Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

FAO: Londoners - Tube Strike Tomorrow

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I walked in this morning, and despite the blisters on my feet, took me exactly the same amount of time as it did to get in yesterday. And I wasn't pressed up against someone's armpit.

    Plus I got to see Buckingham Palace, stroll down the Mall, Trafalgar Square, stroll down the Strand, past the Courts, past St. Pauls and then on to work. Quite a nice journey.

    WOO!

    I have to admit, it's days like these that I am especially thankful of my 20 minute walk to work... :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Strikers shouldn't be liable to their employers, providing the strikes are legal, but they should be liable to all third parties. If the RMT want to use innocent third parties as an extortion tool then they can fucking well pay for it.
    If memory serves GWST is a teacher (or was it her sister?). So presumably you'd be more than happy for her and her fellow teachers to pay up compensation to parents who have had to arrange daycare as a result of any strike they might take.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If memory serves GWST is a teacher (or was it her sister?). So presumably you'd be more than happy for her and her fellow teachers to pay up compensation to parents who have had to arrange daycare as a result of any strike they might take.

    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 :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If memory serves GWST is a teacher (or was it her sister?). So presumably you'd be more than happy for her and her fellow teachers to pay up compensation to parents who have had to arrange daycare as a result of any strike they might take.

    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 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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about him. I don't think we can know whether he's going to be prosecuted or not (and to be honest I'm willing to bet money he will be). I'm more talking about the coppers such as the one's who shot Menzes (as I assume is Aladdin as we're talking about coppers making mistakes in the course of their duties rather than walloping passers by because they'd had a bad day)

    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.
    If memory serves GWST is a teacher (or was it her sister?). So presumably you'd be more than happy for her and her fellow teachers to pay up compensation to parents who have had to arrange daycare as a result of any strike they might take.

    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with Aladdin




    shocked-1.jpg







    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    shocked-1.jpg







    ;)

    I second this facial expression :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If memory serves GWST is a teacher (or was it her sister?). So presumably you'd be more than happy for her and her fellow teachers to pay up compensation to parents who have had to arrange daycare as a result of any strike they might take.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the workers of the London Underground have little choice on how to strike. The very nature of their jobs means if they go on strike, members of the public will be affected. That shouldn't mean they have to pay for the right to strike. Temporary inconveniences are part of the package for the set of values and beliefs our society is based in.

    Incidentally, I'd take the '£100m in losses' claim with a pinch of salt the size of mount Everest...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I walked in this morning, and despite the blisters on my feet, took me exactly the same amount of time as it did to get in yesterday. And I wasn't pressed up against someone's armpit.

    Plus I got to see Buckingham Palace, stroll down the Mall, Trafalgar Square, stroll down the Strand, past the Courts, past St. Pauls and then on to work. Quite a nice journey.

    g_angel wrote:
    WOO!

    I have to admit, it's days like these that I am especially thankful of my 20 minute walk to work... :)

    See? You should actually be grateful to the RMT for the chance it has given you to exercise and refresh yourselves :)






    ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It cost the Football Association alone about £2m in refunds and lost ticket sales.

    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.
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    On most networks (maybe even LU) refusing overtime and working to rule would have the affect of grinding the network to a halt anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    See? You should actually be grateful to the RMT for the chance it has given you to exercise and refresh yourselves :)






    ;)

    :D 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 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It cost the Football Association alone about £2m in refunds and lost ticket sales.

    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.
    There isn't need for a single person to ever lose a day's wage because of the Underground is on strike. Luckily London is the best served and connected city in the world, and there are myriad of buses and trains available to those who don't have other means of transport.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There isn't need for a single person to ever lose a day's wage because of the Underground is on strike. Luckily London is the best served and connected city in the world, and there are myriad of buses and trains available to those who don't have other means of transport.

    True - I managed to get in yesterday - admittedly it took me 4 hrs compared to my normal one...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I second this facial expression :)

    I dunno why you're both surprised - even Aladdin has to be right now and then ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just like a broken clock I guess... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There isn't need for a single person to ever lose a day's wage because of the Underground is on strike.

    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'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Life ain't perfect. The right to strike for all workers, put it simply, is immensely more important that people being inconvenienced from time to time and a few of those being left out of pocket as a result. Thereforethe right to strike must stay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A woman fainted on our carriage this morning. Suddenly there was an outburst of chivalry: "This woman has fainted! Someone get her some water!" And normally those buried in their crapsheets offered her a seat. Even the suit in the corner wanted to be part of it as she scuttled off the train in embarrassment, "Are you ok, Miss?" It was beautiful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There isn't need for a single person to ever lose a day's wage because of the Underground is on strike. Luckily London is the best served and connected city in the world, and there are myriad of buses and trains available to those who don't have other means of transport.

    Doesn't help when the whole city is one big traffic jam. It's been horrendous!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Therefore the right to strike must stay.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote: »
    Doesn't help when the whole city is one big traffic jam. It's been horrendous!
    True. The underground is very important. But sadly so is the right to strike.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    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.
    I'm sorry but the right to strike is paramount. Without it, we'd all be fucked.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The unions put more into the Labour Party every year than it would cost them to reimburse innocent third parties for their severe financial penalties and inconvenience.

    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.
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because of the EU's desire to privatise rail companies in Europe?
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Ah I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. I hadn't bothered reading too much of the RMT's propaganda for the sake of my sanity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The EU believe that railways shouldn't be a state monopoly and that private companies should have access. That's why you now have companies like Arriva and Veolia taking over from Deutsche Bahn in running some regional expresses around Munich and Hamburg.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well my union doesn't fund the Labour Party and is actually talking about funding candidates to stand against them and its cunt of a leader said and I quote 'our membership doesn't believe in Royal Mail privatisation' - he fucking well didn't ask me.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.