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 ✨

Privatisation of Royal Mail

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A friend of mine is a nurse, he tells me working-to-rule (in an 'industry' where striking is likely to have lethal consequences) can be very effective if managed correctly, however unions aren't really fond of industrial action that doesn't bend Joe Public over and do him up the arse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A friend of mine is a nurse, he tells me working-to-rule (in an 'industry' where striking is likely to have lethal consequences) can be very effective if managed correctly, however unions aren't really fond of industrial action that doesn't bend Joe Public over and do him up the arse.

    Ask him what would happen to patients if he started to "work to rule". Operations would be cancelled, beds wouldn't be free, people wouldn't be discharged home, outpatient clinics would be cancelled... it would have an impact.

    Of course Unions like industrial action which affects the public, like I said, that's how it works. I'm really not sure how you think that any action taken would not have some sort of impact...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Ask him what would happen to patients if he started to "work to rule". Operations would be cancelled, beds wouldn't be free, people wouldn't be discharged home, outpatient clinics would be cancelled... it would have an impact.

    That's why I said "if managed correctly". It's worked well for him and his colleagues in the past.
    MoK wrote: »
    Of course Unions like industrial action which affects the public, like I said, that's how it works. I'm really not sure how you think that any action taken would not have some sort of impact...

    I'm well aware that the unions like action that affects us. It's for this very reason I consider them scum of the earth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's why I said "if managed correctly". It's worked well for him and his colleagues in the past.

    I'd love to know how nurses could "work to rule" or not do overtime without it affecting patients in any way. Given their job role.

    ETA - Nursing Times article on the issue.
    I'm well aware that the unions like action that affects us. It's for this very reason I consider them scum of the earth.

    So what would your answer be, accept everything that their bosses wanted to do?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could be worse. This is what's happening in the beautiful country I called home for seven months in 2005/6.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11449775
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    So what would your answer be, accept everything that their bosses wanted to do?

    I don't have an answer and neither do I have to have one. I'm not a unionist and it's not down to me to offer a solution. If they want the support of the public so much then it's up to them to do whatever is needed not to inconvenience us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't have an answer and neither do I have to have one. I'm not a unionist and it's not down to me to offer a solution. If they want the support of the public so much then it's up to them to do whatever is needed not to inconvenience us.
    Nah, fuck that. The public should not behave like selfish fuckwits. We're all (or most of us anyway) workers. Whatever happened to the concept of solidarity?

    Striking is not only legal but of paramount importance. It's not the fault of some workers that the industry they work in might inconvenience "the public". The public should STFU a bit more and whinge a bit less tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Nah, fuck that. The public should not behave like selfish fuckwits. We're all (or most of us anyway) workers. Whatever happened to the concept of solidarity?

    The concept of solidarity was doing fine until around the nineteenth century when certain sectional interests banded together to form unions. Believe me my public sector union is more than happy to ride over your interests (unless you've just joined the civil service). Luckily for me it looks out for my interests.
    Striking is not only legal but of paramount importance. It's not the fault of some workers that the industry they work in might inconvenience "the public". The public should STFU a bit more and whinge a bit less tbh

    I agree, with the first bit. But I don't see why the public shouldn't whine - the posties union will look out for the posties, but its doing so at the expense of the rest of us. I accept that should be legal, but I don't accept I should cheer whilst I'm bent over and spanked...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The concept of solidarity was doing fine until around the nineteenth century when certain sectional interests banded together to form unions.
    And how were conditions for workers before their creation?
    Believe me my public sector union is more than happy to ride over your interests (unless you've just joined the civil service). Luckily for me it looks out for my interests.
    Well, naturally... a union is designed to look after the interests of their members first. But all workers benefit from their existence in the long term, even if indirectly.


