Pages: 1 2

 

2010-10-04 07:11:38
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6445|Vortex Ring State
so it's well known that significant amounts of London Underground workers are striking due to ticket office cuts and reforms, that would cut 800 jobs.

Here's Boris Johnson's perspective:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu … lives.html

Here's a less biased PoV:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11464012

I think that they've got a point, but the strike was a bit overkill. Perhaps a selective strike would've been better
2010-10-04 07:16:52
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7095

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.
2010-10-04 07:18:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina
Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
2010-10-04 07:31:11
jord
Member
+2,382|7124|The North, beyond the wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwoPG63B3Y

Enjoy
2010-10-04 09:31:12
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6445|Vortex Ring State

jord wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwoPG63B3Y

Enjoy
summary please?
I can't watch youtube at work.
2010-10-04 10:57:23
Monkey Spanker
Show it to the nice monkey.
+284|6698|England

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
In the UK if the strike ballot is all legal & above board, as in all the union members were balloted & the vote counted properly then law forbids the sacking of workers for striking.
Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png
2010-10-04 11:00:15
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6445|Vortex Ring State

Monkey Spanker wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
In the UK if the strike ballot is all legal & above board, as in all the union members were balloted & the vote counted properly then law forbids the sacking of workers for striking.
repeal that law tbh...
2010-10-04 11:03:49
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6916
the uk transport union are an absolute joke. led by a failed marxist and strikes are forced by mass bullying and old-school union dirty tricks.

won't make a difference, and for good reason.

brb getting a bus.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-10-04 11:14:13
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7142|NJ
Really thought this was going to be about terrorism..

I never understood the legal strike aspect. I don't really think it works, when employees are being treated unfarly it doesn't make sense to notify the people that they're going to screw everything up.
2010-10-04 12:32:49
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7067|London, England
Trains weren't so bad, a few lines, sections of tracks and stations closed
2010-10-04 13:14:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,073|7217|PNW

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm
2010-10-04 13:18:36
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7113

The Roads Must Roll.
2010-10-04 15:17:07
Ticia
Member
+73|5781

ghettoperson wrote:

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
Please tell me you guys are joking 

I agree striking should always be the last resort but they are on their right.
So a company like the London Underground can't hire enough extra help to put any customer inconvenience to a minimum during a strike? BS. They just choose not to since by law they don't have to take any responsibility for a strike action, which is imo preposterous. 
These public service companies are experts at acting like victims and vilifying the unions and the strikers.
2010-10-04 22:19:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
Please tell me you guys are joking 

I agree striking should always be the last resort but they are on their right.
So a company like the London Underground can't hire enough extra help to put any customer inconvenience to a minimum during a strike? BS. They just choose not to since by law they don't have to take any responsibility for a strike action, which is imo preposterous. 
These public service companies are experts at acting like victims and vilifying the unions and the strikers.
Well, if they're not allowed to replace striking workers, why hire replacements temporarily?

You should have the right to strike, but employers (especially tax funded ones) should have the right to fire you if you do.
2010-10-05 06:14:50
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7095

Ticia wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
Please tell me you guys are joking 

I agree striking should always be the last resort but they are on their right.
So a company like the London Underground can't hire enough extra help to put any customer inconvenience to a minimum during a strike? BS. They just choose not to since by law they don't have to take any responsibility for a strike action, which is imo preposterous. 
These public service companies are experts at acting like victims and vilifying the unions and the strikers.
If I stopped going to my job because I thought I wasn't getting paid enough, I'd be fired. Why should that be any different just because they've got a union on their side? In this economy they should be fucking grateful they've got jobs at all, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would happily do it on the regular wage.
2010-10-05 16:26:54
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7027|SE London

Inconsiderate bastards, fucking up the traffic, making me late....
2010-10-05 17:26:05
Dauntless
Admin
+2,249|7188|London

jord wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgwoPG63B3Y

Enjoy
the first picture on that video is in white city station, i used to go through there everyday and sometimes stand on that very platform


until i wised up and drove to work

fuck the tube

Last edited by Dauntless (2010-10-05 17:26:20)

https://imgur.com/kXTNQ8D.png
2010-10-06 08:48:18
Ticia
Member
+73|5781

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I think public employees should be fired if they strike.  If I were a taxpayer in London, I certainly would push for it.
Please tell me you guys are joking  :wtf:

I agree striking should always be the last resort but they are on their right.
So a company like the London Underground can't hire enough extra help to put any customer inconvenience to a minimum during a strike? BS. They just choose not to since by law they don't have to take any responsibility for a strike action, which is imo preposterous. 
These public service companies are experts at acting like victims and vilifying the unions and the strikers.
Well, if they're not allowed to replace striking workers, why hire replacements temporarily?

You should have the right to strike, but employers (especially tax funded ones) should have the right to fire you if you do.
Because they are a...public service. There's no alternative to the Tube, passengers have pre-payed passes and ride tickets, employers are solely responsible for this mess so they are the ones who have to fix it, not their workers.
When my employees fail me most times is more difficult to fire them than to hire temporary replacements, labor laws protect the workers not the companies, does that piss me off? Most of the times. Do i think the law should change? No. Before us the fight was long and hard for those rights.


ghettoperson wrote:

If I stopped going to my job because I thought I wasn't getting paid enough, I'd be fired. Why should that be any different just because they've got a union on their side? In this economy they should be fucking grateful they've got jobs at all, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would happily do it on the regular wage.
Ah of course the be thankful and shut up argument :rolleyes:
2010-10-06 08:54:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Personally, I'd just fire them all and hire people who'd be grateful to have jobs. Bunch of assholes.
Please tell me you guys are joking 

I agree striking should always be the last resort but they are on their right.
So a company like the London Underground can't hire enough extra help to put any customer inconvenience to a minimum during a strike? BS. They just choose not to since by law they don't have to take any responsibility for a strike action, which is imo preposterous. 
These public service companies are experts at acting like victims and vilifying the unions and the strikers.
Well, if they're not allowed to replace striking workers, why hire replacements temporarily?

You should have the right to strike, but employers (especially tax funded ones) should have the right to fire you if you do.
Because they are a...public service. There's no alternative to the Tube, passengers have pre-payed passes and ride tickets, employers are solely responsible for this mess so they are the ones who have to fix it, not their workers.
When my employees fail me most times is more difficult to fire them than to hire temporary replacements, labor laws protect the workers not the companies, does that piss me off? Most of the times. Do i think the law should change? No. Before us the fight was long and hard for those rights.
I guess this is where I'm more of a conservative economically.

I support opening up the labor market completely, which means hiring and firing when employers please.   This is especially relevant in a market where the only option is a public service.  They have a monopoly, so they should be completely subject to the public's will.

If the public is inconvenienced by a strike, they should be able to take their wrath out on the strikers by pushing for them to be fired.
2010-10-06 08:58:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5804|London, England
Public sector workers should never be allowed to organize. They're already sucking at the taxpayer tit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-10-06 09:09:15
Ticia
Member
+73|5781

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, if they're not allowed to replace striking workers, why hire replacements temporarily?

You should have the right to strike, but employers (especially tax funded ones) should have the right to fire you if you do.
Because they are a...public service. There's no alternative to the Tube, passengers have pre-payed passes and ride tickets, employers are solely responsible for this mess so they are the ones who have to fix it, not their workers.
When my employees fail me most times is more difficult to fire them than to hire temporary replacements, labor laws protect the workers not the companies, does that piss me off? Most of the times. Do i think the law should change? No. Before us the fight was long and hard for those rights.
I guess this is where I'm more of a conservative economically.

I support opening up the labor market completely, which means hiring and firing when employers please.   This is especially relevant in a market where the only option is a public service.  They have a monopoly, so they should be completely subject to the public's will.

If the public is inconvenienced by a strike, they should be able to take their wrath out on the strikers by pushing for them to be fired.
Ah on the contrary, my friend. Because they are a public service and have the monopoly they need stricter labor laws. Don't let the London chaos fool you, the public will is always on the workers side.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Public sector workers should never be allowed to organize. They're already sucking at the taxpayer tit.
But they're also the ones who fall first. This year they'll have a 5% cut on their salaries.
2010-10-06 09:13:31
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7095

Ticia wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

If I stopped going to my job because I thought I wasn't getting paid enough, I'd be fired. Why should that be any different just because they've got a union on their side? In this economy they should be fucking grateful they've got jobs at all, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would happily do it on the regular wage.
Ah of course the be thankful and shut up argument
Ah the old misquote and rolleyes argument
2010-10-06 09:22:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Ah on the contrary, my friend. Because they are a public service and have the monopoly they need stricter labor laws. Don't let the London chaos fool you, the public will is always on the workers side.
That might be true of the U.K., but in America, people would be calling for heads to roll...  and not just some of the management.

I think it can be reasonably assumed that if a strike of this nature occurred here, the public sentiment would be to break up the unions -- which would be the most logical course of action anyway.

Ticia wrote:

But they're also the ones who fall first. This year they'll have a 5% cut on their salaries.
True, but that's the price you pay when you choose to work for the state.  Besides, state benefits are usually better than private sector ones, so they make up for the lack in salary.
2010-10-06 09:49:19
Ticia
Member
+73|5781

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Ah on the contrary, my friend. Because they are a public service and have the monopoly they need stricter labor laws. Don't let the London chaos fool you, the public will is always on the workers side.
That might be true of the U.K., but in America, people would be calling for heads to roll...  and not just some of the management.

I think it can be reasonably assumed that if a strike of this nature occurred here, the public sentiment would be to break up the unions -- which would be the most logical course of action anyway.
Never leave the US then 'cause your logic will be put to test every single day 


Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

But they're also the ones who fall first. This year they'll have a 5% cut on their salaries.
True, but that's the price you pay when you choose to work for the state.  Besides, state benefits are usually better than private sector ones, so they make up for the lack in salary.
That is most of the times not true. You do have a stronger sense of stability when working for the State but the benefits at least overhere are pretty much equal.
2010-10-06 09:51:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6851|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Never leave the US then 'cause your logic will be put to test every single day 
The more I think about it, I would probably be a conservative in most European countries...  lol

Ticia wrote:

That is most of the times not true. You do have a stronger sense of stability when working for the State but the benefits at least overhere are pretty much equal.
Here, it's quite different.  Some companies offer great benefits.  Others...  offer little to none.   On average, state workers get better benefits than private workers, but private workers usually get paid better.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard