Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
HOWARD;
But blair didn't, he may well have got middle england and the press on board,
but some of his other decisions, just isolated many hard working labour people.
many labour supporters saying, whats the difference between blair and the tories.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
The reason that strikes by unions are so feared is that it is union members who tend to be doing the genuine productive jobs in this country, such as in manufacturing and transport, and the country grinds to a halt when they stop working. Strikes by paper-pushers and desk wallahs are irrelevant as nobody would notice if they did go on strike.
Strikes are generally self-defeating as they damage the organisation in which the strikers are employed and can only lead to a smaller cake from which to take a slice. Mass demonstrations and media campaigns highlighting the union members concerns would seem a more enlightened approach. The days of Red Robbo and British Leyland are long gone.
Unions serve a useful purpose in protecting their members against the excesses of dictatorial or incompetent management, particularly where this compromises the safety of their members or the public. The concerns of their members can be communicated to management without exposing the members concerned to recrimination.
Unions will continue to remain relevant for as long as the "them" and "us" culture continues. Sadly, British management has a poor track record, think of the lacklustre performance of high flyers such as BP's Tony Hayward and the banker Fred the Shred then extrapolate it to the lower echelons. Ratan Tata's critique of Corus and Jaguar - Land Rover management is apposite: "In India, if you are in a crisis, if it means working to midnight, you would do it. The worker in JLR seems to be willing to do that, the management is not".
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/business/news/tata-hits-out-corusjlr-managers-not-walking-extra-mile-249Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ED;
I totally disagree with your view point.
That said, there is at the moment a very uneven playing field, laid clearly by previous govts(wont say what colour to keep olitics out of it lol)
Thankfully as you say the British leyland days have gone, and we have a lot of responsible trade unions, working under a legal framework, which attempts them from operating.
The real flaw in your view ED is the position as iv asked before, what happens when the trade union and manager cannot agree?
at the moment theres not much binding stuff in place to sort this out.
This is the area tha needs attention
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I have been in the union all my working life and still even today,I have held office in the pass,the worker needs their backup.
But I do not support anykind of strikes,I have said at many a union meeting "Do not go out on Strike" 9out of 10 they do not work and costs jobs in the end,but I do support a work to rule this is a much better way,the boss still have to pay your wage but does not get the work done, they make the rules so you are doing just what the rules tell you do.This works very well on the Railways etc,A driver can hold up his train in any station by just following his rule book.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Interesting post vic;
so if all breaks down including any work to rule
then what?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
A work to rule can not break down Keith in the end there will be agreement done, but the goodthing for the worker is he stills gets a wage each week it goes on for.
I totally agree with you Vic , knowing a company handbook , policies and procedures inside out and using that to your advantage ( when needed ) is a really effective way for staff to bring preasure to bear on an employer , without loosing pay , it generally has a positive effect on negotiations . Sometimes it dosnt even have to happen just a conversation on or off the record about potential impact can swiftly realign negotiations or behaviours
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Thank you Sarah for you support on this,nice to get somone on your side in my case that does not happen alot.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
VIC;
I have supported you when many others didn't.
I try to be helpful.
on the issue here though, we have a very different matter, work to rule,, is one tactic that may well be used, but as to whether or not it'e effective is another matter.
No employee wants to withdraw labour in any shape or form whether it be work to rule, one day strikes, 1 hour strikes or whatever.
But when you meet up with some of these employers you may well form a different opinion,=
Having been there for 25 years i can tell you its not quite as it seems, and not all so black and white.
if only it was
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I agree with Ed. But who is there to protect union members from the excesses of their own incompetent or dictatorial leaders?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
That Peter is down to the members they must turn out to meetings sadly that does not happen,By the way heading down to see you in two hours time.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
PETER;
On that very theme, there are not many lefty trade unions these days(sadly) lol
but they can be replaced like govts with a little bit of work.
they get re elected because like with govts, people go do down theL road of apathy.
Like govts these leaders are elected by its membership, and csan be removed in the same way.
you can also have a voice.
I have served at many levels of the trade union from national to regiional to local and seen the good and bad practices.
just looking at the N.U..R(NOW RMT) I recall 25 years ago attending the town hall where the N.U.R. national executive had called a national strike, in those days ballots were unheard of.
I Got involved because i felt that to be wrong, and campaigned/pushed/lobbied for a more democratic system(long before maggie) and welcomed the introduction of the RMT ballot bef also before any action
I also campaigned long and hard against any moves for all out strikes
the N.U.M. PROVED that does not workl.
it does look like the unions most who comply with thre law
are to be heavily strap;ped up again, imn an already uneven playing field
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I also agree with Vic on this one, a work to rule is much more effective than going on strike.
Ed, I quote "Strikes by paper-pushers and desk wallahs are irrelevant as nobody would notice if they did go on strike."
Not all pen pushers are irrelevant, you would soon notice if your pay or benefit did not go in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------