And yet ANOTHER strike ....

[Mr Putdown]

Withdraw your labour is one thing, paralyse the rail system weekly is quite another.

You can lay the blame for this firmly at the government's door.

 

[Captain Sensible]

it isnt below, its above the cumlative inflation for the past year and forecast for next. the union said so themselves "barely above inflation", 2015 was 0.9 and this year 1.2, leaving 2.55 for the coming year. the union themselves arent citing any changes to working conditions, just the pay increase.

The company made 2bn didn't it? I'm sure the employees may feel they should be rewarded for hitting that kind of target. And a lot of the time unions are not allowed to disclose the 'strings attached' for legal reasons. Stringent laws mean that a dispute can be about 1 issue only and any other issues have to be a separate dispute. Just like the southern dispute being about 'closing doors', when in actual fact it's about job losses and a whole host of other things that built up over time. Again don't just believe the snippets you read in papers. As a side issue, I can't understand why more companies don't use the John Lewis model when dealing with staff and bonuses and pay rises? Oh wait a minute, greed! If more of the company wealth was spread around the employees more money would be entering our economy, instead of poor wages and a boss creaming a 400% pay rise for themselves.

 

[beorhthelm]

The company made 2bn didn't it? I'm sure the employees may feel they should be rewarded for hitting that kind of target. And a lot of the time unions are not allowed to disclose the 'strings attached' for legal reasons. Stringent laws mean that a dispute can be about 1 issue only and any other issues have to be a separate dispute. Just like the southern dispute being about 'closing doors', when in actual fact it's about job losses and a whole host of other things that built up over time. Again don't just believe the snippets you read in papers. As a side issue, I can't understand why more companies don't use the John Lewis model when dealing with staff and bonuses and pay rises? Oh wait a minute, greed! If more of the company wealth was spread around the employees more money would be entering our economy, instead of poor wages and a boss creaming a 400% pay rise for themselves.

ah, so this is about "company made more, i want more". as right or not that may be, the point being discussed was that unions always ask for more, which you claim cant be said, yet this dispute shows is the case. so you want to wander off on to other issues instead of accepting. i read the union PR, if they say their dispute is about pay, i trust that its about pay.

i'm all for the John Lewis model, if employees set up companies along these lines it would be great, alas most people dont want to take the risks.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The company made 2bn didn't it? I'm sure the employees may feel they should be rewarded for hitting that kind of target. And a lot of the time unions are not allowed to disclose the 'strings attached' for legal reasons. Stringent laws mean that a dispute can be about 1 issue only and any other issues have to be a separate dispute. Just like the southern dispute being about 'closing doors', when in actual fact it's about job losses and a whole host of other things that built up over time. Again don't just believe the snippets you read in papers. As a side issue, I can't understand why more companies don't use the John Lewis model when dealing with staff and bonuses and pay rises? Oh wait a minute, greed! If more of the company wealth was spread around the employees more money would be entering our economy, instead of poor wages and a boss creaming a 400% pay rise for themselves.

This, this and thrice this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i'm all for the John Lewis model, if employees set up companies along these lines it would be great, alas most people dont want to take the risks.

Are you being deliberately obtuse with this statement?

 

[Captain Sensible]

ah, so this is about "company made more, i want more". as right or not that may be, the point being discussed was that unions always ask for more, which you claim cant be said, yet this dispute shows is the case. so you want to wander off on to other issues instead of accepting. i read the union PR, if they say their dispute is about pay, i trust that its about pay.

i'm all for the John Lewis model, if employees set up companies along these lines it would be great, alas most people dont want to take the risks.

I'm saying it's not about wanting more more.. each case has a merit. In this case they are being offered 1.55% per year (4.65% covering 3 years). CPI is 1.2% RPI is 2.2 and RPI excluding Mortgages is 2.5%. You don't know of any string attached, you don't know of any productivity targets you don't know if there is any performance related pay involved. Basically for you to say unions want more more, what about the companies that want to make more more and not reward their employees for their contributions? Im not wandering on issues, im saying you don't know them and nor do I. Yet you have the opinion that the union is wrong and you base this on the media you have read. Well let's just say there was another issue and that the 2nd year pay rise was based on hitting an impossible target or if it ment that the following year there was to be no pay rise or the rise was self funded from cuts in the department, or possibly there are changes in increased productivity. The Union CANNOT make these issues public because these are not the issue the ballot was voted on to strike. If the Company can prove that the workforce voted to strike for fear of other issues than the one on the ballot paper, then the company can get an injunction to stop the strike. This is why we never fully understand why strikes are happening and why most of the time the company chooses the issue that it wants to go to war with the employees over, as is the case with southern. They choose something that sounds mundane to you and me but is of great concern and consequences to the workforce, or the thin end of the wedge. Don't dismiss a large proportion of the UK's workforce as being lemmings, they know the issues and know more than we do in most cases. As I've said many times, the workforce union are the employees themselves, not the umbrella union that is drafted in when the dispute reaches a non agreement level.
No if you'll excuse me I've got a pub in Birmingham to find..... UTA

