Striking and the courts
- Thread starter Amp34
- Start date
Who are they, exactly?
I am taking about a process, not about a specific example.
Unionised tube workers. I thought that`s what the thread is about.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It is, with particular reference to the potetial for industrial action during the Olympics.
Actually, I believe that the RMT are proposing that their workers should "work to rule", strictly enforcing safety regulations. I can only assume that the RMT feel that by balloting to strike, they will legitimise any subsequent work to rule activity.
That is not entirely accurate, there are some retailers that are still worth working for whose terms and conditions are considerably better even if pay is roughly similar.
This however I agree with. If you have a specific, in demand skill set then it is much easier to move jobs and therefore the market model works. For many others then it just isn't possible. Especially when living basically from month to month with no contingency.
I am clearly talking generally, without any reference to any specific action.
They are not balloting to strike. They ave agreed a no strike agreement during the Olympics in return for the four year pay deal they recently agreed.
They are balloting for action SHORT OF A STRIKE, in protest at several safety issues with the LU Operational Effectiveness Program.
Among the large supermarket retailers, only Waitrose is significantly different, although they have generally better working conditions, they do pay on average less than their competitors.
Interestingly however, the highest paid supermarkets are the German budget retailer LIDL, and by a significant margin.
That is not to say any are not worth working for, or that their t&c are not different, only that when you consider the overall package those differences are minor, especially with regard to shop floor staff.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Ahh, well that's alright then, a completely different thing. If the tube drivers only take "action SHORT OF A STRIKE", there will be no impact on transport in London will there?
Ahh, well that's alright then, a completely different thing. If the tube drivers only take "action SHORT OF A STRIKE", there will be no impact on transport in London will there?
If the management are actually competent then "work to Rule" practice should have minimal impact on front line services.
Not that I am defending the RMT's action, I do not know the particulars of the OEP to make a judgement on it. I was however pointing out that they are not balloting for strike action as everyone seems to think.
Last edited:
And once again then we see the seemingly willful misrepresentation by headlines, which unfortunately most people only seem to read and then believe they understand the issues.
Telegraph headline said:
Telegraph first paragraph said:
It's not like you even had to read much more to get a better understanding.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It's the Torygraph - what would you expect
A few more gems from their willfully misleading article:
With their erosion of safety rules, the management of London Underground would seem to be heading for another King's Cross disaster.
God help London and Londoners come the Olympics
Exactly. Works to Rule are usually effective because management have bullied staff into things like bypassing safety rules, unpaid overtime etc. As you say: if the management followed all their own rules and enforced them on staff, such action would have no effect. Which raises a question: why are so many managements scared of Work to Rule?
M
It's the Torygraph - what would you expect
To be fair, it's pretty much every newspaper.
Meridian said:
Yea, my first thought was how can "work to rule" be a threat, unless employees are routinely expected to break the rules to get the job done...which of course would never happen because public safety and good service would be far more important than cost and efficiency...right?
Anything less than about 40% of members is a tiny proportion of the workforce in my eyes.
Shall we have a look at some ballot results?
PCS strike ballot over the civil service compensation scheme changes from October 2010.
Eligible to vote: 262,632
Voted: 83,126
Voted in favour of strike action: 51,948
Turnout: 31.7%
Members Voted in favour: 19.8%
(source)
PCS strike ballot over the Pensions changes
Eligible to vote: 251,209
Voted: 81,511
Voted in favour of strike action: 48,573
Turnout: 32.4%
Members Voted in favour: 19.3%
(Source). Please view linked results from Electoral reform society.
I've looked for data from the RMT, but they don't publish their results in an open and honest manner and include how many ballot papers were actually sent out.
You're also forgetting the historical and current examples of union harrassment and bullying of strikebreakers, and the idea that many union members will go out on strike even if they don't agree with it if that's what the vote shows.
Don't confuse collective bargaining with collective blackmail in the form of strike action. Collective bargaining works well when done at appropriate levels, however when the structure is too large (for example, every nurse in the whole of the UK), what you tend to end up with is a system that rewards poor performance and fails to recognise good performance, because there is no possibility of making amendments in order to attract certain types of staff and so on, especially when the negotiations are dominated by fully paid full time union reps who have absolutely no connection to the work involved.
You don't actually address Meridians question though, why should it be a different rule on counting votes for Union Ballots than for the other type of voting systems we have.
Because the rights of employees have to be balanced against the rights of employers and the rights of the public (in the case of public services), and this does not happen at the moment.
FWIW, I think the imposition of a minimum threshold is quite a crude solution to the problem of unjusitified use of the strike laws for blackmail purposes by small groups or for political means. There are far better solutions for preventing this occuring, such as court tests of reasonableness for whether exemption from liability is applied, or the use of binding pendulum arbitration.
However, the simplest solution, probably because of it's crudeness, is the minimum threshold.
Because rules are always open to interpretation? Whereas managers tend to go for the widest possible interpretation of a given rule, in the case of work to rule, they will go for the narrowest interpretation possible. No rules need to be currently being broken for a work to rule to be effective, unless you've got very strictly written rules in the first place, which doesn't happen because it's impractical.
Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder about 'managers'?