Strike

[bluejon]

It isn't about whether or not the unions are working for us anymore - there are obviously good and bad unions/reps etc.
But let's not forget, any employer will pay staff as little as they can get away with and sack any of us as soon as look at us if it suits. There is no fairness or sense of right and wrong. It is naivety in the extreme to think any different.
What it is about is democracy, a vote is a vote and that's that no matter how small the margins. It is also about morality.
I agree with the previous point. Anybody who a) can remotely try and justify crossing a picket line and diluting what colleagues and often friends are trying to achieve is beyond any reasonable understanding to me so I guess we will always be poles apart no matter what and b) trying to justify doing so indicates an inherent knowledge, however buried, those actions are indefensible.

agreed 100% on employers paying the minimum they can, and they will. I also am aware that it is collectivised union action that has got us a lot of the workers rights and benefits we now enjoy. however, this current round is a load of horse shit. we live in a post industrial society, where the stopping of an office for a day here or there has nothing like the effect that stopping the assembly line, or the pit for a day made
I am not justifying, I am debating, there is a huge difference. I stand by my position, and strangely feel very comfortable with it, but I understand that many people on here will disagree with me. this is fine

Fair point about the debating and I for one respect your right to your own actions of course. Personally I would always suggest you are still justifying those actions to yourself perhaps, but given my points and thoughts above I am always going to think that. I used to work in the Civil Service and was on strike in the 90's. As a manager of staff it was difficult to seperate the need to be professional and fair to those that chose to cross the picket line, the vast majority of whom I liked and got on with, and my personal thoughts of them doing so.

truth is, I haven't crossed a picket line, it was my wife, but I do stand by her decision. she said herself, a few years ago, she would have been disgusted at her actions yesterday, but she no longer has any respect for the pcs, for various reasons, some of which I've mentioned on here. ironically, I am extremely left wing in my politics (both of us are), so I do find it very strange to be arguing the case I am, but there we go. and this isn't age and family needs making us selfish. she has gone on strike a few times when its really hit us, but we both agreed it was the right thing to do. with the turnout, and the complete lack of any usefulness in this latest round of strikes, this is the decision we made (as it was a joint decision). anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to, and I understand why. I just don't agree myself

 

[BlueRob01]

agreed 100% on employers paying the minimum they can, and they will. I also am aware that it is collectivised union action that has got us a lot of the workers rights and benefits we now enjoy. however, this current round is a load of horse shit. we live in a post industrial society, where the stopping of an office for a day here or there has nothing like the effect that stopping the assembly line, or the pit for a day made
I am not justifying, I am debating, there is a huge difference. I stand by my position, and strangely feel very comfortable with it, but I understand that many people on here will disagree with me. this is fine

Fair point about the debating and I for one respect your right to your own actions of course. Personally I would always suggest you are still justifying those actions to yourself perhaps, but given my points and thoughts above I am always going to think that. I used to work in the Civil Service and was on strike in the 90's. As a manager of staff it was difficult to seperate the need to be professional and fair to those that chose to cross the picket line, the vast majority of whom I liked and got on with, and my personal thoughts of them doing so.

truth is, I haven't crossed a picket line, it was my wife, but I do stand by her decision. she said herself, a few years ago, she would have been disgusted at her actions yesterday, but she no longer has any respect for the pcs, for various reasons, some of which I've mentioned on here. ironically, I am extremely left wing in my politics (both of us are), so I do find it very strange to be arguing the case I am, but there we go. and this isn't age and family needs making us selfish. she has gone on strike a few times when its really hit us, but we both agreed it was the right thing to do. with the turnout, and the complete lack of any usefulness in this latest round of strikes, this is the decision we made (as it was a joint decision). anyone who disagrees with it is entitled to, and I understand why. I just don't agree myself

Can't disagree with you on pcs. What a shower. I am in Unison now and if anything find them even worse and more driven to their own point scoring and political ends than benefitting members and pragmatically choosing the right battles. So I genuinely see the dilema, of sorts.That said, I would argue the principles remain and I still would never, ever cross a democratically voted for strike but that's my choice.

 

[johnmc]

Disagree with employers sacking people at will. It's nigh on impossible to sack incompetent staff just for being incompetent nowadays for fear of reprisals. I know of no one to get the boot because they were shit at their job or even took the piss with days off etc. the only people I know to get the sack were caught red handed shagging on the job or lifting from the till or whatever.