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm saying it's not about wanting more more.. each case has a merit. In this case they are being offered 1.55% per year (4.65% covering 3 years). CPI is 1.2% RPI is 2.2 and RPI excluding Mortgages is 2.5%. You don't know of any string attached, you don't know of any productivity targets you don't know if there is any performance related pay involved. Basically for you to say unions want more more, what about the companies that want to make more more and not reward their employees for their contributions? Im not wandering on issues, im saying you don't know them and nor do I. Yet you have the opinion that the union is wrong and you base this on the media you have read.

i have an opinion from what the union has said on their own press release. you're the one making lots of assumptions and infering things you dont know, im simply recognising the unions complaint "they are barely keeping up with inflation" as evidence they want more money than they are being offered, which is greater than inflation for a 3 year period. im making no other point than that.

 

[Captain Sensible]

i have an opinion from what the union has said on their own press release. you're the one making lots of assumptions and infering things you dont know, im simply recognising the unions complaint "they are barely keeping up with inflation" as evidence they want more money than they are being offered, which is greater than inflation for a 3 year period. im making no other point than that.

The bottom half of my post which you've cut off in your quote tells you of a reason the Union may be speaking on one element of the issues only.
Found a boozer. Have a great day mate.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I'm not against strikes per se, but there needs to be a limit. At the moment unions can strike as much as they like, providing they hold a ballot etc.

What would be your reaction if all hospital staff went on strike for 6 consecutive days, or teachers? Then another 3 days, then another 3 days ...

There would be uproar on here, and no support for unions then, I'm sure.

I'm sure there's a small number of trade unionists who are making the most out of this but ultimately I will defend the right of people to withdraw their labour as a matter of last resort. but look at the wider context: Mr Grayling hasn't even bothered to meet the unions despite the strikes associated with southern rail for Several months. The reason? The Government want to break the rail unions (Crispin Blunt, Channel 4 News). It is risible that the transport secretary, the person in charge of transport in this country, hasn't got everyone round table MONTHS ago to sort this mess out. That would be the grown-up thing to do but Grayling has a track record of putting politics and ideology before people and simply blaming the unions. It's always the same with him. Look at the mess the prisons are in at the moment, a mess very much sown by Christopher Grayling when he was "Justice" Secretary.

 

[Chicken Run]

Surely everyone would want more, that's fairly natural.

I'd quite like a threesome with Holly Willoughby and Konnie Huq, BUT if a couple of lingerie models were on offer too, I'd want them all..................and then I woke up.

Yeah but like the above it's unrealistic and as equally greedy ! [emoji106]

 

[drew]

I would say that the rail unions have upped the ante so much now that it is past just inconvenient. The baggage handlers' strike is inconvenient, the rail unions have lost people their jobs, closed down businesses and put pressure on family life.

Out of interest, which businesses have closed down because of the rail strike? Any facts or just anecdotal?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm sure there's a small number of trade unionists who are making the most out of this but ultimately I will defend the right of people to withdraw their labour as a matter of last resort. but look at the wider context: Mr Grayling hasn't even bothered to meet the unions despite the strikes associated with southern rail for Several months. The reason? The Government want to break the rail unions (Crispin Blunt, Channel 4 News). It is risible that the transport secretary, the person in charge of transport in this country, hasn't got everyone round table MONTHS ago to sort this mess out. That would be the grown-up thing to do but Grayling has a track record of putting politics and ideology before people and simply blaming the unions. It's always the same with him. Look at the mess the prisons are in at the moment, a mess very much sown by Christopher Grayling when he was "Justice" Secretary.

Bang on the money.

 

[Murray 17]

Out of interest, which businesses have closed down because of the rail strike? Any facts or just anecdotal?

Just anecdotal.

 

[pearl]

EDL striking in January, better stock up on some candles

 

[kingcole]

Best one ever in the 95th minute