Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban

I'd rather they just held the strike in the way I've seen it done abroad. Open all the barriers and let people travel on the underground for free.

However, when a driver gets fired for being drunk in charge of a train and they then go on strike to get him his job back... and succeed... I'd prefer the management just stood up to the union and told them to go get ******.
 
deuse said:
£60k is that all! living out a bag for London. Oh I see it's £60k for the highest earner with all perks so not £60k.
Click to expand...

It's more like £44k and its a really crappy working environment.

But these discussion rarely end well, are never objective and revolve around the politics of jealousy more often than not...

As far as banning strike action...I disagree with this, the last resort of withholding labour in a dispute should be a fundamental right for everyone. (Including The Police but excluding in theatre servicemen) in my opinion.
 
Castiel said:
It's more like £44k and its a really crappy working environment.

But these discussion rarely end well, are never objective and revolve around the politics of jealousy more often than not...

As far as banning strike action...I disagree with this, the last resort of withholding labour in a dispute should be a fundamental right for everyone. (Including The Police but excluding in theatre servicemen) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Good post
 
dowie said:
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...
Click to expand...

And when they lose 10 million, what happens then?
 
hurfdurf said:
And when they lose 10 million, what happens then?
Click to expand...

they'd tend to get sacked... probably before that happens.... not all revenue generators take on risk either, front office sales staff or people from investment banking division directly bring in revenue... a sales person can bring in revenue but isn't going to lose millions... if he doesn't sell then he'll be out the door and the cost to the bank is the cost of his desk space, software and his basic salary

banks shouldn't be taking punts anyway which is something the govts in the US and UK are clamping down on

as for people who do take on some risk - this is exactly why you need variable compensation and why it should be deferred with claw-back agreements... the proposed legislation will just lead to inflated basic salaries...

can you imagine it happening in any other business - say JK Rowling is going to sign a new book deal but the UK publisher can only pay her a flat rate + a bonus equal to that.... even if the book then brings in a ton of revenue... think she'd instantly jump ship to a US publisher.... Yet UK banks operating in the US are going to be subject to that legislation which doesn't seem to serve any real purpose other than increasing fixed salary costs for the bank.
 
I'm all for ensuring that they have a proportional percentage of staff voting to strike before they can do so, its pretty rubbish how we often seem to get strikes where its just a minority causing a walk out. It reflects badly on other Tube staff who haven't striked as the anger is directed at them (as was seen in the BBC documentary recently). Its also often confusing because on some of these strikes, many lines still run, so its all a bit silly.

I'm sure we will see the annual threat of a Boxing Day strike pop up soon.
 
Nexus said:
I'm all for ensuring that they have a proportional percentage of staff voting to strike before they can do so, its pretty rubbish how we often seem to get strikes where its just a minority causing a walk out. It reflects badly on other Tube staff who haven't striked as the anger is directed at them (as was seen in the BBC documentary recently). Its also often confusing because on some of these strikes, many lines still run, so its all a bit silly.

I'm sure we will see the annual threat of a Boxing Day strike pop up soon.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less how it reflects on the other staff. If they care about how it reflects on them then perhaps they should vote no instead of not bothering, then perhaps it wouldn't have happened. When you see the turn out for these votes, it is obvious most don't bother.
 
Last edited:
Given the recent European court ruling on compensation paid by the company for any delays including strike action, there has to be a very strong argument for making the unions responsible for consequential losses for the strike activity.
 
Dolph said:
Given the recent European court ruling on compensation paid by the company for any delays including strike action, there has to be a very strong argument for making the unions responsible for consequential losses for the strike activity.
Click to expand...

I guess the counter argument would be that it is the company that is failing to effectively manage its workforce and all faults and delays rests with them.
 
Castiel said:
It's more like £44k and its a really crappy working environment.

But these discussion rarely end well, are never objective and revolve around the politics of jealousy more often than not...

As far as banning strike action...I disagree with this, the last resort of withholding labour in a dispute should be a fundamental right for everyone. (Including The Police but excluding in theatre servicemen) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with this more.
 
Castiel said:
As far as banning strike action...I disagree with this, the last resort of withholding labour in a dispute should be a fundamental right for everyone. (Including The Police but excluding in theatre servicemen) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should ban tube drivers from striking, but I do think the rules proposed in the OP would be a potential way of making sure they have proper support so the disruption doesn't unnecessarily disrupt the capital.
 
Whatever they do, they need to do something to prevent these unions, and in this case, tube drivers, attempting to hold London to ransom because they're greedy ***** who already get paid way above what most people earn. Being a tube driver is a profession which can be learned by just about anyone with enough time, same as most unskilled professions.
 
Gackt said:
Being a tube driver is a profession which can be learned by just about anyone with enough time, same as most unskilled professions.
Click to expand...

Come on you can do better than this?

I'm pretty sure i could be a Brain surgeon given enough time... If you regard that as more important.

So do you hold all "unskilled" people with contempt? Just Alienated 50% of the forum members id guess.
 
Efour said:
I'm pretty sure i could be a Brain surgeon given enough time... If you regard that as more important.
Click to expand...

Whilst I don't really agree with his point this is a fairly inaccurate comparison. Becoming a brain surgeon takes a lot of time and requires a significant amount of study and examinations which a large amount of people, even given unlimited time, simply wouldn't manage.
 
Castiel said:
It's more like £44k and its a really crappy working environment.

But these discussion rarely end well, are never objective and revolve around the politics of jealousy more often than not...

As far as banning strike action...I disagree with this, the last resort of withholding labour in a dispute should be a fundamental right for everyone. (Including The Police but excluding in theatre servicemen) in my opinion.
Click to expand...

thats still a very high wage for a pretty menial job - and one that can increasingly be done by machine.
 
Nitefly said:
I guess the counter argument would be that it is the company that is failing to effectively manage its workforce and all faults and delays rests with them.
Click to expand...

Not capitulating to whatever demands the trade unions make this week is not a management failure.
 
[TW]Fox;25024159 said:
Whilst I don't really agree with his point this is a fairly inaccurate comparison. Becoming a brain surgeon takes a lot of time and requires a significant amount of study and examinations which a large amount of people, even given unlimited time, simply wouldn't manage.
Click to expand...

ok ill use Rocket scientist cliche analogy next time instead. Brain surgeon was taken too literally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom