What would you do about strikes?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm still waiting for examples of good strikes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invergordon_Mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewi ... ke_of_1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_Kingdom

Is it legitimate for a company to change the terms and conditions of an employment contract at any time as they see fit? Is it legitimate for a company to do so in order to increase profits? Do you think that health and safety is a legitimate concern of an employee, or working hours, or sick pay, or holidays, or pension contributions, and what do you think their response should be when these elements of the employment contract are changed without their agreement?

[Scot Dutchy]

Very few people are members of unions here but here like Germany we have workers councils. They made up of chosen worker representatives, the company and a representative of the board of commissioners. The latter applies to companies over 1000 employees. The basis of any agreement regarding work conditions and salaries is the CAO (National Employment Agreement) negotiated nationally for each industry sector. This is annual agreement and cant be changed. The workers council meets once a month together. The workers reps and commissioners reps meet when required.

The board of commissioners is something that does not exist in Britain. It is chosen by the board of directors to act as a control on the company and in fact has the power to dismiss the board of directors and can stop any bonuses or pay rises the directors want give themselves. This happened twice in my company in my time. They work part time and often old directors or politicians.

The system seems to work although strikes do take place but usually in sectors where pay and conditions are not optimal.

[mistermack]

I'm still waiting for examples of good strikes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invergordon_Mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewi ... ke_of_1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_Kingdom

Is it legitimate for a company to change the terms and conditions of an employment contract at any time as they see fit? Is it legitimate for a company to do so in order to increase profits? Do you think that health and safety is a legitimate concern of an employee, or working hours, or sick pay, or holidays, or pension contributions, and what do you think their response should be when these elements of the employment contract are changed without their agreement?

48 years old? Nothing more recent? That's scraping the barrel.
And not such a great example. The court of inquiry found AGAINST their case.

I'm all for equal pay for equal work. But it's often the case that the work is NOT equal, but it's expected that everyone PRETENDS that it is, for the sake of "equality".

Do I think an employer should be allowed to change terms and conditions?
Yes. If you own the company, it's your baby, you have to pay the bills.
It would be different, if workers were not free to leave. But they are.

What if you had a nanny working for you, and your hours were changed, and you had to leave for work half an hour earlier? What if she refused to come half an hour earlier? What would you do?

In any case, what I proposed, was that a special court should have the final say. If an employer is acting unreasonably, they are going to lose.

Or are you against employers making REASONABLE changes to conditions?

[Scot Dutchy]

The employer is not a dictator. He should be a negotiator. He has responsibilities for his workers.

[mistermack]

The employer is not a dictator. He should be a negotiator. He has responsibilities for his workers.

They do negotiate. This is about when that process fails. At the end of the day, you can't run a business losing money. You have to manage it.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm still waiting for examples of good strikes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invergordon_Mutiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewi ... ke_of_1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ed_Kingdom

Is it legitimate for a company to change the terms and conditions of an employment contract at any time as they see fit? Is it legitimate for a company to do so in order to increase profits? Do you think that health and safety is a legitimate concern of an employee, or working hours, or sick pay, or holidays, or pension contributions, and what do you think their response should be when these elements of the employment contract are changed without their agreement?

48 years old? Nothing more recent? That's scraping the barrel.
And not such a great example. The court of inquiry found AGAINST their case.

I'm all for equal pay for equal work. But it's often the case that the work is NOT equal, but it's expected that everyone PRETENDS that it is, for the sake of "equality".

Do I think an employer should be allowed to change terms and conditions?
Yes. If you own the company, it's your baby, you have to pay the bills.
It would be different, if workers were not free to leave. But they are.

What if you had a nanny working for you, and your hours were changed, and you had to leave for work half an hour earlier? What if she refused to come half an hour earlier? What would you do?

In any case, what I proposed, was that a special court should have the final say. If an employer is acting unreasonably, they are going to lose.

Or are you against employers making REASONABLE changes to conditions?

Oh come on. Do your own research. Those were examples I came up with off the top of my head - good strikes, your challenge met. What about the Jr Dr's strike - is that a good strike for good reasons?

Look, the employment contract is just that, a contract of exchange. Employers don't own their employees. If terms and conditions need to change then that should be agreed, not imposed. It's a simple, civilised principle. You can pull any number of novel exceptions out of your anecdotal bag, but the principle remains, and we have a raft of employment laws which define the reasonable means by which employment disputes can and should be resolved. Why should the balance be skewed to favour of the employer exactly?

[mistermack]

At the end of the day, it's the owner of the business who decides how to spend his own money.
This is about when all the normal negotiations FAIL when a union decides to take damaging action.
In certain industries, like the armed forces and police, they are deemed too important to allow strikes. What's wrong with that being applied to other vital industries? Doctors are important. Ambulances are important. Fire engines are important.
Ban the fuckers from striking. At the end of the day, people will still want those jobs. In fact, they will still be queueing up to get in.

[BarnettNewman]

The employer is not a dictator. He should be a negotiator. He has responsibilities for his workers.

They do negotiate. This is about when that process fails. At the end of the day, you can't run a business losing money. You have to manage it.

Yeah! Why should they lose money... oh wait.

The publisher, said to be responsible for about one in every four books sold globally, recorded a 23% rise in profits to a record €557m last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... aff-unions

[Rum]

It is easy to forget how much power the Unions in the UK had until the 80s. They stifled innovation and ensured that old inefficient working practices continued in the face of huge inefficiency and with the aid of massive subsidies from the taxpayer.

That being said it seems to me that the pendulum has swung way over in the other direction, with zero hours contracts, short term working and much of the work forces paid the minimum wage. People of my daughter's generation - she is now 26 are as a rule far less well off than my generation and finding secure employment is very difficult indeed for many of them.

Workers in some industries are saying they have had enough of watching the owners and the bosses take bigger profits while bearing down on wages and making near poverty the norm these days. Good luck to them!

[Forty Two]

Strikes? I swing at them.

[mistermack]

This is the kind of thing I'm on about :

“Our members have made their message clear. Unless ITV can come back with a better offer, they will be taking strike action next week.”

An ITV spokesperson said only 232 union members had voted to strike out of workforce of 3,000, and that the channel had contingency plans in place to ensure broadcasts would not be affected.

The spokesperson added: “We are fully prepared to maintain an open dialogue with union representatives following the ballot result today, which has seen 232 union members voting to strike out of a UK workforce of 3,000 employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... -pay-offer

[BarnettNewman]

This is the kind of thing I'm on about :

“Our members have made their message clear. Unless ITV can come back with a better offer, they will be taking strike action next week.”

An ITV spokesperson said only 232 union members had voted to strike out of workforce of 3,000, and that the channel had contingency plans in place to ensure broadcasts would not be affected.

The spokesperson added: “We are fully prepared to maintain an open dialogue with union representatives following the ballot result today, which has seen 232 union members voting to strike out of a UK workforce of 3,000 employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... -pay-offer

What's the problem?

[Brian Peacock]

I believe MM thinks their grievance was frivolous.

NUJ [national union of journalists] general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, said: “My members are not going to accept this cheap-as-chips pay offer when we know ITV is able to give Adam Crozier, its chief executive, a bonus of £8.4m and it has been on a £1.4bn spending spree on company buy-ups while its staff face hardship because of their paltry pay. It is, frankly, an insult to offer 2% to our members who were prepared to make sacrifices when times were tough at ITV. Now, with fortunes on the turn and an increase of 6% in advertising revenue last year, why is ITV being so mean? Our members have made their message clear. Unless ITV can come back with a better offer, they will be taking strike action next week.”

And the dispute was settled a few weeks later...

ITV staff have agreed a new pay deal after staging a strike in May that hit programmes such as Good Morning Britain, Loose Women and Coronation Street.

The broadcaster has agreed a 2016 pay increase of 2.2% for staff earning less than £60,000, 0.2 percentage points above the 2015 deal. That offer, tabled in June, came weeks after ITV’s chief executive Adam Crozier said the broadcaster was almost certainly not going to propose an improved deal.

The National Union of Journalists said that its members – as well as those ITV staff represented by Unite and Bectu – have voted to accept the new terms...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... programmes

[JimC]

This is the kind of thing I'm on about :

“Our members have made their message clear. Unless ITV can come back with a better offer, they will be taking strike action next week.”

An ITV spokesperson said only 232 union members had voted to strike out of workforce of 3,000, and that the channel had contingency plans in place to ensure broadcasts would not be affected.

The spokesperson added: “We are fully prepared to maintain an open dialogue with union representatives following the ballot result today, which has seen 232 union members voting to strike out of a UK workforce of 3,000 employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... -pay-offer

What's the problem?

Well, it certainly would have been easier to justify if voted for by most members...

[pErvinalia]

This is the kind of thing I'm on about :

“Our members have made their message clear. Unless ITV can come back with a better offer, they will be taking strike action next week.”

An ITV spokesperson said only 232 union members had voted to strike out of workforce of 3,000, and that the channel had contingency plans in place to ensure broadcasts would not be affected.

The spokesperson added: “We are fully prepared to maintain an open dialogue with union representatives following the ballot result today, which has seen 232 union members voting to strike out of a UK workforce of 3,000 employees.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/ ... -pay-offer

What's the problem?

Won't somebody think of the poor giant corporations?