Strike!

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Floex
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Strike!
by Floex » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:34 pm

Wow.
User avatar
DML
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by DML » Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:59 pm

Harry Ellis wrote:I back them. If people did even the slightest bit of research into the matter then you'd like to think most would come to the understanding that it's a necessary evil.

Without this kind of action the railways will never get better and the private owners will never be held to account.

Naturally, the Tories are siding with Southern Rail.


The problem is that the workers on Southern Rail have very few brownie points to spend. Their normal service and customer service is absolutely rubbish, never mind adding the strikes. Noone comes out of it well, but is the safety of workers really more important than people now having to quit their jobs because the general service is so awful.

Using the neighboring rail company every weekday and even we are affected by their shitness.
User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Strike!
by Lagamorph » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:00 pm

Driverless trains are inevitable is the thing, they're coming to both the Tube and general rail services, and strikes of this kind are probably only going to serve to get the public more on board with the idea.
Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
Steve
Proprietor
Joined in 2008
Location: Bedfordshire

PostRe: Strike!
by Steve » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:04 pm

Garland Twinkleballs wrote:Driverless trains are inevitable is the thing, they're coming to both the Tube and general rail services, and strikes of this kind are probably only going to serve to get the public more on board with the idea.


Exactly.
User avatar
Benzin
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: Strike!
by Benzin » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:13 am

The term driverless is a misnomer though, since there will still be a requirement to have a driver on board for general safety and emergency.

Automation is all well and good, but there have been plenty of issues with the complete removal of staffed ticket halls on the LU, combined with the issues of a poorly thought out Night Tube, which were the reasons for the last strikes on there.

Though actually stating the reasons behind these strikes is never going to sell the same as getting the masses against them because they want extra pay. The reduction of this being about who pushes the door button is just as much as problem, especially as it doesn't excuse the state of the service Southern provide in general.
User avatar
Qikz
Member ♥
Joined in 2011

PostRe: Strike!
by Qikz » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:07 am

Benzin wrote:The term driverless is a misnomer though, since there will still be a requirement to have a driver on board for general safety and emergency.

Automation is all well and good, but there have been plenty of issues with the complete removal of staffed ticket halls on the LU, combined with the issues of a poorly thought out Night Tube, which were the reasons for the last strikes on there.

Though actually stating the reasons behind these strikes is never going to sell the same as getting the masses against them because they want extra pay. The reduction of this being about who pushes the door button is just as much as problem, especially as it doesn't excuse the state of the service Southern provide in general.


Not true. DLR for the most part operates with no driver at all.

Yes they have a staff member or two on board, but that's mainly to check everyone is fine.
Image
The Watching Artist wrote:I feel so inept next to Stay Dead...
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Moggy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:25 am

Whether I agree with their reasons or not, everyone should have the right to remove their labour if they so wish. It might be a pain in the arse for commuters, but that’s the point really, it will have no impact on the bosses if they just write them a strongly worded letter and say “please” a lot.
User avatar
Trelliz
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Strike!
by Trelliz » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:10 am

It's like a big Jeremy Kyle episode; both sides are blaming the other, saying they want to sit down and talk but the other one doesn't want to listen, that they're being irrational/damaging etc. I remember while waiting for a delayed southern train looking in the Metro to see a two-page spread by Southern claiming that the evil unions are trying to ruin our lives and that the company is doing everything it can to resolve the situation etc.
Never pre-order or pre-purchase a console, game or season pass.
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Strike!
by Preezy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:18 am

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:Whether I agree with their reasons or not, everyone should have the right to remove their labour if they so wish.

I know people have strong opinions on this one way or the other (I don't, personally, but then I've never been affected by a strike before) so I'm trying to play devil's advocate and see it from both sides, whilst also educating myself.

Explain this to the layman:

Why should workers be allowed to temporarily remove their labour, only to then return to work once their demands have been met? Isn't that just holding employers hostage? If people are unhappy with their pay or conditions, why not quit and go work somewhere else? No one is forcing these workers to work for this company.
Image
User avatar
Tafdolphin
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Tafdolphin » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:21 am

Qikzmas wrote:
Benzin wrote:The term driverless is a misnomer though, since there will still be a requirement to have a driver on board for general safety and emergency.

Automation is all well and good, but there have been plenty of issues with the complete removal of staffed ticket halls on the LU, combined with the issues of a poorly thought out Night Tube, which were the reasons for the last strikes on there.

Though actually stating the reasons behind these strikes is never going to sell the same as getting the masses against them because they want extra pay. The reduction of this being about who pushes the door button is just as much as problem, especially as it doesn't excuse the state of the service Southern provide in general.


Not true. DLR for the most part operates with no driver at all.

Yes they have a staff member or two on board, but that's mainly to check everyone is fine.


Yeah, the metro in Lyon (France yes, but the point stands) is completely automated. I haven't see a single staff member on any of the trains during my multiple trips during multiple city visits.
Goat wrote:Guy probably decided not to show up because he heard Taffy was a Cow-exploding fantasist mentalist.

Bloggy blog blog blog.
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Hexx » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:31 am

DLR isn't a train it's an automated light metro system!
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Moggy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:31 am

make fists with your toes wrote:
Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:Whether I agree with their reasons or not, everyone should have the right to remove their labour if they so wish.

I know people have strong opinions on this one way or the other (I don't, personally, but then I've never been affected by a strike before) so I'm trying to play devil's advocate and see it from both sides, whilst also educating myself.

Explain this to the layman:

Why should workers be allowed to temporarily remove their labour, only to then return to work once their demands have been met? Isn't that just holding employers hostage? If people are unhappy with their pay or conditions, why not quit and go work somewhere else? No one is forcing these workers to work for this company.


Your questions only look at it from one side though. You can just as easily ask why don’t employers pay their staff properly and ensure working conditions are good or else just wind up the business as they obviously will never be able to keep staff happy. Nobody is forcing these people to run a train company!

You are right that nobody is forced to work for a company, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to fight to improve their conditions. Just telling people to “get another job” is not something that works for most people. A train driver for Southern Trains is supposed to do what? Move to an area where a different train company operates? Retrain for another career? Even if there are lots of other train jobs near them, maybe they have similar conditions that they are fighting against? “Get another job” sounds like a similar argument to the Leaver/right wing of “move if you don’t like it!” used if anybody ever dares complain about the way the country is going.
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Strike!
by Preezy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:34 am

Interesting, I take your points. Just once more on this though:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:You are right that nobody is forced to work for a company, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to fight to improve their conditions.

But if I join a company and sign the contract, shouldn't I have to accept the terms of that contract? In my current job (which doesn't have a union), if I was unhappy with my salary or workload and I decided to strike - I'd get the sack. And I don't think that would be an unfair outcome for me. Why should an employee be able to hold an employer hostage?

I realise that again I'm only seeing it from that side of things, but I'm struggling to see it from the other side as the argument just seems to be "people should have the right to strike" - which I don't really understand. Why should people have the right to strike? It's not a universal right that we all have. I can't strike, why should they be able to?
Image
User avatar
Benzin
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: Strike!
by Benzin » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:39 am

Qikzmas wrote:
Benzin wrote:The term driverless is a misnomer though, since there will still be a requirement to have a driver on board for general safety and emergency.

Automation is all well and good, but there have been plenty of issues with the complete removal of staffed ticket halls on the LU, combined with the issues of a poorly thought out Night Tube, which were the reasons for the last strikes on there.

Though actually stating the reasons behind these strikes is never going to sell the same as getting the masses against them because they want extra pay. The reduction of this being about who pushes the door button is just as much as problem, especially as it doesn't excuse the state of the service Southern provide in general.


Not true. DLR for the most part operates with no driver at all.

Yes they have a staff member or two on board, but that's mainly to check everyone is fine.


DLR still managed to be suspended during some of the last LU strikes though. Plus I'd say because the trains are 2/3 carriages long the need for constant supervision isn't as high compared to both the normal rail and Underground. Even then they often have staff on board so they're not completely unsupervised then.

I've no idea what the DLR is actually like during rush hour. I assume still busy, though nowhere near the levels of other public transit.


I always like the whole they should change jobs argument, as if being a train/tube driver or guard doesn't actually require any training at all.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Moggy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:41 am

make fists with your toes wrote:Interesting, I take your points. Just once more on this though:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:You are right that nobody is forced to work for a company, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to fight to improve their conditions.

But if I join a company and sign the contract, shouldn't I have to accept the terms of that contract? In my current job (which doesn't have a union), if I was unhappy with my salary or workload and I decided to strike - I'd get the sack. And I don't think that would be an unfair outcome for me. Why should an employee be able to hold an employer hostage?

I realise that again I'm only seeing it from that side of things, but I'm struggling to see it from the other side as the argument just seems to be "people should have the right to strike" - which I don't really understand. Why should people have the right to strike? It's not a universal right that we all have. I can't strike, why should they be able to?


Well my point was that everybody should have the right to strike. But that doesn't (and has never) meant individuals, a strike is when the majority (or at least a big chunk) of the workforce removes their labour, usually as a result of union action. If you are not in a union, then that's your own tough luck, your conditions being bad and you doing nothing about it does not mean other people cannot do it.

So the idea of "an employee holding an employer hostage" doesn't really exist. Lots of employees can do so (although it is not really holding them hostage) but that is usually after a hell of a lot of talks and negotiations between the staff, unions and employer. Strikes should only ever be the last resort.

It might be worth looking up the history of industrial action to see the conditions in which strike action started. Sure we all have it better nowadays, but that is only as the result of the fights and struggles of those workers from 100 years or so ago. Our rights are important and some people absolutely rely on options such as striking, don't give them away for everybody just because you personally don't think you could strike.

Also, terms and conditions of employment change. You might be happy with your contract and salary when you join a company, but 10 years later it might have change beyond all recognition. And there might not be any other jobs to go to or jobs you are qualified to do.
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Strike!
by Preezy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:45 pm

Question - do we have unions for government employees?

I don't think we should have anybody who works for the government being a member of a union, all that is is legalised extortion. The union members help elect the politicians and it's the politicians that pay their salaries which is a very incestuous and dubious process but the taxpayer isn't involved in it at all, so we just get stuck with the bill. I don't think that's right.
Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: Strike!
by Hyperion » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:57 pm

Steve wrote:I think anyone working in a public service shouldn't be allowed to strike.

Yeah, alright Thatcher.
Image Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Moggy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:04 pm

make fists with your toes wrote:Question - do we have unions for government employees?

I don't think we should have anybody who works for the government being a member of a union, all that is is legalised extortion. The union members help elect the politicians and it's the politicians that pay their salaries which is a very incestuous and dubious process but the taxpayer isn't involved in it at all, so we just get stuck with the bill. I don't think that's right.


Yes public sector workers have unions.

No it is not legalised extortion. Teachers, nurses, police, etc are all just as entitled as anybody else to representation and a union to fight their corner.

You seem to be under the impression that all unions are for is to blackmail employers. Without wanting to sound condescending (admittedly it's hard to say this without sounding it!) try reading up on the history of unions, what they do and why it is important for workers to have an organised group to fight their corner.

The right wing press make them sound like demons (and some of them can act that way) but the union movement was a massively important step in gaining rights and fair treatment for workers. To write the whole thing off as nothing more than extortion is dangerous.
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Strike!
by Rocsteady » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:40 pm

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:
make fists with your toes wrote:Question - do we have unions for government employees?

I don't think we should have anybody who works for the government being a member of a union, all that is is legalised extortion. The union members help elect the politicians and it's the politicians that pay their salaries which is a very incestuous and dubious process but the taxpayer isn't involved in it at all, so we just get stuck with the bill. I don't think that's right.


Yes public sector workers have unions.

No it is not legalised extortion. Teachers, nurses, police, etc are all just as entitled as anybody else to representation and a union to fight their corner.

You seem to be under the impression that all unions are for is to blackmail employers. Without wanting to sound condescending (admittedly it's hard to say this without sounding it!) try reading up on the history of unions, what they do and why it is important for workers to have an organised group to fight their corner.

The right wing press make them sound like demons (and some of them can act that way) but the union movement was a massively important step in gaining rights and fair treatment for workers. To write the whole thing off as nothing more than extortion is dangerous.

Here are some nice quotes about the benefits of unions from people across the political spectrum such as Abe Lincoln, Obama and Chomsky: http://laborquotes.weebly.com/unions--labor.html
Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: Strike!
by Hyperion » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:57 pm

make fists with your toes wrote:Interesting, I take your points. Just once more on this though:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:You are right that nobody is forced to work for a company, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to fight to improve their conditions.

But if I join a company and sign the contract, shouldn't I have to accept the terms of that contract? In my current job (which doesn't have a union), if I was unhappy with my salary or workload and I decided to strike - I'd get the sack. And I don't think that would be an unfair outcome for me. Why should an employee be able to hold an employer hostage?


It's usually the employer holding the employee hostage. Reducing benefits, longer hours, reduction in staff, loss of pension. The employer is changing the contract, shouldn't they accept the terms? It's also incredibly simplistic to just suggest that people can go and get a job elsewhere.
Image Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: <]:^D, Akai XIII, BTB, chanticleer, Garth, Grumpy David, Monkey Man, Oblomov Boblomov, Preezy, Return_of_the_STAR, Rhubarb, SandyCoin, Snowcannon and 35 guests