Time to crush the unions again...

Employers just need to insert clauses into their employment contracts stating what the consequences would be were an employee to strike. If the worker is unwilling to agree to this, then they don't sign the contract and they don't get the job. Much easier to do in the private sector than the public.

And I daresay striking is a breach of contract regardless of whether such a clause exists.

That's not very nice, is it Margaret?

Employers could happily put that in their contracts if they wanted to. It'd count for stuff all, though, as it's a basic employment right to join unions and participate in official industrial action - and nothing an employer puts in a contract can override your legal rights.

shut up ya tit

lets take somebodys civil rights off them, its not as if enough has been taken already

Surely the best system would be to allow employees to strike whenever they want and for however long they want, but allow employers to fire anyone striking if they chose to. Would it not lead to be people being paid in proportion to what they're worth?

For example, let's imagine being a postal worker is a very specialised job that requires much training and special skills. These postal workers think that they're not receiving enough pay or benefits so go on strike. The employer could sack the workers for striking but they are specialised workers and it would simply not be feasible to find new workers and train them to the speciality of the current workers. The only way to get the workers back is to provide them with the pay that reflects their ability.

Now in an another example being a postal worker is a very unspecialised job that requires little training. The postal workers feel they're being underpaid and go on strike. The employer recognises that they're not worth the pay that they're demanding and due to the unspecialised nature of the job knows that there will be other workers who will be fit to do the job. The employer sacks or gives an ultimatum to the strikers and hires others who are willing to work for the original wage.

Not saying that postal workers are massively skilled or massively unskilled; the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

If you sign a contract that overrides 'your basic employment rights' then that's your problem.

I don't believe you have a right to consequence-free striking if you've signed a contract agreeing to certain consequences if you were to strike.

I agree with you that this would be a good idea, but that chap is right that it is not how things stand at the moment. Striking is inherently a breach of contract: you agreed to work and have refused. The "right to strike" is really no such thing. Anyone can, of course, breach any contract at will. What the "right to strike" really means is that the employer is not only denied the normal legal recourse, but even remains entirely bound to the contract himself!

The more I think about it the more ridiculous this seems. It makes about as much sense as saying employers have "right to strike" by denying wages to employees without recourse if they are not satisfied with the work they're receiving, even if it exactly meets what the employees were contractually required to do. It replaces the system of free contract by a system of arbitrary chaos; worse, one in which a single group (in this case, unionised workers) has the whip hand in all dealings. The natural result is chaos as unions realise that they can extort almost anything they like up until the point where the business collapses, and this is even worse if the business is state owned because its potential for loss-making before it implodes is essentially limitless.

This is exactly what happened in this country until Thatcher imposed restrictions on unions' ability to exercise this power. But to the tory boys who think the answer to the dregs of this that remain are yet more arbitrary restrictions just because that is what Thatcher did, consider just removing the unjustified legal privileges of the unions.

We should impose limits on the number of days you can take industrial action on per year.

The competition is there it's just nobody wants to use it, there's hundreds of courier and delivery companies in the UK... TNT, DHL, Fedex, etc. If more companies and people switched to using these providers it wouldn't be so much of a problem when RM workers went on strike, however many people are reluctant to make the switch because the Royal Mail is what they're used to.

Enough is enough. I'm fed up of the unions holding our great country to ransom. The current postal strike is excessive and is the umpteenth time in near history. Same goes with the greedy tube drivers who earn £40,000 for the simplest of tasks and yet strike over and over again, crippling London's transport network, heaping chaos onto commuters and giving London's tourism a kick in the nuts. They're a liability. Will the world want to give UK world cup in 2018 when they know it could be ruined by the greedy tube drivers? They've become a liability and can cost our nation dearly.

We should impose limits on the number of days you can take industrial action on per year.

Who's with me?

But those companies provide a completely different service to Royal Mail's main business. DHL etc. are courier companies used to deliver large individual items, or put many items into distribution from large single sources. You can send a letter via RM for 32p - RM has a distribution network that gets letters to every house with letters daily. The kind of network that RM has is a natural monopoly - it is never going to be efficient for two or more companies to have a postbox in every road and for multiple people to visit each house every day. Hence why even the States have a government postal service.

Are employers allowed to sack employees who're striking? Just wondering, because I don't know much about trade unions and the like.

If we paid the public/semi-public sector fairly and removed the antiquated benefits of the jobs, they wouldn't be striking.

I have to disagree. I have worked in the public sector for most of my working life so far, and I don't think we get a bad deal, to be honest. A decent amount of paid annual leave, paid sick leave, pension entitlement, a guaranteed annual pay increase, carer leave, personnel advice, etc. etc. The only reason I've decided to leave and go back to uni is because I've gone as far as I can go without having a degree, but that's nobody's fault but my own for not doing it sooner. We get it far easier than the private sector, believe me.

It winds me up that unions hold the country to ransom the way they do - I agree with the OP.

To be honest, "scrap" wasn't the first thing that sprang to mind when he said "meet me in the toilets"

How about, rather than blaming the stress caused by tube and postal strikes solely on the unions, how about placing some blame on the corporations in charge?

I was very angry with the recent postal strike in London. My mother was posting me my debit card from Bristol as I'd left it at her house, it took 5 days to get to me first class. I suffer from anxiety anyway so as you can imagine I was extremely distressed.

I naturally am angry with them for striking YET AGAIN but also if we get rid of the ability to strike we are in danger of getting into Victorian slave labour territory again where corporations have total control over us and make unrealistic demands on us.

I think that the amount they strike should definitely have more limits placed on them but at the same time, the Royal Mail and the Tube are responsible to the public for ensuring a continuous high quality of service and should replace the staff for the duration of the strikes.

And J_H I think it's past your bedtime