    I agree, with the first bit. But I don't see why the public shouldn't whine - the posties union will look out for the posties, but its doing so at the expense of the rest of us. I accept that should be legal, but I don't accept I should cheer whilst I'm bent over and spanked...
    Fair enough, it might be too much to expect peeps to be happy about it. But a lot of the public, themselves fellow workers, speak nothing but rubbish when they simply repeat what they read on the right wing press- some of them even suggesting certain workers are only on strike because the weather is nice at the time.

    It might be a pain that the tube is on strike when I want to use it, but I wouldn't dream of antagonising Underground workers for striking, let alone demand their powers of strike are revoked or restricted, as a depressing number of morons do, simply because it creates a temporary inconvenience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And how were conditions for workers before their creation?.

    varied and varied afterwords. Some unions did very well for their members (for example the Miners), others such as the agricultural led them up cul-de-sacs.
    Well, naturally... a union is designed to look after the interests of their members first. But all workers benefit from their existence in the long term, even if indirectly.

    Debateable - you don't benefit from the success of my union. Indeed by either paying more in tax or reducing in service provision their is a direct disbenefit to you

    Fair enough, it might be too much to expect peeps to be happy about it. But a lot of the public, themselves fellow workers, speak nothing but rubbish when they simply repeat what they read on the right wing press- some of them even suggesting certain workers are only on strike because the weather is nice at the time.

    Equally the lemmings from the left wing press seem to think that all strikes are justified and that the employer should just roll over, whilst the rest of us should genuflect before the heroic picket line

    Also I love the phrase 'fellow workers' as if there is some working class interest which is somehow different from the bosses. It wasn't true in the nineteenth century and in a twenty first century world of ISAs and pension plans it is even less so.

    It might be a pain that the tube is on strike when I want to use it, but I wouldn't dream of antagonising Underground workers for striking, let alone demand their powers of strike are revoked or restricted, as a depressing number of morons do, simply because it creates a temporary inconvenience

    I absolutely agree they should have the right to strike. However, there seems to be a confusion between them having the right to strike and the right for it not to be criticised as selfish and self-serving and in their interests alone (ignoring the argument that many strikes - though not all - are ultimately self defeating).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »

    Striking is not only legal but of paramount importance. It's not the fault of some workers that the industry they work in might inconvenience "the public". The public should STFU a bit more and whinge a bit less tbh.

    It's because too many people stfu that we get such shite service these days. Joe Public needs to stand up and complain at least 500% more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's because too many people stfu that we get such shite service these days.

    It's more that they want to pay fuck all tax and get gold standard services.

    However, I don't necessarily disagree that people should complain more, but they should also have realistic expectations.

    Also, don't get me wrong, I'll never argue that Unions are perfect nor that we cannot whinge at the inconvenience of strikes. That's the reality of them. I do however support the concept of Unions needing to protect their workers. I just wish they'd pick their fights a little better...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's because too many people stfu that we get such shite service these days. Joe Public needs to stand up and complain at least 500% more.
    Yes- to the owners of the company, not the workers serving you. It is almost always the fault of the former not the latter that the service is piss-poor and overpriced.

    That is the most annoying thing. Several of the recent strikes by Undergound workers have been not over their pay, or pensions, or holiday allowance, but over security and safety issues. The real beneficiaries being the paying public. And yet you still get imbeciles complaining that they are allowed to strike.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    That is the most annoying thing. Several of the recent strikes by Undergound workers have been not over their pay, or pensions, or holiday allowance, but over security and safety issues. The real beneficiaries being the paying public. And yet you still get imbeciles complaining that they are allowed to strike.

    Wasn't one of the strikes because the management had sacked staff when alcohol had been found in the lockers in direct contravention of health and safety?

    In fact if you look at what the strikers eventually got from TfL it was better terms and conditions (and fair dos to them, though that comes from my taxes and oyster card) and reinstatement of staff sacked for breaking rules on alcohol. There weren't any safety improvements
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yes- to the owners of the company, not the workers serving you.

