Tube Strike

[Chippy Minton]

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.

[Huguenot]

Just a load of sweeping generalisations there Chippy that you've failed to offer any valid data to support.

If you want to persuade anyone then let's see the data instead of the typical political cant.

I mean, come on, the proof is in the pudding:

the fact remains that the most effective union in the country, Bob Crow's mob, is controlling a transport infrastructure that is crippled by an entrenched and inert union, rather than a demonstration of high productivity and speedy adjustments.

Most effective union in the US? The motor industry union - that industry is just fecked. They needed change and productivity increases, what they got was militancy, inertia, and uneployment. Well done.

Even if you did somehow manage to demonstrate that there was a correlation between union membership and economic success elsewhere, you'd still need to demonstrate whether this was regardless, in spite, or because of union membership.

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

That's a big claim, Chippy, especially the "higher productivity and speedier adjustments to economic shocks" bit. Have you got any links to where this info came from?

Not saying you are wrong or right - I just that I can't see why the existence of unions would have such an effect. And, if there is a connection, is it cause or correlation?

[Chippy Minton]

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.

[mockney piers]

.

[Huguenot]

If you'd read the summary Chippy, which I just have, you'll see that it doesn't support your case at all.

It's even at pains to point out that it makes no claim between correlation and causation.

Let me summarise the conclusion for you (it's written very clearly):

Co-ordinated and non co-ordinated labour markets fare equally well in terms of productivity growth

Co-ordinated and non co-ordinated labour markets fare equally well in terms of wage flexibility

No difference in inflation and employment rates

Differerences very weak in the long run as countries acccommodate

Union effects on the performance of firms are ambiguous and vary

Unions create differentials in favour of their members

Not only that, but it points out that the findings are both inconsistent and bear no relation on the question of whether an increase in unionisation would improve performance.

So it does nothing to support any of your claims.

[mockney piers]

A very quick swizz and there's a rather telling comment in the intro/summary 'The FIndings of the Book', and I quote

"The microeconomic consequences of collective bargaining are context?specific, and although unions in both industrial and developing countries are successful in securing a wage markup for their members and other workers covered by collective agreements, no general conclusions about the net costs (or benefits) of unions can be reached. Depending on the economic, institutional, and political environment in which unions and employers interact, collective bargaining as opposed to individual contracting can contribute negatively or positively to the economic performance of firms and to the well-being of workers."

But I've emailed the pdf home for perusal, link to be found here http://doc.politiquessociales.net/serv1/worldunions.pdf

[Loz]

Thanks, Chippy. I've only had a quick skim through the findings of the report, but whilst there are definitely some positives of unions in regards of wage markup and lower wage differentials, the wider macroeconomic picture is a bit more cloudy.

Union density per se has a very weak association, or perhaps no association, with economic performance indicators such as the unemployment rate, inflation, the employment rate, real compensation growth, labor supply, adjustment speed to wage shocks, real wage flexibility, and labor and total factor productivity. There is, however, one significant exception: union density correlates negatively with labor earnings inequality and wage dispersion.

Interestingly, the report concludes that the best wage outcomes occur with two pairings of governments and unions:

- left wing governments and strong unions

- right wing governments and weak unions.

Seems that the opposite combinations just don't give strong wage outcomes.

So, if you union type would like to go away and come back when we have a left-wing government (note I didn't say a Labour government :)) ) then it looks like you'd be doing the economy a real service!

[Chippy Minton]

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

[Loz]

Well, the Greens have one MP. Just another 325 more needed for a majority.

[JB111]

The tribunal process is still underway. Yes LU were offered to reinstate Arwyn into his role as part of the interim judgement, but were perfectly within their rights not to. Especially after he had called another worker on duty a 'scab'. If they had, the abused employee would be within his rights to sue LU. Funny how these details are kept out of the press by the RMT.

Less than 30% of membership voted for strike action. 55% didn't even bother (or decided not to go up against their militant leaders).

Arwyn is also a well known RMT activist, a member of the socialist party and CATP (campaign against tube privatization). His motivation - like Crow and the rest of the RMT leadership - has little to do with customers and everything to do with keeping themselves in power and causing LU grief.

How is it that Crow remains the RMT Union boss after so many years - because he is doing such an excellent job in ensuring his members get a good deal whilst maintaining a productive working relationship with management??? Or the RMTs biased voting system and his cadre of supporters stitch it up? You decide.

[StraferJack]

you say that like it's a bad thing?

[sagatelsagouni]

Did someone really just post a world bank report ? really what's the point?

Reading through most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense.

Unions are about people together collectively. Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me.

European law puts the the worker at the centre, it understands the worker as the foundation to employment law. This country does not, the worker is second or even third to profit. Most people in this country benefit from the unions, many do not contribute towards this, thats fact.

[JB111]

I'm simply trying to provide slightly more facts than the RMT leadership likes Joe Public to see. Frankly I'm neutral on privatizing the tube. As are most people. As I'm not wedded to a single doctrine of 'public sector good' v private sector bad'. It's what works best ...