A woman was off work for 3 months where I am after splitting up with her husband. The doctor signed her off with stress for that time. Not work related obviously. I accept it must have been a hard time for her. But coming back to work after that time my employers are so scared of triggering more stress and being accused of being the cause she has a back to work programme where she works one day in one day off. And that's been the case for the last 6 weeks or so. So one week she works Monday weds and Friday. The next week just tues and thurs. until further notice. But because she is still going through things in the divorce she is still somewhat stressed so that is ongoing until who knows when. She is still pulling a full time wage and also therefore getting full time holiday allowance of 28 days a year. So by my reckoning she works 5 out of every 10 days therefore she gets 11 weeks off on her current arrangements off on full pay. Plus bank holidays. Plus he holidays accrued for the 3 months off on top.

But people walk on eggshells around her and she isn't given half the work others are, in fact others are getting her work on top of their own.

 

[mackenzie]

If you cross a picket line as a Union member then you are a scab. It's that simple.
If you aren't a Union member and cross it then you need to need to refuse to enjoy anything the Union gains.

 

[johnmc]

If you cross a picket line as a Union member then you are a scab. It's that simple.
If you aren't a Union member and cross it then you need to need to refuse to enjoy anything the Union gains.

But as stated and agreed having people work the same job and enjoy different benefits goes against the union ethos.

 

[mackenzie]

If you cross a picket line as a Union member then you are a scab. It's that simple.
If you aren't a Union member and cross it then you need to need to refuse to enjoy anything the Union gains.

But as stated and agreed having people work the same job and enjoy different benefits goes against the union ethos.

Not sure what you mean by that tbh.
Sounds like over complicating

 

[johnmc]

If you cross a picket line as a Union member then you are a scab. It's that simple.
If you aren't a Union member and cross it then you need to need to refuse to enjoy anything the Union gains.

But as stated and agreed having people work the same job and enjoy different benefits goes against the union ethos.

Not sure what you mean by that tbh.
Sounds like over complicating

A union wants fair terms for everyone not just its members?

 

[Blue Punter]

But as stated and agreed having people work the same job and enjoy different benefits goes against the union ethos.

Not sure what you mean by that tbh.
Sounds like over complicating

A union wants fair terms for everyone not just its members?

Bluejon, any chance of a response to my question at the end of Page 24?

 

[johnmc]

Jonmc, any chance of a response to my question at the end of Page 24?

Hi Mate, not sure thats aimed at me - isnt it bluejon who is saying about the number of voters. I dont know about that.

 

[George Hannah]

Maybe he is doing a good job. Maybe £125,000 is about the going rate for someone in a job of his level. Both of those things are irrelevant. When he ran for election to this high profile, high financial reward role he made a promise, that was to take no more than the average civil servant wage, he now earns £125,000. So, he lied. He lied to the members in order to gain their votes and win a lucrative role for himself. How, exactly, can anyone trust a single word he says if there is such a clear example of him lying in order to line his own pockets?

Your'e very quick to accuse him of lying, I'm not so sure that's fair. Anyway for what it's worth here's what he said about this in 2011

Welsh trade union leader who organised a mass public sector walkout has defended the pounds 86,000 salary that has seen him dubbed a "fat cat" by opponents.

PCS leader Mark Serwotka, who 11 years ago was elected general secretary on a promise to take a wage much closer to the average member, said his salary reflected the seniority of his role.
Serwotka, 48, who grew up in Aberdare, told Wales on Sunday his pay was being used by the media to create a division between himself and rank-and-file PCS members.
He said: "The logic of the newspapers who write this is that their editors should be on the same wages as the people who are cleaning their offices. And, of course, they don't do that, do they?"
Serwotka, who was a key player in organising the nationwide public sector strike on June 30, was keen to point out he hands back around £8,000 a year of his salary.
The PCS has said he couldn't keep his pledge to take a wage much closer to an average member because it would have disrupted the union's salary structure....

All very interesting, and all totally irrelevant.
He earns far more than the average civil servant, that's a fact.
He said he would earn the same as the average civil servant, that's a fact.
His excuses, the fact he's returned some of the money, the fact he doesn't NOW claim to earn the same as the average civil servant, are of no consequence. Is he doing what he said he'd do in his election promises? No. It really is that simple.

So breaking an election promise 10 years ago makes Serwotka completely untrustworthy and condemns everything he has said since as a possible lie? I'm not sure why you prefer the distinctly dodgy Taxpayers Alliance version of his election address rather than that of the man himself.
Notice he says he promised to take a salary "much closer to the average member" not "the same", but I agree it was clearly an unwise statement and one he probably deeply regrets. Not enough to use as a basis to junk everything he's done since though.

I had already been obliged to leave PCS for a different union in 2000 but I remember the bitterness of Serwotka's election. At the time he was portrayed as an evil Scargill throwback but he has turned out to be one the best PCS leaders. You mentioned your own union earlier in the thread. May I ask which one it is and whether you have supported any industrial action it has taken?
If you think it's relevant of course ;-)