    That's debatable. We have far too many public-facing workers whop give so little a shit about the people they deal with it's unreal. Callcentres often have many of them. OK you could argue that their working conditions etc kill off their moral but if they cannot 'serve' people in a 'customer service' job then are they in the wrong job? Yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wasn't one of the strikes because the management had sacked staff when alcohol had been found in the lockers in direct contravention of health and safety?

    In fact if you look at what the strikers eventually got from TfL it was better terms and conditions (and fair dos to them, though that comes from my taxes and oyster card) and reinstatement of staff sacked for breaking rules on alcohol. There weren't any safety improvements
    I distinctly remember one a few years ago concerning the removal of guards on trains. There was another one regarding equipment (could be signalling equipment- can't remember for sure). Nor that it stopped certain quarters from complaining and speaking of 'laziness' by the LU staff as the reason for the strikes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I distinctly remember one a few years ago concerning the removal of guards on trains. There was another one regarding equipment (could be signalling equipment- can't remember for sure). Nor that it stopped certain quarters from complaining and speaking of 'laziness' by the LU staff as the reason for the strikes.

    That would be a redundancy issue though, I'd expect the union to try and support its members at risk.

    However I fail to see the safety aspect of this

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8421289.stm

    Remember just because the unions say its about safety doesn't mean it is, they, after all, are trying to keep the public supportive. Given the TfL responsibilities as an employer on H&S they're not likely to want to compromise on safety themselves...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I'm not saying that all strikes deserve unconditional support regardless. But many (the majority IMO) do. And yet there is a sizeable proportion of the public, spoonfed by sectors of the media, who objects to any and all strikes that happen to inconvenience them. Which is deplorable IMO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it's not.

    If you have a grievance with your employer, fine. I'm not saying the RM (or any striking workers) don't have legitimate grounds to be unhappy. But for the love of all things sane deal with your own shit. Don't take it out on people who have no part of the argument.

    If I'm unhappy with my next-door neighbour parking in front of my drive should I go and hide the wheelie-bins of everyone in the street?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it's not.

    If you have a grievance with your employer, fine. I'm not saying the RM (or any striking workers) don't have legitimate grounds to be unhappy. But for the love of all things sane deal with your own shit. Don't take it out on people who have no part of the argument.

    If I'm unhappy with my next-door neighbour parking in front of my drive should I go and hide the wheelie-bins of everyone in the street?
    You don't really get the concepts of strikes, do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about you explain your concept of them, and we'll see how far it differs from mine :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But for the love of all things sane deal with your own shit. Don't take it out on people who have no part of the argument.

    They are sorting out their own shit by withdrawing their services from their employer so that their employer is affected. Their employer is affected because they will fail to make money and they will fail to deliver on the things which you want, so you will complain.

    What other options do they have? You still haven't addressed that question. What is the limit of what you would be happy for them to do?
    If I'm unhappy with my next-door neighbour parking in front of my drive should I go and hide the wheelie-bins of everyone in the street?

    Yeah, cos that is pretty much the same isn't it :rolleyes: But I'll go along with it.

    If your neighbour was parking in front of your drive then you could withdraw access to his car by parking in front of it. Like a picket line, you would prevent him from being able to go about his business.

    In effect this would stop him from going to his work or taking his kids to school, the people his car is designed to serve, thus you inconvenience them. I guess the same applies here - the strikes would stop the mail from getting to the people it is designed to serve
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    They are sorting out their own shit by withdrawing their services from their employer so that their employer is affected. Their employer is affected because they will fail to make money and they will fail to deliver on the things which you want, so you will complain.

    And I do. I complain about the Unionist scum who choose to hold Joe Public's life to ransom because they can't have what they want.
    MoK wrote: »
    What other options do they have? You still haven't addressed that question. What is the limit of what you would be happy for them to do?

