Border staff strike - should strikers be sacked ?

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why do you think they have good conditions?

Come on, it can't be that difficult spending all day waving through asylum seeker after asylum seeker.

 

[Mileoakman]

I'm delighted with my lot thank you very much. Unlike these wankers, I know when I'm lucky.

And you have detailed knowledge of their pay and conditions do you? Pehaps they are not so well off as you or have a more difficult job. Just because your happy with not having a pay rise for 5 years doesn't mean we all have to be so pleased. Maybe you earn enough or have a really cushy number that your not bothered. Some of us are!

 

[larus]

Serwotka is a knob who loves the airtime. Yes, the strike is legal but effectively only 10% of their membership voted to go out, so ethically there is no mandate.

We've had dealings with him and some of his cronies before. They don't negotiate they threaten as their opening piece as to what they'll do if they don't get everything they want. In my experiene, they really don't have a win/win approach to negotiation. I can't believe that there are still do many unionist leaders who cannot see past there own egos, and have a balanced commercial / welfare focus.

Having worked in a private sector business which has taken on ex public sector staff in acquisitions, I struggle to have sympathy in his conquest for what PCS see as a 'fair deal' I now work with a business where we have actively developed a strong relationship with our union, based on honesty, transparency and partnership. thats how it should be!

I'm not an uncaring capitalist, but I do agree that people should be awarded for effort not for just being at work, and unions need to learn to be partners not adversaries.

Sorry, rant over!

I agree that union/employer relationships are the way forward, and this type of action (same as Bob Crowe) should be relegated to the 1970's.
However, where politicians go wrong (both Labour/Tories), is allowing the rich and powerful preferential treatment. Look at the bankers being bailed out, yet still getting paid bonuses. Or Philip Green, paying the dividends to his wife who is a tax-exile in Monaco.

I honestly don't believe that there is really that much to choose between Labour/Tories. OK, they throw mud around and score petty party points about cuts here/cuts there, but I can honestly say that sine Margaret Thatcher, I can't think of anyone who has fundamentally changed politics. The last twenty years we've had politicians adopting very similar policies. Labour cosied up to big business for years.

IMO, we need new ideas; an acceptance that benefits are a safety net, and not a lifestyle choice. That business has to play fair, not screw workers and pay fair taxes. Tax havens for companies/individuals should be made illegal (don't ask me how as it would require all developed countries to adopt a radical new approach). The public sector should accept that 'efficiency' targets are acceptable, and failure will not be tolerated. It's not in the private sector, but appears to be less enforced in the public sector.

There's a lot wrong on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm delighted with my lot thank you very much.

This is not coming across though. You seem quite envious of others.

 

[Common as Mook]

This is not coming across though. You seem quite envious of others.

Nice try - its me who's supposed to be in wind up mode.

 

[ferring seagull]

Have you seen the Beechcroft report? Given this report its probably best not to get rid of the unions just yet as they will be needed if he gets his way.

Thanks for that and I will check it out !

I think that trade unions are OK from the point of view of looking after the interests of members ( LOL if they actually do) however when it comes to action which is not in the national interest then that is another matter AND - - -

 

[teaboy]

Thanks for that and I will check it out !

I think that trade unions are OK from the point of view of looking after the interests of members ( LOL if they actually do) however when it comes to action which is not in the national interest then that is another matter AND - - -

Trade Unions are not supposed to act in the 'national interest' (whatever that is, and who decides?), they act in their members' interest. That is their job.

 

[larus]

Trade Unions are not supposed to act in the 'national interest' (whatever that is, and who decides?), they act in their members' interest. That is their job.

Yeah, right. Exactly the same as politicians who act in the interest of the electorate. If you honestly believe the this is the case then you are deluded.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

At a time when immigration levels are at their worst ever the government decides to cut back. We need more Border Agency staff not less.

It may be completely wrong what they are doing, wrong time, wrong place but it is the only way they can get their message across. How many billions have we spent on Olympics? And how many people are losing their jobs both at the Border agency and in the Armed forces something is wrong here.

