If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
WOO!
I have to admit, it's days like these that I am especially thankful of my 20 minute walk to work...
Etc etc.
No, strikers should not be liable to nothing. Strking is a fundamental workers' right, thank you very much, and so long as the strikes are legal then that's it.
I think GWST is a debt management advisor, or some other very helpful type
I agree with Aladdin, we're not some workers dictatorship, but a liberal capitalist democracy and the right of workers to withdraw their labour is fundamental
Ah ok then...because Aladdin (I thought) implicitly referred to this in his preceding comment I thought this was the case, but yes I see your point there.
Seconded (thirded?). We can debate the rights and wrongs, and indeed the effectiveness of labour withdrawal but the right to withdraw labour is fundamental to democracy. Introducing such a liability would stack the deck so far in favour of employers that it would effectively prevent any serious labour power being leveraged in defence or support of pay, conditions or treatment.
I second this facial expression
Nope, debt counsellor. Same as me. And it should be said I'm in the middle of joining Unison, so it's not anti-union sentiment.
The union responsible for the strike should be coughing up for third party expenditure. Whether that's through increased subs or cutting the fat cat salaries of senior directors, I don't care.
To use the example of teachers, why should an innocent third party have to pay £50 for childcare, or lose a day's pay, because of a dispute that has nothing to do with them? Why should they lose out significantly?
If we're going to talk about democracy, I'd argue that using innocent third parties as pawns in a power struggle is the exact antithesis of democracy. It's the worst kind of blackmail: do what I want or those millions of innocent people will suffer.
Incidentally, I'd take the '£100m in losses' claim with a pinch of salt the size of mount Everest...
See? You should actually be grateful to the RMT for the chance it has given you to exercise and refresh yourselves
Staff have plenty of strike options short of a complete withdrawal of labour. They can refuse overtime, they can work to rule, they can make TfL's life very uncomfortable without making London grind to a halt.
Losing one or two days' wages is more than a 'temporary inconvenience' for most people. I'm fairly comfortable and I'd struggle losing that much money. When I was earning £11k (as I was when Scumcoach staff striked) that £35 was the difference between eating properly for a week or eating beans on toast.
What makes me laugh about this strike is the main grievances are a) sacking a driver who failed basic safety checks and then lied about it to senior staff and b) sacking a driver, who's due up at the Old Bailey next month, for a serious incident of theft.
Well, to be honest, I walk every day. But the fact that I didn't have to go around the houses to avoid this mess made it extra special
True - I managed to get in yesterday - admittedly it took me 4 hrs compared to my normal one...
I dunno why you're both surprised - even Aladdin has to be right now and then
Depends on each person's situation, though. Although the transport links are there, it's typically taking about 500% longer to get to work and to get from work.
If you're single with no commitments that's just annoying, but when you consider childcare and other commitments it can be the difference between getting to work and not. Two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening can be another £50 in childcare- most providers charge huge fees if you have to extend time at short notice.
Losing £100 in a week is more than an 'inconvenience'.
Doesn't help when the whole city is one big traffic jam. It's been horrendous!
I quite agree, there should be a right to strike. But there are consequences to any actions and it's time that people were made to face up to those consequences.
There should also be a right for innocent third parties to make the trade unions understand that there are consequences to their actions. If it would cost the RMT £10m every time they strike, you'd have much less of Bob Cunt's political grandstanding demanding that thieves and incompetents get to keep their £40k per year jobs.
It's not as though the RMT can't afford to compensate loss. They can afford to pay Bob Cunt £250k per year. They can afford to compensate the strikers for lost earnings. Why not the people less fortunate than themselves?
If you think it's acceptable for someone on £45k per year to force someone on a quarter of that salary to pay for their greed then you're completely wrong. £100 for the lowest paid workers in London is the difference between eating and not. A day without customers for a small shop can be the difference between staying open and folding, especially in the current financial climate.
And no matter how you put it, if you were to impose multi-million Pound penalties on striking, you would be imposing a de facto ban on it. I'd rather no go back to Dickesian workhouse conditions if it's all the same to you.
But if they stopped funding the Labour Party then Bob Cunt and his cronies wouldn't be able to go on free jollies to the conference every year. We know what's more important.
Wonder why the RMT were then encouraging people to vote 'No2EU - Yes to Democracy' on June 4th then...
The RMT want to keep it a monopoly so that when they strike the whole country grinds to a standstill, just like it did in the 70s and 80s.
But Bob Crow, like Scargill and many other union leaders before him, don't see unions as a mechanism to support their members, but for them to gain leverage for their own political causes.