    The point I've been making all along. They can do whatever they want as long as they don't expect the public at large to support them.
    MoK wrote: »
    I guess the same applies here - the strikes would stop the mail from getting to the people it is designed to serve

    I knew you'd get it in the end :thumb:

    And thereby encouraging the public to turn on them. Remember the fuel protests of 2000 when the truckers blocked fuel depots? They had to call it off after too many of them got beaten up by irate motorists. No way am I suggesting violence as a means to solve disputes but it goes to show why you get if you massively inconvenience people's lives and expect some sort of 'praise' for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I do. I complain about the Unionist scum who choose to hold Joe Public's life to ransom because they can't have what they want.

    Like jobs, a reasonable pay packet, safe working conditions etc?
    They can do whatever they want as long as they don't expect the public at large to support them.

    Yes, you keep saying that. What you don't do is say what you would consider acceptable.
    And thereby encouraging the public to turn on them. Remember the fuel protests of 2000 when the truckers blocked fuel depots? They had to call it off after too many of them got beaten up by irate motorists.

    Or because they achieved what they wanted and the fuel tax increase was delayed...
    No way am I suggesting violence as a means to solve disputes but it goes to show why you get if you massively inconvenience people's lives and expect some sort of 'praise' for it.

    Yeah, why should unions get praise for sex equality legislation or for preventing unsafe working practices?

    I'm never going to argue that today's union leaders are as principled or have as much to fight as those in the past. However neither am I going to condemn them for fighting against job losses, pension rights being withdrawn or safety nets being reduced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Like jobs, a reasonable pay packet, safe working conditions etc?

    Yes, exactly that and more.
    MoK wrote: »
    Yes, you keep saying that. What you don't do is say what you would consider acceptable.
    And as I've told you several times, I don't need to come up with an alternative, I am not a unionist.
    MoK wrote: »
    Or because they achieved what they wanted and the fuel tax increase was delayed...

    Um...no it was because they kept getting attacked by members of the public. Their rigs kept getting damaged too. The public turned against them.
    MoK wrote: »
    Yeah, why should unions get praise for sex equality legislation or for preventing unsafe working practices?

    Ahhh, now I get it, you think I'm saying unions shouldn't exist or employees should put up and shut up? Curious....
    MoK wrote: »
    I'm never going to argue that today's union leaders are as principled or have as much to fight as those in the past. However neither am I going to condemn them for fighting against job losses, pension rights being withdrawn or safety nets being reduced.

    Me neither. Solidarity brother ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, exactly that and more.

    Yeah awful isn't it? Unions wanting their workers to be paid properly and not killed at work. How dare they.
    And as I've told you several times, I don't need to come up with an alternative, I am not a unionist.

    No, you're just the person saying that they shouldn't inconvenience you. Tough, they will because no-one has any better ideas. You included.

    Um...no it was because they kept getting attacked by members of the public. Their rigs kept getting damaged too. The public turned against them.

    Worth checking this out, if you want the real timeline. You'll note that the Govt changed policy as a consequence of the action which virtually brought the country to a standstill and that the Labour Govt who was massively ahead in the polls before the strike actually trailled at the end of it.

    Ahhh, now I get it, you think I'm saying unions shouldn't exist or employees should put up and shut up? Curious....

    Erm, no I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that. I'm saying that the tactics you seem to abhor - work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Yeah awful isn't it? Unions wanting their workers to be paid properly and not killed at work. How dare they.

    Your point being what? You think I disagree with that?

    MoK wrote: »
    No, you're just the person saying that they shouldn't inconvenience you. Tough, they will because no-one has any better ideas. You included.

    No, I'm saying they shouldn't expect public support if they piss us off.
    MoK wrote: »
    Worth checking this out, if you want the real timeline. You'll note that the Govt changed policy as a consequence of the action which virtually brought the country to a standstill and that the Labour Govt who was massively ahead in the polls before the strike actually trailled at the end of it
    .

    The protests finished early due to the public backlash. And 10 years on, did their protests really make that much of a difference? Look where we are now.
    MoK wrote: »
    Erm, no I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that. I'm saying that the tactics you seem to abhor - work.

    But they don't. The public in general do not support those that strike.
Sign In or Register to comment.