What I am against is a senior Union rep calling another employee a 'scab' and a 'traitor' (this is on the record and admitted) in his place of work and expecting to be let off scott free because he's got powerful allies and the RMT think they can bully LU and it's customers.

Let's also not confuse the important role of Unions - absolutely agree v abuse of power (which this case is all about). What the RMT have cleverly done is switch the abuse of power question to make it look like the poor little union rep is being mistreated. BS.

[StraferJack]

JB - pretty much agree with you there

I would only add that I believe the imposition of privatisation on the rail and tube networks has been ideologically based and not a "what works" basis.

[mockney piers]

Absolutely, it should go without saying that being doctrinaire is usually a good way to go about fckuing up. Being analytical and pragmatic is usually the best way forward.

This applies to privatisation v nationalisation. In the case of the rail networks it has been all thought out, badly implemented and continues to be poorly managed with the taxpayer underwriting far too much whilst chronic capital underinvestment continues and maintenance has dropped by a third giving rise to such incidents as Potters Bar.

Where services are of national interest then sometimes we have to look beyond competitiveness for the greater good.

The same surely applies to unionism, which on the whole I think is a good thing, where representation can curb the baser instincts of let's say laissez faire urges of capitalism.

I'm sure Mr Crowe has the best interests of his union members at heart but he sure as hell doesnt give a shit about the greater good, regularly holding london business sectors, employees and inhabitants to ransome, not to mention staining its reputation amongst those who grace us with their spare time and tourist dollar. I do believe he does it in a politically dogmatic fashion.

btw the moment I read 'FACT' alarms bells start ringing, particularly from someone who can juxtapose these with apparently no hint of irony:

"most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense"

"Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me."

[trizza]

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did someone really just post a world bank report ?

> really what's the point?

>

> Reading through most of these comments there

> basically mostly waffle and nonsense.

>

> Unions are about people together collectively.

> Most people who are anti union are a certain type

> of individual, generally selfish and of an

> immaturity that screams me me me.

>

> European law puts the the worker at the centre, it

> understands the worker as the foundation to

> employment law. This country does not, the worker

> is second or even third to profit. Most people in

> this country benefit from the unions, many do not

> contribute towards this, thats fact.

Quite amusing

A post that states "most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense"

Then follows it up with the preposterous statement: "Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me."

[ianr]

"Moreover, we do not need to wait for this Tribunal's decision, because we already have a Tribunal decision! Back in January, the Employment Tribunal awarded Arwyn 'interim relief', ruling that LU had sacked him unfairly, unlawfully and because of his trade union activities." http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2245

[Loz]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Moreover, we do not need to wait for this

> Tribunal's decision, because we already have a

> Tribunal decision! Back in January, the Employment

> Tribunal awarded Arwyn 'interim relief', ruling

> that LU had sacked him unfairly, unlawfully and

> because of his trade union activities."

> http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2245

But LU have fully complied with that tribunal's orders. And that reading of the judgement is wrong anyway - the tribunal ruled that his appeal was 'likely to succeed', which is why the appeal is going ahead.

Why can't the RMT wait the two weeks for the appeal to be concluded? Because Bib Crow is a spoilt brat used to getting his own way.

[Torben Pieknik]

Loz they can't wait two weeks because the RMT's strike mandate runs out on 20 June, so they need to strike on Sunday to keep that mandate alive, if they don't they need to reballot for action.

[Loz]

But why strike at all?? LU are doing what the tribunal told them to do. The RMT are demanding something they have no right to demand.

Anyway, if the mandate runs out on the 20 June, how come they have called strike dates on:

* Between 2101 BST on 19 June and 0300 BST on 20 June

* Between 2101 BST on 27 June and 1159 BST on 28 June

* Between 1200 BST on 29 June and 1159 BST on 30 June

* Between 1200 BST and 2100 BST on 1 July

[Chippy Minton]

Because the RMT have notified them of their strike action the mandate is still valid even after the 20 June.

As long as they are acting within the law they have every right to make their "demands." It is a human right to be a member of a trade union and it is a human right that no restrictions are placed on the exercising the rights of trade unions/trade unionists other than what's prescribed by law.

In this case, the law seemingly recognises that the RMT has a mandate to strike. Of course, whether is actually true and that they are acting within the law is an entirely different matter and both sides will have lawyers considering, interpreting and advising them regarding this.

[????]

...The Mash

[Huguenot]

It is so ridiculous that stroppy, greedy, militant, self-serving bullies like the RMT should attempt to glorify helping a thuggish abusive mate avoid justice as a 'human right'.

It is such an insult to the billions of people around the world who genuinely suffer human rights abuses.

It's a reflection of the extent to which these self-regarding narcissists have lost touch with reality.

[Dougal Mulldoon]

Huge nut,

You obviously blindly support bully boy bastard management without considering things from the other side don't you?

You've never been able to see the different levels have you?