree.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As for the proposed tube strike. 98% vote in favour on an 81% turnout is a far greater mandate than the present government has.

I don't buy the comparison with an elected government - we HAVE to have a government, employees don't HAVE to strike. What would anyone do if the only way we could get a government was is the turnout was over x% and the government had to get a true majority of the vote ? Obviously PR would deal with this problem but at the moment we have no choice. As it happens this strike would actually be OK under the new proposed rules .... and rightly so. Forcing people to work nights for as good as no extra money is wrong ... full stop.

 

[Bozza]

Any organisation that tries to implement changes like this is going to be met with some pretty firm resistance from those already employed.

I've seen it with technology workers when a 24/7 cover rota was being brought in, although I imagine in most cases that tech team were paid less than tube drivers are.

The compensation for the changes being discussed seems very much on the low side given the scale of the changes, and the impacts on those being asked to make them.

Presumably they'll need a lot more drivers to cover the expansion of the service too.

 

[Bozza]

As for the proposed tube strike. 98% vote in favour on an 81% turnout is a far greater mandate than the present government has.

What does that have to do with anything? Would you expect any party to say "Oh, hang on, we didn't get that many votes in the big scheme of things, we'll not take our position in government?"

 

[El Presidente]

What does that have to do with anything? Would you expect any party to say "Oh, hang on, we didn't get that many votes in the big scheme of things, we'll not take our position in government?"

Because the government historically has claimed that unions are run by militants whose views don't represent those of the majority.

They are being hypocritical as they are more than happy to reap the rewards of the first past the post system. I've no issue with that, but the two faced mentality of our elected representatives grates.

 

[yxee]

Do you watch a lot of science fiction?

Driverless trains isn't science fiction.

 

[El Presidente]

I don't buy the comparison with an elected government - we HAVE to have a government, employees don't HAVE to strike. What would anyone do if the only way we could get a government was is the turnout was over x% and the government had to get a true majority of the vote ? Obviously PR would deal with this problem but at the moment we have no choice. As it happens this strike would actually be OK under the new proposed rules .... and rightly so. Forcing people to work nights for as good as no extra money is wrong ... full stop.

I have no issue with first past the post, although we could have all voted for PR system in the referendum a few years ago and we voted against.

It's the double standards spouted by politicians that ticks me off.

This is the first proposed strike by ASLEF on the tube for over ten years, so they're not militant or holding the capital to ransom (I think we agree on this).

They are also not refusing to work nights, just asking for adequate compensation.

The government is also today announcing plans to force GP's to open seven days a week. The GP's are refusing and it will make a profession that is already facing a supply crisis even less attractive.

 

[El Presidente]

Driverless trains isn't science fiction.

There's plenty of them already, airport shuttles are an example. Driverless lorries and cars will follow I'm sure.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Driverless trains isn't science fiction.

Nanoo nanoo

 

[yxee]

Nanoo nanoo

I think we've finally reached the essence of the pro-union argument here.

 

[Seasider78]

Unsociable hour premiums exist in many jobs and sectors and are far from uncommon. I have worked in warehouses where a forklift driver would refuse working a night shift for a lot more than £22 a week. It is hardly surprising the tube drivers have reacted the same the offer on the table is a joke.

 

[Bozza]

The government is also today announcing plans to force GP's to open seven days a week. The GP's are refusing and it will make a profession that is already facing a supply crisis even less attractive.

Shouldn't we be looking to make doctors more accessible? Isn't that progress of the common sense variety? For many of those in full-time employment getting to the doctor can be ridiculously difficult. Being able to attend outside of a typical working week would simplify this critical element of health for many.

It's how the change is managed that is key, obviously.

 

[El Presidente]

Shouldn't we be looking to make doctors more accessible? Isn't that progress of the common sense variety? For many of those in full-time employment getting to the doctor can be ridiculously difficult. Being able to attend outside of a typical working week would simplify this critical element of health for many.

It's how the change is managed that is key, obviously.

I agree. The logical thing to do is to open more medical schools and increase the supply of doctors. But to do that would involve infrastructure spending (which the government opposes) and would take at least 10 years to come to fruition to persuade consultants to teach at medical schools (lecturers salaries are a pittance compared to the pay of a consultant) and then take 5-7 years of training at med school itself.

Instead we have short term sound bites from the PM.

People also shouldn't abuse the NHS simply because of it's status of free at the point of supply. The number of nitwits, ****wits and halfwits you see in a surgery because they have a cold or a cough, or have self inflicted conditions due to lifestyle choices, means that getting an appointment is as easy as solving a Rubik's Cube.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Shouldn't we be looking to make doctors more accessible? Isn't that progress of the common sense variety? For many of those in full-time employment getting to the doctor can be ridiculously difficult. Being able to attend outside of a typical working week would simplify this critical element of health for many.

It's how the change is managed that is key, obviously.

Is it really the case that for "many" it's "ridiculously difficult"? What's making it so difficult? Are jobs so inflexible it prohibits attending to one's health? Genuine question.

 

[Bozza]

Is it really the case that for "many" it's "ridiculously difficult"? What's making it so difficult? Are jobs so inflexible it prohibits attending to one's health? Genuine question.

I believe it is, yes. If nothing else, many workers will have to use annual leave or face a loss of pay to make an in-hours appointment.

 

[El Presidente]

I believe it is, yes. If nothing else, many workers will have to use annual leave or face a loss of pay to make an in-hours appointment.

Isn't that an appalling attitude towards employees by employers though? Surely the health and welfare of staff should come higher up the priority list of management?