The right to strike

[Tigger]

If public transport shuts down it has a far greater impact than just making people late, and having to find other modes of transport.
If they plan to do it on any business day, then no it's simply far too wide-reaching. Do it every Sunday, or something.

This just lessens the impact of the industrial action as far as some people are concerned, rendering the strike "weaker", but I totally agree with you. There are always those who take the "us and them" attitude to employment, often just for the sake of some misplaced political ideology.

A lot of the time it's necessary. Without the WSPU's militancy (some in the day would have argued terrorism) women would not have the vote. The poll tax riots "inconvenienced" business owners, but something greater came out of it - repealing the Poll Tax and Thatcher's resignation. Ghandi, Mandela, Castro, Guevara, Lenin, Pankhurst, Martin Luther King...Without their "misplaced political ideology" the world would be a worse place to live in.

The same can be said of any significant historical figure from Alexander the Great to Goering. Without them the world wouldn't be what it is today. But worse? I hardly think so. You're speculating on an indeterminable alternate future based on nothing. You have no idea what the world would be like without them.

I wish I'd said that.

[RuleBritannia]

If public transport shuts down it has a far greater impact than just making people late, and having to find other modes of transport.
If they plan to do it on any business day, then no it's simply far too wide-reaching. Do it every Sunday, or something.

This just lessens the impact of the industrial action as far as some people are concerned, rendering the strike "weaker", but I totally agree with you. There are always those who take the "us and them" attitude to employment, often just for the sake of some misplaced political ideology.

A lot of the time it's necessary. Without the WSPU's militancy (some in the day would have argued terrorism) women would not have the vote. The poll tax riots "inconvenienced" business owners, but something greater came out of it - repealing the Poll Tax and Thatcher's resignation. Ghandi, Mandela, Castro, Guevara, Lenin, Pankhurst, Martin Luther King...Without their "misplaced political ideology" the world would be a worse place to live in.

The same can be said of any significant historical figure from Alexander the Great to Goering. Without them the world wouldn't be what it is today. But worse? I hardly think so. You're speculating on an indeterminable alternate future based on nothing. You have no idea what the world would be like without them.

You're right, we can't know what the present would look like if events of the past were different. We can however know what the present would look like if the events of the past are exactly how they are, because we live in that present. Since I (and I expect you) live a fairly comfortable life, then you owe this present to those events of the past and those people with their "misplaced political ideologies". The world could have been a better place without them, or it could have been a worse place, we don't know, but what we do know is our lives are pretty good because of them, and that's all that matters.

[Trolldor]

I can sit in the relative comfort of my house watching on my Plasma Screen Television 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"because the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima.
There are two sides to every coin. My life may be more comfortable, but that doesn't mean the world is in a good place.

[RuleBritannia]

I can sit in the relative comfort of my house watching on my Plasma Screen Television 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"because the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. There are two sides to every coin. My life may be more comfortable, but that doesn't mean the world is in a good place.

I never said it was a good place for everyone, but if you could change any event of the past, would you? Keeping in mind that you cannot know the results before you change it. Since the results of the change are unpredictable then the best option is to change nothing because it's the only action where outcome is knowable.

That was my point, not that the world is good or bad.

[Trolldor]

Ah, I see.
As for changing events in the past, yes I would. I would have left Caesar alive.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

[Tigger]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

Is that it? Wow, I agree then. Signals never fail do they?

What I don't like is the crappy reporting by, er, reporters when they get it all wrong. The BA cabin crew strike seems to be about the fact the the chief stewards don't want to serve coffee according to some sources I heard about. Can't find it now.

In my stance against strike action generally, I will admit that I'd rather have better information than media hype before I make a judgement about whether a strike is necessary. I know very well that some employers are total arses.

[RuleBritannia]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

Is that it? Wow, I agree then. Signals never fail do they?

What I don't like is the crappy reporting by, er, reporters when they get it all wrong. The BA cabin crew strike seems to be about the fact the the chief stewards don't want to serve coffee according to some sources I heard about. Can't find it now.

In my stance against strike action generally, I will admit that I'd rather have better information than media hype before I make a judgement about whether a strike is necessary. I know very well that some employers are total arses.

Your opinion about whether or not a strike is necessary is not relevant. What the media report or think also doesn't matter. The dispute is between the employer and the employee.

[Trolldor]

The whole point of a strike is to cause disruption to business, which invariably affects consumers. They too are involved.

[Tigger]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

Is that it? Wow, I agree then. Signals never fail do they?

What I don't like is the crappy reporting by, er, reporters when they get it all wrong. The BA cabin crew strike seems to be about the fact the the chief stewards don't want to serve coffee according to some sources I heard about. Can't find it now.

In my stance against strike action generally, I will admit that I'd rather have better information than media hype before I make a judgement about whether a strike is necessary. I know very well that some employers are total arses.

Your opinion about whether or not a strike is necessary is not relevant. What the media report or think also doesn't matter. The dispute is between the employer and the employee.

And your opinion matters does it?

[Hermit]

British Rail workers have had a potential strike ruled as illegal because of the degree of disruption it will cause

...and that under a Labour government? Fucking hell! The Labour Party seems to have forgotten who it is meant to represent.

If strikes get prohibited on the grounds that they cause disruption, workers will go from bargaining to begging, and we do know how far you get with employers when you are limited to doing the latter.

[RuleBritannia]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

Is that it? Wow, I agree then. Signals never fail do they?

What I don't like is the crappy reporting by, er, reporters when they get it all wrong. The BA cabin crew strike seems to be about the fact the the chief stewards don't want to serve coffee according to some sources I heard about. Can't find it now.

In my stance against strike action generally, I will admit that I'd rather have better information than media hype before I make a judgement about whether a strike is necessary. I know very well that some employers are total arses.

Your opinion about whether or not a strike is necessary is not relevant. What the media report or think also doesn't matter. The dispute is between the employer and the employee.

And your opinion matters does it?

No it doesn't, I am neither an employer or employee of Network Rail.

[Tigger]

From what I've heard this strike is about, I say a strike is justified. It's a safety issue.

It's the Network Rail engineers who's safety is being put on the line. (pardon the pun)
When they close a line in order to work on it, as a last line of defence, they place 3 detonators some distance away, which is designed to stop a train if it's accidentally sent down that track.
Planting the detonators takes about half an hour. Bosses say this is unnecessary and wastes half an hour to plant them. They say that the signallers should stop the trains.

Is that it? Wow, I agree then. Signals never fail do they?

What I don't like is the crappy reporting by, er, reporters when they get it all wrong. The BA cabin crew strike seems to be about the fact the the chief stewards don't want to serve coffee according to some sources I heard about. Can't find it now.

In my stance against strike action generally, I will admit that I'd rather have better information than media hype before I make a judgement about whether a strike is necessary. I know very well that some employers are total arses.

Your opinion about whether or not a strike is necessary is not relevant. What the media report or think also doesn't matter. The dispute is between the employer and the employee.

And your opinion matters does it?

No it doesn't, I am neither an employer or employee of Network Rail.

Might as well stop talking about it then!
Fancy a cuppa?

[JimC]

RuleBritannia wrote:

Your opinion about whether or not a strike is necessary is not relevant. What the media report or think also doesn't matter. The dispute is between the employer and the employee.

Not directly relevant at the bargaining table, perhaps, but still important. Strikes affect the whole of society, and legal structures erected by goverments have a big impact on industrial relations. In a democracy, it's a good idea for citizens to have an opinion on major social issues...

[Bella Fortuna]

I grew up in a very pro-union family - my mum was often the chief negotiator for her union before she moved into management. I've never actually been a union member, but was raised in a very organised labour-sympathetic household. However, being in management for a number of years now and having worked directly with numerous public sector unions, my opinion has entirely changed. Once there was true reason and need for them, but these days (the ones I've been involved with at least) they are arrogant and devoted to causing aggro and stonewalling perfectly legitimate employer rights. They promote ossification, protectivist regression, and over-complication, and prevent sensible improvements and getting work done in the most efficient way.