---

by Ethan
As said on one of the comments on that link, I won't get paid more to do my job eventhough I know I'm gonna be flat out, so why should Underground workers?

---

Has your union been asked not to strike during the Olympics because you work in an Olympic-essential job?

I don't see anything unreasonable about the request. If the RMT was threatening a strike during the Olympics solely to pocket a bonus, that'd be unacceptable blackmail, but if other workers have already been offered the same deal as Bob Crowe says, I don't see anything unreasonable about Tube workers striking to get equal treatment. Nor do I see anything wrong with expecting a bonus in return for an undertaking not to strike even if a strike-situation arises during the Olympics. Withdrawing your labour is a fundamental human right, and if the RMT promises to suspend that right for the Games' duration it's proper that their members are duly compensated.

It lifts the sprits to see at least one union still fighting the good fight.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Has your union been asked not to strike during the Olympics because you work in an Olympic-essential job?

---

That'd be a no. I'm not in a union. I've got a regular job. Just like the Undeground workers.

Those people get salaries just like every other worker (apparently). And generous ones at that, before even starting on overtime.

Looks what happened at New Year. The proposed strike then was due to 'safety'. How many times can that reason be used? I pay to use the Underground, so I expect it to be running. Why penalise (sp?) the normal public who use the LU everyday for their job?

Fair enough, I'm sure it wasn't the LU workers that decided to make a bid for the Olympics, but at the same time, every job has the odd crop up that makes it that little bit busier or exciting or whatever.

For gods sake, they do the same job day in day out with no variation. I'm sure a period of a few weeks in 6 years time shouldn't make that much difference.

I think it is disgraceful that it is needed, but I can understand why they are doing it. Striking is a leverage tool which is being used way too lightly, you don't strike "just like that" if you provide a public service that millions of people / businesses rely upon. Not to mention the image damage and the effect on future business for the whole London area you single handedly cause.... If you look at the track record of the unions it wouldn't be unthinkable that they would "abuse" the situation around the olympics to push their agenda in an unreasonable fashion. And arguments like "what if a strike-situation arises during the Olympics" are a bit of bull if you ask me as the olympics will only be in session for a couple of weeks and there are very little things I can think up that would not be able to wait a couple of weeks - so that would be nothing else than making use of the situation to put extra pressure on employers, where this is for all parties involved an oppertunity.

The attendency bonus, which is announced this early, is a cheap way to block all such efforts early on in the process. The earlier you announce it the less money you'll probably have to pay to get this result so from an organization viewpoint it is probably the cheap way out to minimize damage, but it is disgraceful that you have to pay people extra to just do their job to avoid strikes. You would hope that unions would have the foresight that succesful olympics --> more business for london in the long run --> more people --> more people in public transport --> more money for public transport companies --> more bandwidth for salary negotiations --> long run better salary prospects for employees... Shamefully short term gain seems to be a common theme recently.

[off-topic]
Personally I dislike unions as their priorities aren't (always) mine as their majority of members is the "older type" so most of their activities are in favour of the older types which are of course paid for by younger people whom will never see things like early retirement or an 65 retirement age, so why should I pay all their perks? At this point I normally get a few "older" people complaining about solidarity and "being social"... strange thing that it normally only works one way as the young have to be social towards the elderly.... yet it doesn't work the other way around.

And personally I think their attitude is very often pretty arrogant seeing which % of people they actually represent... As a highly education person I'm very well capable of doing my own negotiations with my employer, as my skill set / experience is valued. If I would have a legal issue an insurance policy that covers legal stuff is normally cheaper than membership of a union... of course not everyone is in such a position so unions have their place, but they should also know their place it aint 1930 anymore.
[/off topic]

(Edited by Chambler 24/02/2006 00:03)

---

by Ethan
That'd be a no. I'm not in a union. I've got a regular job. Just like the Undeground workers.

---

Maybe you should try and start one then.

---

Those people get salaries just like every other worker (apparently). And generous ones at that, before even starting on overtime.

Looks what happened at New Year. The proposed strike then was due to 'safety'. How many times can that reason be used? I pay to use the Underground, so I expect it to be running. Why penalise (sp?) the normal public who use the LU everyday for their job?

Fair enough, I'm sure it wasn't the LU workers that decided to make a bid for the Olympics, but at the same time, every job has the odd crop up that makes it that little bit busier or exciting or whatever.

For gods sake, they do the same job day in day out with no variation. I'm sure a period of a few weeks in 6 years time shouldn't make that much difference.

---

Safety can reasonably be used as many times as it takes until the management start listening. It isn't a hollow excuse: cutting staff and other cost saving measures directly affect the safety of commuters. I'd say a train crash would inconvenience the public a good deal more than a few days' strike action.

And even if it was another concern, banning workers in an essential job from striking is a recipe for exploitation. Why not direct your anger at the management who keep making cutbacks?

If they gave a no-strings no-strike promise for the Olympics it wouldn't just be a matter of a six-week period, it'd set a precedent the management could trot out again and again for other "major" events. And they'd be giving up a major tactical advantage, it's perfectly legitimate strategy to use the threat of industrial action in essential periods for leverage in strike negotiations. They're not there out the good of their hearts, it's a rough and ready business world, and the workers start at a considerable disadvantage, they deserve every chance to even up the playing field.

Depressing to see how successful the Thatcherite revolution's been in eroding solidarity.

---

by Byron
It isn't a hollow excuse: cutting staff and other cost saving measures directly affect the safety of commuters.

---

Ooh the safety card, a lovely variable that is almost impossible to directly measure in an objective manner. In many cases we aren't even talking about safety but about the "sense of safety" and I don't think we can get anymore subjective then that. Just because people feel more / less unsafe don't mean they actually are. Safety is a funny thing as in effect it is a devils triangle (actually it is probably a more complex shape are more variables are involved than I'm gonna mention here) as on the one hand we have "human injury / loss of life", efficiency and effectiveness. Sure we could for example make all cars out of a soft rubber material and limit them to 15mph however this would seriously impact their efficiency and effectiveness but we wouldn't have any loss of life. So decisions about safety are all about finding the minimal loss of life against the highest efficiency with the greatest effectiveness, so injury and loss of life is acceptable (apparently).

Unions want to avoid cutting jobs and get the highest pay possible and work in the "safest" way possible as thats what their constituents want, companies want to get round with as little people as possible as people are expensive / unreliable and they are in the business of making money but still require safety as people won't go onto a tube that crashes every other day. Add party 3 "the consumer" who wants to pay as little possible for a the best service and we have another devils triangle.

So now we have one devils triangle trying to make decisions about another devils triangle........ and a dilemma is born that is never gonna be solved to the full satisfaction of any of the parties involved.

---

And even if it was another concern, banning workers in an essential job from striking is a recipe for exploitation.

---

Just like it is a recipe for exploitation from the unions if you don't ban workers in essential jobs from striking (oooh yes this work both ways). And as there are so many more parties directly dependent upon and so many "third party" interest involved than in a normal situation it would be unreasonable for any of the two main parties to exploit the situation and a gentlemans agreement would be the way to go, unions not striking and companies don't force non-paid overtime etc.

What if some illness breaks out and drivers from the distribution companies would say "ooh we aint driving out and deliver medicines unless we get structurally more pay" and collectively go on strike, although they are in no physical danger themselves.... would that be acceptable use of their strategic advantage or would it be a very undecent thing to do as so many people depend on them?

---

Depressing to see how successful the Thatcherite revolution's been in eroding solidarity.

---

Solidarity? Uhmm sticking with people that have the same interest as you isn't real solidarity at all

(Edited by Chambler 24/02/2006 20:24)