Reply With QuoteAm I right in thinking that the issue in a nutshell seems to be that in terms of the RMT, the companies have offered a deal that they think workers would accept if it was put to them, but the RMT have decided it isn't good enough to put to a vote.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
As Labour sit in thier conference today with Mick the train creeping around the corridors even though he's not a member of the current Labour model .
I was interested in the budget announcement around the proposed Trade Union legislation to force unions to put pay offers and negotiations to members before strikes , I'd go further and allow a (democratic vote ) of all the workers involved union members or not and I'd let everyone including the public to see the details as its about us as taxpayers and users of those services ???
Am I right in thinking that the issue in a nutshell seems to be that in terms of the RMT, the companies have offered a deal that they think workers would accept if it was put to them, but the RMT have decided it isn't good enough to put to a vote.
You are approaching this from the mindset that the RMT just wants to be on strike, that doesn't make any sense. Strip it back for a second and 'pretend' that the union is working on behalf of a collective of workers and trying to secure a deal...If they think their members will accept a deal then what is their incentive to prevent that from happening? Annoy both members and employer? See what I am getting at, your entire thought process built around 'unions bad'Originally Posted by JamesWales
My initial thought is that this is a way of governments hindering the unions ability to act collectively and strike. Picture this:
Pay demand: +1k - union polls members and they approve of this demand
Employer: +10p - as per the law, the union takes time/effort/money to poll members about the offer of 10p, they say 'no, let's strike'
Union: Mr employer, we are going to strike
Employer: okay okay, +20p - as per the law, the union polls members about the offer of 20p, they say 'no, let's strike'
Union: Mr employer, we are going to strike
Employer: okay okay, +23p - as per the law, the union polls members about the offer of 23p, they say 'no, let's strike'
and on and on..
Now it is an extreme is example but this law is essentially a way of tipping the balance firmly in favour of the employer and essentially making it so that an employer can delay strike action forever.
I think if you have a job and don't directly negotiate your own salary, you should be scared of these kinds of laws.
I haven't made any assumption there at all, I'm just trying to understand what is being talked about in practice. But thanks for explaining it from ur perspective.
You sum the issue up very well Eric.
Couple this with the fact that the government refuse to allow unions to use online voting this is yet another example of the Conservative Party's hatred of organised Labour.
And this Government in particular because a key component of it's strategy is to subjugate workers and relegate them to the status of serfs.
Any government serious about creating a high wage economy would be in favour of collective bargaining. This lot seem to mean high wage for high earners and stuff the rest, as per that graph in the other thread that shows that when it comes to lower/middle income earners (i.e. basically everybody), salaries in the UK lag behind our counterparts.
And much more likely to be spent their hard earned in the local economy, thus assisting growth.
The very wealthy are much more likely to syphon their greater wealth outside of our economy.
What graph is that? I missed it.
I do think a lot of you are guilty of wearing rose tinted spectacles when it comes to issues in other countries, I must say. You seem to think the UK is the worst place in the world, and it really isn't so.
I am so shit at posting images I am not even going to try but it was early on in the rich gets richer thread. I didn't post it but I linked the article from the ft and there was a follow up post with the graph.
The point I was making in the other thread was that at higher incomes, wages/living standards in the UK are similar to Germany/Norway but as you move lower it deviates quite drastically to the point where your standard of living is better as a poor person Slovenia than it is in the UK. So the point I was making was that we aren't a low wage economy, we are a comparatively unequal economy, which makes the PM's comments about wealth distribution and subsequent policy choices seem even more misguided.
A letter to RMT general secretary Mick Lynch on Saturday afternoon, the Transport Secretary said the railway operator's proposal of an*8%*pay rise over two years is "fair" and members should have the opportunity to resolve the dispute.
It seems fair to suggest all the workforce get a vote on the above , not allow a small group of wealthy union leaders who can afford to stay out , to dictate .. this type of union procedures is undemocratic, what is the union worried about..
If inflation returns to normality ie 3% will they repay the wage offer ??
Pretty sure inflation has already wiped out that 8% and more even if it returned to 3% tomorrow.
It's like your mission is to ensure workers have no recourse and earn less and less in real terms every year. It's such a weird thing to be obsessed with.
He acts as if it’s still the seventies when some unions were taking the piss - I’d still like to think that most people in this country would accept that if unions are being offered rises well below the rate of inflation, they have a right to try and do something about it.
He himself is stuck in the seventies. He is David Bowie after all
My understanding this dispute is not just about pay.
My understanding that the change in rules being proposed would push to make disputes about just that. Throw a pay rise and stuff the conditions.
Posting Permissions
