a.palfreyman
pfm Member
Maybe all P&O staff should go on the sick. That would bring the entire company to a standstill...
The internecine squabbling eventually cashes out as whether or not the party should support the unions. Ruling faction for most of the last 40 years says nope. Big part of the problem.I'm not threatening the unions with anything (a bizarre thought). Just pointing out that if I was a member of a union that didn't consider a case like P&O, where the employers seem to be breaking the law, worth fighting with the utmost energy, I would be reconsidering my membership.
As for the rest, well, Tory governments don't help unions. Maybe if the Labour party spent less time on internecine squabbles things would be different, but we are where we are. I would have thought egregious cases like P&O are opportunities for the union movement to regain some ground, but I'm not an expert.
You certainly know more about this than I do. But I thought the Labour party was partly funded by the unions, and that some union leaders had significant influence there as a result.The internecine squabbling eventually cashes out as whether or not the party should support the unions. Ruling faction for most of the last 40 years says nope. Big part of the problem.
Yes, ‘threatening” was a poor choice of wording that failed to convey my meaning. ApologiesI'm not threatening the unions with anything (a bizarre thought). Just pointing out that if I was a member of a union that didn't consider a case like P&O, where the employers seem to be breaking the law, worth fighting with the utmost energy, I would be reconsidering my membership.
As for the rest, well, Tory governments don't help unions. Maybe if the Labour party spent less time on internecine squabbles things would be different, but we are where we are. I would have thought egregious cases like P&O are opportunities for the union movement to regain some ground, but I'm not an expert.
Perhaps the Unions need to form their own party, not being flippant BTW.The internecine squabbling eventually cashes out as whether or not the party should support the unions. Ruling faction for most of the last 40 years says nope. Big part of the problem.
They did. In 1900!Perhaps the Unions need to form their own party, not being flippant BTW.
But that's broken, obvs.They did. In 1900!
What you say is true but only in a legal sense. The RMT is one of the most combative unions but also one of the smallest. As I say, if every train driver came out on strike, the country would be paralysed. If Unite offers solidarity action and every bus driver came out, this dispute would be won in hours. Of course the government would bleat about unions taking illegal action, move to seize assets, label the union ‘traitors’ for striking during a war in Ukraine etc, etc. But what could they do in reality but to concede in the face of massive union strength? Of course it is highly unlikely to happen as British Trade Unions, with some honourable exceptions, are conservative in nature. But, as George Orwell memorably wrote in 1984, if workers recognised their own strength, it would be “like a horse shaking its head free of flies.”The fact of the matter is that the unions have been weakened by years of Tory resentment and anti union feeling. As a result, what a union is able to spend it’s resources on is legally curtailed to the extent that starting a legal battle and losing could lead to accusations of misspending member money. A union will usually only fight a legal battle it is certain to win.
Unions will fight this for all they’re worth, but to threaten them with a backlash from members and blame them if they fail against what is, as you say, a complicit government and supine courts, is to misrepresent the ability of unions, the reality the situation, the reality of how unions have been systematically weakened, and who is to blame for how we got to where we are.
Well the RMT did disaffiliate from Labour, Unite is making similar noises. Starmer’s Labour Party is unconcerned, indeed welcome this, as he is far more comfortable being funded by business. I am in complete agreement of the need for a new party in principle but, unfortunately, the Labour Party still has the loyalty of a significant number of working class voters. And can you imagine the establishment machine unleashed upon such a project, if the Corbyn experience is anything to go by?Perhaps the Unions need to form their own party, not being flippant BTW.
But secondary strike action is illegal in the UKWhat you say is true but only in a legal sense. The RMT is one of the most combative unions but also one of the smallest. As I say, if every train driver came out on strike, the country would be paralysed. If Unite offers solidarity action and every bus driver came out, this dispute would be won in hours. Of course the government would bleat about unions taking illegal action, move to seize assets, label the union ‘traitors’ for striking during a war in Ukraine etc, etc. But what could they do in reality but to concede in the face of massive union strength? Of course it is highly unlikely to happen as British Trade Unions, with some honourable exceptions, are conservative in nature. But, as George Orwell memorably wrote in 1984, if workers recognised their own strength, it would be “like a horse shaking its head free of flies.”
But that’s precisely my point, the potential power of the RMT is such that the government would be powerless to use any legislation in what would effectively be a general strike. You can’t break a transport workers strike with scab labour. Transport workers have to be trained and that takes time. Train drivers (rightly) earn as much as university lecturers because of a) the RMT has been exceptionally good at winning favourable conditions for its members b) it’s a highly skilled job to drive a train.But secondary strike action is illegal in the UK
But secondary strike action is illegal in the UK
But that’s precisely my point, the potential power of the RMT is such that the government would be powerless to use any legislation in what would effectively be a general strike. You can’t break a transport workers strike with scab labour. Transport workers have to be trained and that takes time. Train drivers (rightly) earn as much as university lecturers because of a) the RMT has been exceptionally good at winning favourable conditions for its members b) it’s a highly skilled job to drive a train.
Yes, I agree with you and @Finnegan, but I fear that as soon as strike action began to effect people going about their business, and the inevitable widespread propaganda campaign, support would very quickly melt away.I’m increasingly of the view that the modern Conservative Party is just so criminal and corrupt in its behaviour the law can pretty much be considered to be optional at this point in time. They are leading by example. I would fully support a ‘general strike’ and would be disappointed if the various non-Tory parties didn’t get behind it. Nothing will get these jobs back, and I doubt anyone would want to return to such an employer anyway, but a line in the sand needs drawing quite firmly IMHO.
It remains, for the time being, a hypothetical and unlikely situation. But faced with overwhelming industrial might, any government is effectively powerless. Even sequestering funds relies on a workforce to carry out the task. In any case, a real general strike would not take that long to achieve its aims. No transport, civil service, large retail, education etc. Of course provision would be made to ensure vital services carried on.I take your point, but the funds of any union taking secondary strike action would be sequestered and therefore be unable to pay out any strike pay. It is doubtful there would be an appetite for a General strike and even less so if those striking would not get paid. If the attitude to recent industrial action of Tube drivers is anything to go by, public opinion would be firmly against strike action.
Complicated history of course but the TLDR version is that unions got nothing out of three consecutive labour governments in terms of undoing the damage Thatcher did and have lost a lot of formal influence within the party, while publicly the party has sought to distance itself from unions. The new leadership are Blair ultras: they don’t even seem to have connections with the unions through the old Labour right, as Blair himself did. By all accounts they just don’t get unions and certainly have little interest in workers’s rights.You certainly know more about this than I do. But I thought the Labour party was partly funded by the unions, and that some union leaders had significant influence there as a result.
Some strikes attract public support, other less so. Whilst public support makes it easier, strikes are won or lost on industrial strength, not public opinion. The 1926 general strike was completely sold out by the TUC.