Chippy Minton

Keef - how did you get on with a very young one at a festival? Would you recommend it? We're thinking about doing Camp Bestival next month, but much as I admire Mr Tumble's work, I not sure if I should be forking out ?170 if he and his colleagues will dominate our weekend! Anyone else got any advice on taking a very young one? I think Junior Minton will have a great time, but I'm not too sure about Mini Minton who'll only be 18 months.

Ha, ha Loz...if I left and then waited for a left-wing government I wouldn't be coming back (!)

Loz - The World Bank's report: ?Unions and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment.? It's based on more than a thousand studies of the effects of labour unions and collective bargaining on the performance of national economies.

T_I_S - If you look at trade union membership and collective bargaining on the performance of national economies, workers who belong to trade unions earn higher wages, work fewer hours, receive more training, and have longer job tenure on average than their counterparts that aren't trade union members - all great news for individuals. However, the benefits aren't just enjoyed by individuals because countries fare better economically if large numbers of workers belong to trade unions. Specifically, high union density rates are associated with lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and speedier adjustments to economic shocks. Therefore, I'd argue that any changes to the anti-trade union laws in this country would help address the decline in trade union membership and therefore we'd feel the knock-on marco-economic benefits.

Trizza - I'd argue a happy workforce, with the same rights as those enjoyed with European colleagues, lends itself to a more productive workforce and the fact that Germany, for example, has more rights than us us supports this. Yes, they shifted their manufacturing model years ago, but why does that mean that we shouldn't at least try and keep up? If the only way of quantifying an individual's worth is how much we pay them then we're all doomed! Clearly, examples such as India and China where there are very little/no employment rights aren't comparable. UK manufacturing has declined to such an extent that it now exists largely on the fact that what's left is a highly skilled, well trained, value-added workforce that offers something that these countries can't.

With regard to the injunctions point, unions are up against it when it comes to being able to go to court simply because of the figures involved. BA had millions at its disposal that they could use to take the union to court. Unite, and unions in general, have smaller finances at their disposal. Yes, they should follow correct procedure, but it's the technicalities issue I have a problem with - if the same princple was applied to last year's general election as BA used, there would have been dozens of results rendered null and void. BTW, BA don't give a stuff about the general public - they engineered the possibility of a Christmas strike. They knew a strike was coming for months and months and wanted it to take place at a time when they would gain maximum public sympathy for them, but also at a time when they'd loose the least amount of revenue because there would be less business travel i.e. the area of the business that they care most about, over this period.

I'd relax the restrictions on pickets, the need for industrial action ballots to be postal, reduce the employer notice period and look at the detail of how employers can take out injunctions on strikes based on technicalities - as executed by BA recently when their cabin crew in dispute. I'd also increase access to tribunals, increase compensation for discrimination, and increase the currently weak TUPE undertakings. Both the examples of Nissan and BMW cited above, formally recognise a trade union and workers on the shop floor often know what makes a company tick - employers should embrace this rather than confront them. The law in Germany and France, for example, makes it much, much harder for a company to sack people or simply up sticks and relocate - we just need that level playing field to compete fairly. Strikes aren't at an 80-year low because of our anti-trade union law, it's because people are fearful for their jobs as the government's cuts kick in. There are numerous examples of trade unions working with employers to provide decent jobs and a viable business model at the same time. The RMT isn't representative of all trade unions!

It's Nissan, not Toyota, that make the Qasquai and confirmed the investment today, but aside from getting your facts wrong you seem to be generalising all unions/industrial relations by getting hung up on the RMT. Thatcher's anti-union legislation hasn't exactly made us in UK a shinning example of growth. Our economic performance lags behind that of Germany, and even reputedly public spending-addicted France. Look to Europe for some inspiration, and we'd learn that the strength of Germany?s manufacturing industry is driven by high levels of research, investment in training, good government support, fair wages, decent rights and close co-operation with the workforce. If unions work with employers, jobs and businesses can be saved. BTW, our anti-union laws aren't just associated to arguments about competition, repealing some of the legislation would also give back workers numerous rights.

I'm not defending their action, but I do believe that generally we have industrial relation laws that are too tough in this country and that we should repeal some of Margaret Thatcher's legislation so we can compete better with Europe, especially given the current state of the economy and the fact that strike action in the UK is currently at an 80-year low.

There are laws in place. UK labour law is some of the most restrictive in Europe and the developed world.

Ahh, my apologies...I didn't realise you thought 'magnificent achievement' should be related to the greater good. In the context of this discussion, I thought it was related to his 'achievements' on behalf of paying RMT members and for actually doing what he is paid to do extremely well :-$

Isn't the fact that they get paid this much an example of one of the magnificent achievements?

Conceive it or not, TfL won't let you drive a tube after a five-day induction. I suspect they've got their reasons behind this policy ;-)

That is exactly what he said: "I do believe that with a 5 day induction I could handle a tube driver's job." I trust TfL to make the judgement on what's "*really* necesary" rather than you.

You could be a tube driver after a 5-day induction course!!!! Please let me know if this ever happens as TfL seems to think it takes at least six months.

Like I said, I am not familiar with the ferry dispute, but I completely agree that if unions are to remain relevant they need to be closer to the "rational model." All I'm saying is, it's wrong to say Bob Crow hasn't achieved anything when clearly he's achieved a great deal for his members. I'm not a member of the RMT and I, like thousands/millions of others, am inconvenienced whenever they strike. Perhaps the RMT is a special case because of the density of membership and specialist sector it covers? When they strike in London it affects almost everyone in some way, but when, for example, BA cabin crew went on strike not everyone is affected because a) not everyone is flying then and b) there is a choice of airlines. The RMT seems to be more effective because it doesn't have these sorts of issues however, I don't accept that all RMT strikes are politically motivated.

Marmora man - I don't know the detail of the RMT dispute in Scotland you're referring to, but whilst I don't disagree that on the face of it may seem illogical, nevertheless it would be the union's job to try and defend and retain these jobs. Being a member of a union is not a free service - members pay to belong to a union and so if they are ever in position where their jobs were threatened they would then expect to the union to act wherever possible.

The unions don't go out of their way to piss the public off, although obviously some disputes will inevitably do this. You probably notice the few high profile disputes more because you are affected. You live in London, so are obviously more likely to be aware of RMT strikes and the BA strike was high profile because it stopped people going on holiday, but every day there are dozens of strikes throughout the country that never get reported because the "public" aren't directly affected. What do mean by doing good in a wide sense? It's not the job of the RMT to do good for the general public - that is the job of the employers i.e. TfL, the train operators etc because they are the service providers! You are exactly right; Crow's talk of a general strike is just talk and is a political stunt. A general strike would be illegal in this country, so again I ask - show me an example of an actual strike that is a political stunt? The "imagination" you refer to in other countries is largely down to the stronger industrial relations law in continental Europe that leads to much more strike action than we generally see. UK and other countries' laws mean there isn't a level playing in industrial relations; indeed some countries even have the right to strike written into their constitution. Your arrogance by seemingly making a distinction between the general public and union members with your comment "They should not expect our support when the crunch comes. And they won't get it" is pretty shocking. Just because you don't appear to be a union member and union membership is in decline, there are still large chunks of the working population that are. I don't believe tougher anti-union laws would be generally applauded. We already have some of the toughest anti-union law in Europe, the Labour Party (which was the democratically elected of government for the 13 years prior to the last) didn't want to do this and even the current Tory government doesn't have any manifesto pledge to do so.

Whilst you may view issues like health and safety, pay, terms and conditions "banal triviality" I don't think the 80,000 members of the RMT that democratically vote on such issues see it the same way. Whether you think a dispute is justified or not, it is the job of the RMT/Bob Crow (and any other union) to represent its members in order to protect their working conditions. You may not think Bob Crow has any "magnificent achievements" but I bet RMT members - the people that pay his salary - don't agree. He's responsible for increasing his union's membership by a third at a time when you rightly point out union membership is falling, he's protected countless members' jobs/terms and conditions and increased his union's profile. I'd bet my mortgage he'd win hands down any election for General Secretary of the RMT if he stands again. With regard to the issue of "unionism dying," I can't believe Bob Crow/BA strikers are the cause of this like you seem to think. Like I've said, Bob Crow is responsible for actually increasing membership in his union and I just don't believe that any significant number of teachers, civil servants, nurses etc would resign/not join the NUT, PCS or Unison for example, because of the activities of the RMT/BA workers and others in different workplaces. Indeed, you could argue that Crow's success in his own sector would encourage people in other fields to actually join their respective union. The real reason for the decline in union membership is more to do with issues such as the decline in UK manufacturing, globalisation/multi-nationalism, the shift to a more transient and migrant workforce over the last 30 years and anti-union legalisation introduced by Margaret Thatcher?s government.

Nothing either. Now that we know a million + people got nothing, I'm a bit mad the organisers didn't allocate a certain percentage for each event to be available only to people that actually live in London. Anyway, on to the second ballot...anyone know exactly how this works? Did they keep any tickets back for people that got nothing first time around or is it simply stuff that didn't sell? Also, I've read they'll be available on a first come first served basis - if this is literally the case, they better have a pretty damn good website to cope with a million people logging on at 12:01am the day they go on sale!

Can you name any example of a strike that is held "purely for politcal reasons" ? Striking is a last resort once all other efforts to resolve a dispute have been exhausted. You ask what is their argument, but then state it is: "We think that you are damaging the economy so we'll jump in and do it first?" Just stupid." When has this ever been an argument by workers on strike? Do you really think that people go on strike because of their political beliefs? The overwheming majority of people go on strike when they face losing their job, pension, pay, conditions etc! Further, how can you claim the unions "run rampant under Labour" ? Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister that introduced masses of anti-trade union legislation in this country yet both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did nothing about reppealing this when they were in Downing Street. Yes, many unions have a historic link to Labour, but with the RMT already severing its tie and others considering disaffiliation, I don't think you can say they run rampant. BTW, if you are talking about the "50% requirement" as a tougher trade union law which has been mooted by Boris and some of his Tory colleagues recently, consider this - if the same princple was applied to national, local and European elections in this country there would be swathes of results that would be rendered null and void!

I'm not not trying win any fight or move any goalposts. I haven't expressed any opinion on tt3's premise that cuts are being championed by shareholders campaigning against reduced dividends. I simply pointed out that your statement: "BA is losing money, and if they hadn't resolved the conflict, BA would have gone bust, and they'd all be out of a job" is factually incorrect. You ask, "what do you want me to admit?" I want you to admit that!

I know ?158 million is a net figure - that is why I said it was the profit before tax (did you read my point on that?). I never said BA hadn't made losses in the past. I never said BA won't make losses in the future. The fact of the matter is BA is not currently losing money. Why can't you admit that you were wrong to state that it is? Also, please explain how the company can force through changes and the union block them at the same time?

Is that your way of admitting BA isn't losing money and if they hadn't resolved the dispute, BA wouldn't have gone bust?

BA profit before tax for the period 1 April 2010 ? 30 September 2010 (which I think was the last announcment made by BA) was ?158 million. The effective tax rate for the period was 27 per cent. Source - British Airways http://press.ba.com/?p=1517 Again, BA is not losing money.