Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban

Ban all strikes tbh and legislate to send all industrial disputes to mediation and then pendulum arbitration.

It is too one-sided at the moment - employers have the power to impose changes and the workers have none. Similarly, the workers have the nuclear option of strike action and the employers have no counter.

One party can be unreasonable and not suffer for it. Pendulum arbitration would ensure that anyone being unreasonable loses out.
 
I don't agree with removing the right to strike for any non-essential workers. The tube workers being on strike is merely an inconvenience.

I'm not in favour of restricting peoples liberties just because someone else might be inconvenienced when those liberties are exercised.

It is too one-sided at the moment - employers have the power to impose changes and the workers have none. Similarly, the workers have the nuclear option of strike action and the employers have no counter.

What? How is that one sides? It sounds balanced to me.

One party can be unreasonable and not suffer for it.

The workers striking DO suffer for it - they lose pay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
50% rule for MPs to get elected too ;)

But it's ok for energy companies to threaten blackouts at price controls but not worker strikes :rolleyes:
 
Let them strike, they are signing their own death warrant. The more they strike the faster driver less trains will be used.
Boris's talk of driverless trains is just hot air. We might have trains that are automated, but we will never have Tube trains without a member of staff on board who is fully qualified to operate them manually (i.e. a driver). An unmanned train could only be used on a modern system, with lighting and walkways that would enable passengers to escape from the train without assistance, which will never happen on the Underground because you'd have to rebore every tunnel to reach this minimum level of safety.
 
[TW]Fox;25020077 said:
That was about 25 years ago. Some of the tube already is driverless.

Exactly.

Central and Victoria run on ATO and so does the Jubilee now. Some of the functionality of the TBTC on the Jube was disabled to give the driver something to actually do; open and close the doors manually.

Anyway, ban these strikes or enforce strict measures on turnouts and percentages required. Tube drivers have it easy, get paid well and still moan constantly. Some good ones but the majority I rode up in cabs with were constantly complaining and made suggestions they really didnt or could never understand.
 
I, for one, believe we need to accelerate this race to the bottom. Let's make sure there's absolutely no chance for anyone except people born into money to achieve anything. Let's make everyone poor, rather than improving everyone's working conditions and wealth, then tell them to be happy with it. While we're at it why not just do away with all employee protection legislation while you're at it, then I can pay my staff nothing and get rich off it? /s

Article said:
The group also called for Tube strikes to be banned and replaced by a compulsory mediation process.
I can't possibly imagine how a government-funded department mediating talks could possibly be a bad deal for the unions.

BoJo said:
"At a minimum the mayor wants new legislation that would outlaw strike action not supported by a majority of all union members, the so called 50% plus 1 threshold," he added.
Sounds fine. Only if the mayor gets more than 50% plus 1 of the vote, and more than 50% plus 1 of the country vote in the general election, otherwise it's just hypocritical isn't it?
 
Sounds fine. Only if the mayor gets more than 50% plus 1 of the vote, and more than 50% plus 1 of the country vote in the general election, otherwise it's just hypocritical isn't it?

Except, as has already been pointed out, a voter electing an official is mostly not faced with a binary choice.

Also, the people balloted on a strike action are a tiny minority of people actually affected by strike action, which isn't at all comparable with people electing an official to represent them.
 
I, for one, believe we need to accelerate this race to the bottom. Let's make sure there's absolutely no chance for anyone except people born into money to achieve anything. Let's make everyone poor, rather than improving everyone's working conditions and wealth, then tell them to be happy with it. While we're at it why not just do away with all employee protection legislation while you're at it, then I can pay my staff nothing and get rich off it?
Great, lets have inflated wages for menial tasks that are passed on to everybody else, job protection and anti-automation/technology strikes. That will surely advance civilisation!
 
I thought this Govt. cared about it's workforce? I mean they're currently splurging god knows how much Tax Payer funds in Legal action against the EU to make sure the poor hard-working Bankers in the UK can still get their massive bonuses as the EU want to place a Legal Limit on them...:rolleyes:
 
I thought this Govt. cared about it's workforce?

It does, which is why it doesn't want millions of them to suffer disrupted commutes because a small fraction of a group of people* who have a pretty good job want even more.

*So few drivers ever bother to even vote in the ballots that it only takes a small amount of them to enact a strike.
 
It takes very little sense to realise that these strikes are an abuse of power.
The role of unions and the act of striking was about defending inhumane conditions imposed on otherwise defenceless workers.
Sadly it's now become an arm-twisting tactic for unscrupulous workers and union bosses to just get what they want.
 
I thought this Govt. cared about it's workforce? I mean they're currently splurging god knows how much Tax Payer funds in Legal action against the EU to make sure the poor hard-working Bankers in the UK can still get their massive bonuses as the EU want to place a Legal Limit on them...:rolleyes:

As opposed to paying them a higher basic leaving lots of people with inflated salaries and less variable comp.... sure that would be a good idea... not
 
Yea lets bash guys earning 60kish a year instead of 600kish a year, they are definitely the problem

Well if the guy earning 600k brought in 10 million or so and would happily carry on doing the same elsewhere then I don't see the issue...

whereas if the guy earning 60k has a job which has been increasingly automated, less skilled and could be replaced by someone earning 30k then why pander to them...
 
Back
Top Bottom