Tube driver strike

[KidKruger]

No that's not accurate DC - not all sectors operate on Bank Holidays, not because of unions but because they are Bank Holidays.

This thread is about Boxing Day strikes (which are a piss-take, 3rd year in a row), it's not contesting the general benefit of unions to the British worker.

[david_carnell]

You could have fooled me....

[KidKruger]

This Boxing Day striking business is not good PR for Aslef or unions in general, they should pick their battles rather than burn all the goodwill they can find.

[Huguenot]

I can understand DC's desire to redress the perceived imbalance against unions on here, but a fairer way to put it would be that there needs to be a working balance between productivity and reward.

The favored mantra of union supporters - that everyone would be much better off and have longer holidays if they had a union is a misapprehension.

A business only survives because it can produce goods and services that meet customer expectations at a price they feel is appropriate.

It's ridiculous to assume that crucifying a few 'fat cats' or having a good union negotiation is going to increase salaries or holidays and perks in any meaningful way - it simply lowers productivity or quality and drives up the price for the customer.

When the price exceeds a customer's willingness to pay, they stop buying, and everyone loses their jobs.

This was the reality of Britain in the 70s - a country bankrupted by the greed and avarice of the unions.

The reality is that if the LU was a normal business it would have gone bankrupt years ago

The LU's unions have managed to make extraordinary demands not because their union is clever, but because the LU is so important to the capital's infrastructure the government has had to subsidize it from taxpayers.

The taxpayer currently funds the LU over ?300m a year.

The reality is that the outcome of this round of strikes is just to take more money from taxpayers.

The striking drivers are taking this cash as tax directly from the pockets of people who work more hours than them, for less money and fewer holidays with no travel perks.

That's why the LU drivers have no sympathy - not because unions are great, but because this union operates outside the market realities and holds taxpayers to ransom.

Public sector is a bullshit argument for union achievements.

[Huguenot]

Incidentally, holiday and working time rights were not the product of the unions, and it does a massive disservice to 19th century philanthropists like Lord Shaftesbury along with Quaker, Anglican and Methodist religious movements to claim they were.

For the majority of rights we have today, thank the churches.

That's not to say that unions have not been able to make concessions in the present day - however, at 43 days holiday on 35 hour weeks, the LU unions are getting perilously close to making demands that their members should be paid by harder working and lower salaried taxpayers for NOT working.

Lost their way and lost their sympathy? Yes.

[KidKruger]

Which was my point on 20 Dec:

No shame and surreal viewpoint on what side their bread's buttered.

[KidKruger]

Now the tube train cleaners are at it:

"It is these same staff who have played a key role in keeping services clean and safe who are now forced again by their employers to take action for a living wage and recognition of their efforts," Bob Crow said.

Love the '..forced again by their employers..' bit.

[david_carnell]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Incidentally, holiday and working time rights were

> not the product of the unions, and it does a

> massive disservice to 19th century philanthropists

> like Lord Shaftesbury along with Quaker, Anglican

> and Methodist religious movements to claim they

> were.

>

> For the majority of rights we have today, thank

> the churches.

Poppycock. Trade Unions are directly responsible for or were a fundamental pressure in achieving:

Two-day weekends

Eight-hour working days

Maternity leave

Retirement ages

Occupational health and safety

Workplace pensions

Paid holidays

Equality laws

The right not to be sacked because you got married, had a baby, or became ill (strange how they're seen as similar things)

Pay increases

The minimum wage

Collective bargaining

The right for the working classes to organise themselves

A standard of living above that of 1850s Britain

[Marmora Man]

Presumably they also invented motherhood & apple pie.

I don't have time to research but I'm with Hugenot in that much of enlightened employment practice was non conformist church led - and as a "once upon a time Quaker" proud to have been part of that tradition.

[Huguenot]

I'm sorry DC, but that's union propaganda.

Whilst unions may have helped disperse ideas, the first firm to intoduce most of those elements was Cadbury during the 1850s.

They recognized that a healthy, secure, well educated workforce whose remuneration was in line with productivity was the recipe for corporate success. As one of the most successful corporations in British history this had a greater impact on business practice than the workers.

Notably, Cadbury didn't have work councils until 1918 and unions until 1969.

What they did have was Quaker ethical beliefs.

Unions may claim to have helped negotiate improved conditions with employers, but they're rewriting history if they reckon most of those things were their ideas.

[reddulwich]

The rights we enjoy today that DC mentions were fought for by a mixture of working people and organisations (which did indeed include churches) but also trade unions.

Yes Cadburys a Titus Salt may have built houses for their workers. Not because they were mere altruistic nice guys, but because they were enliightened capitalists - a happy healthy workforce works harder in your mill or factory, making you richer.

You need a reality check, if you think these rights had little or nothing to do with the trade unions - by which I mean not union leaders, but the ordinary men and women who made up the membership.

Also KidKruger - the cleaning staff for LU like many cleaning staff are on absolutley crap wages. And quite rightly are figting for a better deal.

[KidKruger]

I was on crap wages when I was a cleaner for 2 years too, heaven knows why cleaning jobs didn't pay as much as other, more qualified jobs, never did understand that.

If you want a better deal you strive for a better job, not use blackmail. If the LU cleaning jobs are paid less than other cleaning jobs (say, in other sectors) then prove your point by going to work there - LU will soon get the idea.

To strike over BH days shows less spine and more of a leaning to blackmail.

[Jeremy]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Not supporting the strike, but Fark me plenty of

> people painting it as a very attractive job

>

> Why aren't more of us applying? Serious question

Probably because a lot of us have academic qualifications or specific industry experience that enable more lucrative or rewarding careers. But I can see how becoming a tube driver could be an attractive option for some people (and it's nowhere near as menial as a lot of people think).

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> StraferJack Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not supporting the strike, but Fark me plenty of

> > people painting it as a very attractive job

> > Why aren't more of us applying? Serious question

>

> Probably because a lot of us have academic

> qualifications or specific industry experience

> that enable more lucrative or rewarding careers.

> But I can see how becoming a tube driver could be

> an attractive option for some people (and it's

> nowhere near as menial as a lot of people think).

I would seriously consider it if they opened them up to the public. Always looking for a good career change (nothing like a good mid-life crisis) and, frankly, it looks like easy money.

[minder]

?

[StraferJack]

Edited for poor point badly made

[StraferJack]

.

[BrandNewGuy]

That raises the depressing possibility that the purpose of many people's employment is not to be unemployed - a sure sign of a long-term economy with deeply serious problems. I remember the thread on here about Southwark street cleaners and someone suggested that we shouldn't clear up rubbish from the streets ourselves if it were bad, as that might put the street cleaners out of work.

[minder]

Edited