 

[Questions]

Public support counts for a lot in a dispute that goes to industrial action and if this one goes ahead the average Joe won't back it because it is aimed at trying to embarrass the government during the Olympics. That will misfire because it will be construed as an attack against the Games and the British people - and contrary to miseries like Vegster on here - are looking forward to the coming 3 weeks.
If they do have genuine grievances then that gets lost amongst another argument all together.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

However pissed-off people may be with the timing, the right to withdraw labour is a fundamental one, and one of the few ways that employees can act when they have a grievance. Providing they've acted within the law, of course they shouldn't be sacked - the Olympics, however brilliant many of us think they'll be, and however important they are, are irrelevant to many people and cannot be used to stamp down on their legal rights.

Where do you draw the line? You can't strike this week, we've got the Olympics on. You can't strike this weekend, the Euros are on if far-off Gebrovia and people are trying to get there. You can't strike this weekend, it's a really busy one. You just can't strike, plain and simple.

Some of the union leaders may be extremist dinosaurs, but most rank and file workers are not, and do not take strike action lightly.

 

[Simster]

They have suffered massive job cuts, a pay freeze for a number of years and are expected to carry on doing ever more for less.

If this is true then they ought to be sacking their union leader rather than blaming successive governments and attempting to hold the country to ransom on the eve of the Olympics. What sort of shithouse union leader allows it's members to be shafted year on year on year like that? Say what you like about Bob Crowe, but there is no way that would happen on his watch, because he KNOWS his job is to ensure his members are looked after.

Attempting to hold a gun to the head of the government like this after failing to deal with the problem for YEARS is one surefire way of minimising public support and will not lead to anything like a satisfactory resolution. So the only conclusion I can draw is that Serwotka is an incompetent wanker who should be booted out by his members, and the border staff are complete f***ing idiots for not seeing this.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Don't be so bloody minded. Here's an original thought, why not employ people who actually give a shit about having a job, rather than employing cynical cnuts that are out for themselves and have no idea on whats going on in the real world outside the civil service? Or is that too simplistic.

So I suppose the first question at the interview would be: "Do you actually give a shit about having a job, or are you a cynical **** that is out for yourself and have no idea on what's going on in the real world outside the civil service?"

That would certainly ensure we get the right calibre of person guarding our borders. Bring it on.

 

[jmsc]

Yes, the strike is legal but effectively only 10% of their membership voted to go out, so ethically there is no mandate.

Using your bizarre logic is fatally floored- yes, only 10% of the workforce voted to strike BUT even less voted to not strike!
That my young chum, means that they do have a mandate - use a dictionary before spouting off!

 

[Storer 68]

And if there weren't men and women brave enough to do it then we'd be more than slightly f***ed !

explain??

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I'm delighted with my lot thank you very much. Unlike these wankers, I know when I'm lucky.

How on earth do you know they are delighted with their lot for starters? Perhaps because they are not delighted with their lot they are striking. Do you know anyone who actually works for the Border Agency and how bad their job has become?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

If this is true then they ought to be sacking their union leader rather than blaming successive governments and attempting to hold the country to ransom on the eve of the Olympics. What sort of shithouse union leader allows it's members to be shafted year on year on year like that? Say what you like about Bob Crowe, but there is no way that would happen on his watch, because he KNOWS his job is to ensure his members are looked after.

Attempting to hold a gun to the head of the government like this after failing to deal with the problem for YEARS is one surefire way of minimising public support and will not lead to anything like a satisfactory resolution. So the only conclusion I can draw is that Serwotka is an incompetent wanker who should be booted out by his members, and the border staff are complete f***ing idiots for not seeing this.

I think you'll find that most employees of the Border Agency that are in a trade union are not represented by the PCS they are represented by the ISU and therefore not represented by Serwotka. Having different unions representing the same grade in a workplace is probably why the unions haven't been able to sort out the problems of the Border Agency, having said that though the RMT has to compete with other unions on the railways. Perhaps it's because railway workers may be more militant the Border Agency staff?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Come on, it can't be that difficult spending all day waving through asylum seeker after asylum seeker.

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out the staff may have good conditions because their trade union in past went on strike to get those good conditions.

A family member works for the Border Agency and he is extremely angry with the mismanagement of the agency by the previous and current government and the way it has been neglected over the past few years. The main problem being cutbacks in staff numbers. Quite frankly some of the stories he tells me are shocking.

 

[Pavilionaire]

i think it's disgusting that the border agency staff are considering strike action on the eve of the Olympics. This is precisely the time when we need them to do their job. Where's the professional pride? The sooner technology makes half of these workshy buggers redundant the better.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

And how many of the British public actually voted for the current Government ?

More than the 22% of the British Public that voted Blair back in, in 2005