bickster Posted July 10, 2007 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2007 Some people are bordering on personal abuse here, discuss the isssue by all means but please don't go calling people names just because their opinion is diffeent to yours. Any more and cards will have to be issued And onto the topic, my answer is probably. I'm not a great believer in striking but if it was in support of something I believed to be a just cause then sure of course I'd not cross the picket line. I've been on picket lines with the miners in 84 and again shortly after with the postal workers, both worthwhile causes at the time (and in my more militant past). I've also crossed picket lines in places where I thought the cause wasn't even justified (usually some trotskyite influenced union decision based on feck all but the flexing of political muscles by people with a name to make). Its called democracy, its my decision whether to cross a picket line based on what I believe to be the correct course of action relevant to the dispute involved This notion that crossing any picket line is wrong is just as bad as the idea that all strikes are wrong. Forunately these days I rarely have to make the choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 There are no emotions involved, my thoghts are logical, don't like your current employer, move on, what is emotional about that? :confused: I fail to see the lack of reasoned arguement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant(aka_eddy) Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 There are no emotions involved, my thoghts are logical, don't like your current employer, move on, what is emotional about that? :confused: I fail to see the lack of reasoned arguement? So if say 10,000 of a 12,000 workforce become unhappy with changes to pay should they a) Negotiate and strike as a last resort All move on. I think you're thinking about it from a very individual viewpoint and not considering wider issues such as the difficulty 10,000 people may have seeking new employment if conditions changed suddenly. Especially those with families to support. These people may have invested years of their life in training or invested in education specific to that sector. They may want to carry on in that job and not want to do whatever pays the bills or they may be unable to secure similar pay levels elsewhere. Jobs in that area may not be available, particularly if a whole batch of people are suddenly looking. Sorry Nick but a blanket "striking is bad, m'kay" just doesnt make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 There are no emotions involved, my thoghts are logical, don't like your current employer, move on, what is emotional about that? :confused: I fail to see the lack of reasoned arguement? I mean things like "holding the country to ransom", a cliche for the last 30 years which purports to be an analysis of what is happening, but in the end is just a grunt of disapproval. A more interesting question would be "in what circumstances is striking wrong?". If your position is that it is always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstances, I would suggest that you're operating more on an emotional than a rational level on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 And onto the topic, my answer is probably. I'm not a great believer in striking but if it was in support of something I believed to be a just cause then sure of course I'd not cross the picket line. I've been on picket lines with the miners in 84 and again shortly after with the postal workers, both worthwhile causes at the time (and in my more militant past). I've also crossed picket lines in places where I thought the cause wasn't even justified (usually some trotskyite influenced union decision based on feck all but the flexing of political muscles by people with a name to make). Its called democracy, its my decision whether to cross a picket line based on what I believe to be the correct course of action relevant to the dispute involved Agree with this. I've helped organise street demonstrations and collections for the miners, and also crossed a picket line organised by SWP for their own internal and recruitment purposes, little to do with any genuine dispute. It has to do with the circumstances, and any answer that it must always be either right or wrong to cross a picket line makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 There are no emotions involved, my thoghts are logical, don't like your current employer, move on, what is emotional about that? :confused: I fail to see the lack of reasoned arguement? So if say 10,000 of a 12,000 workforce become unhappy with changes to pay should they a) Negotiate and strike as a last resort All move on. I think you're thinking about it from a very individual viewpoint and not considering wider issues such as the difficulty 10,000 people may have seeking new employment if conditions changed suddenly. Especially those with families to support. These people may have invested years of their life in training or invested in education specific to that sector. They may want to carry on in that job and not want to do whatever pays the bills or they may be unable to secure similar pay levels elsewhere. Jobs in that area may not be available, particularly if a whole batch of people are suddenly looking. Sorry Nick but a blanket "striking is bad, m'kay" just doesnt make sense to me. See that I don't agree with, firstly when you take a job, you know your T&C's, to suddenly want to change them, i.e. erm I think this job is worth more than this, is completely wrong. Now a business cannot legally reduce your salary, unless you sign a new contract. Therefore, it is the trade unions that are trying to move the goalposts, and when a business trys to reduce cost in terms of generating more profit, again I don't see the issue... where do you think, improvement to conditions are going to come from? The magical money fairy? Were do you think new equipment, better marketing, advertising and development is going to come from, oh yeah, its that magical money fairy! Not to mention further business expansion, improving technology, improved premises, product improvement... And lets not forget all these business advances go down to improve a service/product for the consumer, i.e. you and I! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I would have to assume there is a union involved somewhere and as I would never be part of a union I would go to work.... ever see a union rep that doesn't live in a big house and get chauffer driven in a jag everywhere..acting in the interests of it's members ...my arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 Striking a disgusting, especially in public sectors, where the general public have to suffer!! If you don't like your job, find another one like the rest of the country do! Well, yes and no. The "general public have to suffer" thing is also a line that the managment will use to attempt to emotionally blackmail staff. Ive only ever been involved in one strike ballot (and i voted against the strike) which incidently, never happened. And that excuse was used against us. People should have the right to demand improved terms and conditions. People should have the right to withdraw labour. If that wasnt the case, a lot of us would still be working in victorian style sweatshops. Maybe services had to suffer to get us out of these sweatshops. Its about balance. If you have serious concerns about the way your job is going, then you should have the right to do something about it. We shouldnt be like the French though, who seem to go on strike if they dont like the colour of the new carpet in the office! You always have the right to withdraw your labour, it's called a notice period. Perhaps this would then open a vacancies for someone who would appricate the job. Whilst you move on to a more suitable job? Well, it seems you are miles apart from me on this one then. If you cant see any kind of reason in the logic that great benefits have came from people withdrawing labour then i guess there is just no point in even debating. Your arguments just smart of vested interests, not rational thought. You are allowed to give an inch from time to time Nick, this isnt some kind of pay negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Nayson, I just see it from a business perspective, and yes business shouldn't be allowed to run over employees, I get that, but surely that is what employment law is all about... Employment is about choice, you are not forced into any line of vocation, which to me and the fact employment law is now very much on the side of the employee, not the employer, that the need for striking is now not necesary, and completely down to holding an employer to ransom. In history, when employment law was different, yes great thing have come about from withdrawing labour... but things are different now. Take nurses for example, they don't have to work for the NHS, there are many private firms that pay better, etc, people have a choice and striking IMHO is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc443 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I'd never go on strike and would always cross the picket line. I think to strike, you obviously don't need the money. Scabs disgraceful?? Ha Ha what bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimandson Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Its that Delaneys fault. The scallywag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 im a former union rep (all voluntary work), worked for a very large international organisation. in my 7 years their every single union convenor was made redundant. 25% of the work force was threatened with redundancy each year (this equated to about 50 people a year in the business unit i was part of) all under the guise of restructuring. I represented 10 people who had been made redundant at industrial tribunals (one of who was the HR director). id never seen stress on this scale, grown men reduced to tears because of the attitude of the companies. Most of which being not being given leave dates but made to work and train replacements. If they left to find other jobs they would have lost their redundancies. Of these ten cases 9 people received settlement slightly before tribunals, this was on average 2 years after the redundancy. the other unfortunately passed away. Employment law did nothing to protect these people. Eventually bigger bosses moved in and replaced the people in this company that were causing all this mis treatment. I often wonder if striking would have highlighted these problems much sooner and saved a lot of peoples jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I'm sorry, but positions are made redundant not people, so if the company were replacing these people then they were breaking the law.. so either your story is untrue, i.e. having to train replacement, or the Union didn't represent it's members correctly... Redundancies are part and parcel of a successful business, people talk about looking after the majority, and this is exactly what redundances do :confused: I have been made redundant numerous times, and you get up and look for another job, it's life, anyone who think a job is for life these days is sadly mistaken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 the point is that if lots of people leave these industries, the government will have no choice but to raise wages and improve conditions. Can just speak for Norway here, but you live in a dream world. My mother and father are teachers, and they have left the profession. When people leave, the goverment doesnt raise wages and improve conditions, they lower the qualifications to enter it. So you get equal amount of people, just less qualified. And as earlier said regarding health care, the import of foreign workers is a problem, and another reason why you are wrong. And since im neither an expert on strikes or what you do in GB. Im just curious. You dont think workers should be in the position to demand better wage? In that case you think those who hire them, and those in power cares more for their workers then making money? Do you think the valuation, pay and economy in our society is static? Static might be the wrong word i guess, just fill in whatever fits better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 So you think schools and hospital make money now do you?? And now immigration is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 You lost me now. Thought you discussed wether people had rights to strike for better pay and working conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Sorry I misread your post, and for that I apologise, but Teachers and Nurses know the wage structure and the conditions before they sign up..... therefore, no you don't have the right to strike and effect childrens education, or someones healthcare!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I've helped organise street demonstrations and collections for the miners, and also crossed a picket line organised by SWP for their own internal and recruitment purposes, little to do with any genuine dispute. What's he doing spending his time organising picket lines when he should be busy signing for us? (winky face thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 So how about the people who actually think health care and teaching for once are very important roles in our society. They enter the proffession with hopes of fighting and raising the stature of it. Is that not allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Oh and Bill, mining, burning more fossil fuels, probably a good thing more and more mines are closing... Not to mention that British Mining was losing money hand over fist, but let keep an industry going, costing the country money because a few people will lose their jobs... and theres me thinking it was the majority that count, but I suppose that only counts when it affects you and your own :roll: I didn't see IT workers striking or throwing there toys in the IT depression of 2001... What you call a pathetic CV, to the more business minded, it's one of the most powerful tools you have.... BTW, right on brother, power to the people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts