Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban

You've got to remember this isn't about completely stripping away the right to strike. It's about taking steps first of all to ensure strikes can be avoided.

It's a bit like the court system if you're litigating. The courts will look unfavourably on any party which chooses not to engage in any form of alternative dispute resolution. Therefore getting the unions around the table to mediate first and then making sure no strike can still go ahead without the specified majority vote is just a means of helping to avoid the unnecessary. Strikes are costly on the economy and a burden to the vast majority of londoners.
 
J-FRO said:
If we have any TFL workers in the house, please feel free to enlighten us as per Kishywish's comments.

Why?
Click to expand...
I work for TfL. I think people are confusing Transport for London and London Underground. I've not heard of any of TfL striking, but that might be funny seeing all the backroom staff disappearing for a day.

I'm not even part of a union, even with all the organisational change I've been through. I don't really know how it all works. I don't understand how a union is able to strike based on the result of balloted members rather than the whole of their member count that is affected in that area.

Just to touch on some of the points you make about our benefits -

  1. Not everyone gets 30 days annual leave allowance a year.
  2. Staff Oyster cards and Nominee Oyster cards are not contractual. Apart from administration, I don't think it really costs the company anything to give this as a benefit. The tubes and buses will still be running regardless. I guess they see as loss of revenue and cost to the company as two different things.
  3. Not everyone is eligible for private medical benefits.
 
I'm not personally affected by their strike action so I feel I can look at it pretty objectively. The information in the OP suggests they don't have it too bad, quite the opposite in-fact, but I have heard of forced overtime which isn't on. Overtime does seem to be part of the parcel of some professions though and I imagine it's something one just has to accept. They're certainly free to go work for a different organisation that doesn't forced overtime but they might find difficulty getting the same pay as they do now.

I do find it cute how Bob Crow will try bash the rich in any press releases yet earns £94k+ a year.
 
Biohazard said:
They should all become bankers, then you can hold the entire nation to ransom.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you think that works... lots of them lost their jobs, their pay went down, companies got nationalised and the government is still throwing more regulations their way... post-2008 being a banker is rather less lucrative for most of them.
 
I agree that over 50% of people employed by the underground should vote in favour of the strike for it to go ahead.
 
Looking at it again i think its another way of riling up us 8 million ish Londoners and trying to secure Tory votes akin to the Labour energy price fixing nonsense, whipped up into a BBC media frenzy.

Everyone hates bankers, tube drivers and traffic wardens....
 
Im not sure its the right move. I dislike modern unions, thats no secret.
I think there should be a big shake up, rethink.
For a start requiring a minimum % to win a vote. Rather than 50% of a 10% turn out.
 
Glaucus said:
Im not sure its the right move. I dislike modern unions, thats no secret.
I think there should be a big shake up, rethink.
For a start requiring a minimum % to win a vote. Rather than 50% of a 10% turn out.
Click to expand...

There's that too it as well and this is often overlooked. There should be a minimum turn out too in this sort of situation.

Obviously people will then say "but we don't need a certain percentage turn out for a general election", but I think that's different. That is the country voting for who should be in government. This is an institution who's actions cannot be voted for by the population but who's actions probably affect about an 8th of the country. And that's not on. That's more akin to denying us the vote.
 
momentimori said:
Maybe the council houses shouldn't have been sold and more built rather than relying on private sector speculators to provide it.
Click to expand...

maybe they shouldn't, maybe we need to build more and remove the right to by... even then its still going to be a finite resource so has got nothing to do with people earning close to six figures still being able to occupy them... we ought to means test tenants and move some of them on
 
dowie said:
maybe they shouldn't, maybe we need to build more and remove the right to by... even then its still going to be a finite resource so has got nothing to do with people earning close to six figures still being able to occupy them... we ought to means test tenants and move some of them on
Click to expand...


A law for this came out over a year ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom