General Election 2019: Exit Poll and Results

I need to not look at this thread it’s too depressing

Grumpy David wrote:

Hexx wrote:Strikes "that target commuters" to be banned

That's amazing for London workers like myself! Lots of professions aren't allowed to go on strike and overpaid tube drivers are similar to landlords in having it too good for too long. Glad about that being corrected!

Unless your concern is the vagueness leading to a slippery slope?

It's not amazing, everyone should be allowed to go on strike and they're not overpaid. Everyone else is underpaid.

Soubry has shut down the Independent Group because they didn't get any MPs.

I legit forgot they were even a thing until I saw the news pop up.

"Overpaid" is such a wooly, subjective concept, that it should be the basis by which you decide if strike action is fitting or not.

And yeah, it's convenient for the public, isn't that precisely the purpose of a strike? To highlight the inherent worth your labour value has and how vital it is to stop stuff going to gooseberry fool. You lose the ability to strike, and the only way you can get the slightest advantage over your employers in negotiations is to quit. They hold all the cards otherwise, unless it's a really niche field with few qualified applicants.

Grumpy David wrote:

Hexx wrote:Strikes "that target commuters" to be banned

That's amazing for London workers like myself! Lots of professions aren't allowed to go on strike and overpaid tube drivers are similar to landlords in having it too good for too long. Glad about that being corrected!

Unless your concern is the vagueness leading to a slippery slope?

"I am glad that tube drivers will have less rights because it is more important that I get to work on time"

"I rely on these people every single day to drive me to work, but they are overpaid and shouldn't be allowed to strike".

The Underground lines are basically London's veins. That the capital is so over-reliant on them is not the fault of the drivers.

"I look at people in a strong union and think 'you bastards are so overpaid', not, 'wow, look how nice I could have it if I joined a union and organised effectively'."

Hexx wrote:FTPA Gone
Living Wage increase promised during election now conditional on economic performance (as they drive us off a cliff)
Strikes "that target commuters" to be banned
Workers rights? Going to be gutted.
Parliamentary involvement in the WA? Gone

strawberry float every berk who voted for this shower.

I can't even express how angry about all this. I see stuff on Twitter about not calling these people stupid, but good lord, how can anyone not?

It will also prevent any form of strike really, even beyond the obvious Underground staff.

Extinction Rebellion? Nope
Picket line outside your work? Nope

Grumpy David wrote:

Hexx wrote:Strikes "that target commuters" to be banned

That's amazing for London workers like myself!

WRONG! It's terrible for all workers

Grumpy David wrote:Lots of professions aren't allowed to go on strike and overpaid tube drivers are similar to landlords in having it too good for too long. Glad about that being corrected!

Unless your concern is the vagueness leading to a slippery slope?

Leave with no alignment to EU rules?

Even though to trade with them we have to supply things that adhere to their standards?

Such logic.

Yeah banning striking is a bad idea. However I've often thought that the act of striking itself damages the public, who are (a) probably fairly grateful to the work being done and (b) in no position to actually change things directly.

I think it's possible to have strikes without actually shutting down the service. As an example: teachers go on strike. Instead of shutting the gates and making parents take a day off, open the school as usual but have an end of term style go-slow. Make it clear to parents that their children will be safe as they are every day but they will not be taught National Curriculum stuff. Likewise, if a train union goes on strike, run the trains as normal, or at least a slightly reduced service. However, refund all the money taken from the machine to passengers' cards during the designated strike time, and give a refund to season ticket holders as you would under delay repay.

Keep the public onside but hurt your opposition.

Dowbocop wrote:Yeah banning striking is a bad idea. However I've often thought that the act of striking itself damages the public, who are (a) probably fairly grateful to the work being done and (b) in no position to actually change things directly.

I think it's possible to have strikes without actually shutting down the service. As an example: teachers go on strike. Instead of shutting the gates and making parents take a day off, open the school as usual but have an end of term style go-slow. Make it clear to parents that their children will be safe as they are every day but they will not be taught National Curriculum stuff. Likewise, if a train union goes on strike, run the trains as normal, or at least a slightly reduced service. However, refund all the money taken from the machine to passengers' cards during the designated strike time, and give a refund to season ticket holders as you would under delay repay.

Keep the public onside but hurt your opposition.

The teacher one might be allowable, but the train example would be illegal. Refunding people would be stealing from the train company. And the train company would never agree to those refunds.

Both examples also miss the point of a strike. They are supposed to cause disruption.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Dowbocop wrote:Yeah banning striking is a bad idea. However I've often thought that the act of striking itself damages the public, who are (a) probably fairly grateful to the work being done and (b) in no position to actually change things directly.

I think it's possible to have strikes without actually shutting down the service. As an example: teachers go on strike. Instead of shutting the gates and making parents take a day off, open the school as usual but have an end of term style go-slow. Make it clear to parents that their children will be safe as they are every day but they will not be taught National Curriculum stuff. Likewise, if a train union goes on strike, run the trains as normal, or at least a slightly reduced service. However, refund all the money taken from the machine to passengers' cards during the designated strike time, and give a refund to season ticket holders as you would under delay repay.

Keep the public onside but hurt your opposition.

The teacher one might be allowable, but the train example would be illegal. Refunding people would be stealing from the train company. And the train company would never agree to those refunds.

Both examples also miss the point of a strike. They are supposed to cause disruption.

The disruption is caused to the children's education but allows parents to still work that day and not lose money/leave. I would also say that a loss of revenue would be disruptive to the TOCs. And it's illegal now, but if the mechanism was built into future franchises it wouldn't be illegal if you know what I mean

Essentially it would be another tool in between work to rule/no overtime and full out striking.

Dowbocop wrote:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Dowbocop wrote:Yeah banning striking is a bad idea. However I've often thought that the act of striking itself damages the public, who are (a) probably fairly grateful to the work being done and (b) in no position to actually change things directly.

I think it's possible to have strikes without actually shutting down the service. As an example: teachers go on strike. Instead of shutting the gates and making parents take a day off, open the school as usual but have an end of term style go-slow. Make it clear to parents that their children will be safe as they are every day but they will not be taught National Curriculum stuff. Likewise, if a train union goes on strike, run the trains as normal, or at least a slightly reduced service. However, refund all the money taken from the machine to passengers' cards during the designated strike time, and give a refund to season ticket holders as you would under delay repay.

Keep the public onside but hurt your opposition.

The teacher one might be allowable, but the train example would be illegal. Refunding people would be stealing from the train company. And the train company would never agree to those refunds.

Both examples also miss the point of a strike. They are supposed to cause disruption.

The disruption is caused to the children's education but allows parents to still work that day and not lose money/leave. I would also say that a loss of revenue would be disruptive to the TOCs. And it's illegal now, but if the mechanism was built into future franchises it wouldn't be illegal if you know what I mean

Essentially it would be another tool in between work to rule/no overtime and full out striking.

There’s a hell of a lot less disruption if the kids are still going to school but are playing Mouse Trap instead. Parents wouldn’t like it, but it’s barely going to cause a ripple on the news.

The train one is just a non-starter. No company is going to agree to run the trains for the day while not charging. Reducing the price wouldn’t fulfil the aim of the strike. And employees refunding tickets without company permission would be arrested.

Grumpy David wrote:Unless your concern is the vagueness leading to a slippery slope?

Of course it's a slippery slope.


The people who own this country (because let's face it, this country is run by multi millionaires now), want to move us to closer and closer to the American system where people are just a resource they can just maximise use of to make a few more quid.

I remember reading a news story about Japanese bus drivers going on strike.

Their strike method was to still turn up to work and run a full service, but not take payment from passengers. So the bus company still had the loss of revenue a strike would cause, but also had the added cost of the service still being run. And it kept the public on side with the striking workers.

Always seemed a great idea for a transport industry strike to me.

The tube/train equivalent would be to just open the ticket gates and not check tickets on trains.

Dowbocop wrote:Yeah banning striking is a bad idea. However I've often thought that the act of striking itself damages the public, who are (a) probably fairly grateful to the work being done and (b) in no position to actually change things directly.

I think it's possible to have strikes without actually shutting down the service. As an example: teachers go on strike. Instead of shutting the gates and making parents take a day off, open the school as usual but have an end of term style go-slow. Make it clear to parents that their children will be safe as they are every day but they will not be taught National Curriculum stuff. Likewise, if a train union goes on strike, run the trains as normal, or at least a slightly reduced service. However, refund all the money taken from the machine to passengers' cards during the designated strike time, and give a refund to season ticket holders as you would under delay repay.

Keep the public onside but hurt your opposition.

These are already options, though, classified as actions short of striking (ASOS) and so are not really strike replacements, just alternative actions that could be taken, potentially before escalating to a strike.

Holpil wrote: