[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
What is up with all these strikes, its so annoying. All the time there's strikes in London. I just want to be able to travel in London, without all this commotion. TFL just seem to be striking left, right and centre while we're in recession and nearing the Olympics. So annoying, just stop striking! We're all poor now, how much more money do you want out of our pockets?

As said above it's about greed and power. Of course the unions still do represent the workers but these days it's also about using their power and positions to hold the government to ransom (not to mention the people) to meet their needs.

One example being the extra pay for train drivers and bus drivers over the olympics.

It's greed and it's pathetic.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
As said above it's about greed and power. Of course the unions still do represent the workers but these days it's also about using their power and positions to hold the government to ransom (not to mention the people) to meet their needs.

One example being the extra pay for train drivers and bus drivers over the olympics.

It's greed and it's pathetic.

But don't we all go to work for selfish/greedy reasons? The worker just like the boss will use their power to gain the most and pay the least they can get away with. It's simply in our nature.

The train drivers have seen their normal terms of work considerably altered. They are not allowed to take this summer holidays with their children like they previously used to. They would work longer hours and later shifts during the olympics. The tubes would carry more passengers so disruptive incidents are more likely and staff need to be more vigilent. Why should their employer not reward them for accepting these inconveniences?

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by bkeevin)
But don't we all go to work for selfish/greedy reasons? The worker just like the boss will use their power to gain the most and pay the least they can get away with. It's simply in our nature.

No I don't think we work for selfish or greedy reasons. We do so out of neccesity. Because we need to earn to live, or pay rent, buy food, etc etc.

The train drivers have seen their normal terms of work considerably altered. They are not allowed to take this summer holidays with their children like they previously used to. They would work longer hours and later shifts during the olympics. The tubes would carry more passengers so disruptive incidents are more likely and staff need to be more vigilent. Why should their employer not reward them for accepting these inconveniences?

Diddums, but it's one summer. One summer out of the rest of their lives. They want extra money because it's going to be busier so does that mean the government can pay them less when it's super quiet? They will effectively be doing their same jobs but the rota will be different and perhaps busier.
What I take issue with is the fact that people these days expect or demand pay rises or compensation or something to that effect. It is most certainly greed. And the way they go about getting it is by holding the government and commuters to ransom. So I have little sympathy for them and I have less concern with their renegade tactics which frankly have been used more than once in recent times no thanks to Bob Crowe.

[bobamam]

People talk about capitalism and free markets like they exist. They don`t. The closest we got to a free market was America about a hundred years ago. That`s when the country boomed and went on its way to become a super power. These days there`s far more government intervention.

The unions distort the market. I`m all for them protecting workers in dangerous industries but it all and become too political. And that`s the problem, the economics is being distorted to favour particular groups of people which in the long run takes from other groups and is bad for everybody. And people talk about profit like its evil but it is the best indicator we have that a system is working and it encourages others to compete in that field.

I also think people don`t like to think about what they are worth. If a tube driver thinks he can get more money elsewhere, well...

[bkeevin]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
No I don't think we work for selfish or greedy reasons. We do so out of neccesity. Because we need to earn to live, or pay rent, buy food, etc etc.



Diddums, but it's one summer. One summer out of the rest of their lives. They want extra money because it's going to be busier so does that mean the government can pay them less when it's super quiet? They will effectively be doing their same jobs but the rota will be different and perhaps busier.
What I take issue with is the fact that people these days expect or demand pay rises or compensation or something to that effect. It is most certainly greed. And the way they go about getting it is by holding the government and commuters to ransom. So I have little sympathy for them and I have less concern with their renegade tactics which frankly have been used more than once in recent times no thanks to Bob Crowe.

The greediest businessman,banker and even Ebenezer Scrooge can say they work out of necessity but most of us do it because we aspire to a certain lifestyle, security, self worth, owning a home etc.I still feel those are selfish/greedy reasons but maybe you disagree.

Maybe you should advocate that we should ban strikes and trade unions. I feel strike action is an important right and workers usually only take it as a last resort simply because they lose money when they do it and employers are more likely to act and resolve the dispute when the public the public is interested. The olympics is an extraordinary and one-off event where their employer expects to make much more money than usual. They would work harder and differently so I don't see why they should not be paid a bit more. Are you also against the practice of some workers receiving say double pay during bank holidays or Sundays since they look so similar after all it's just a day?

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by bkeevin)
If people are against collusion, then trade unions should simply be made illegal. They exist for that very reason ie to collide and defend the interests of their members(the worker). How can you say they are against hiring when hiring additional workers will likely increase their membership? But they certain are against you firing their members!

So did you agree with the strikes when the London bus drivers had a strike for pay(olympic bonus) or when the tube drivers also strike for better pay?

They defend the rights of their members: the people currently working for the companies. This is why you see temporary contracts in most of the western world: trade unions have made it so difficult to fire people, that almost everyone new is put on a temporary contract (which doesn't fall under the trade union agreements). The trade unions hardly do a thing about this, and instead focus on upholding the ridiculous privileges their members hold, while ignoring everyone else. This is why e.g. Italy has such large problems with their work force, and their youth.

Luckily I was not in London during either of these events. As long as the company in charge could have hired others (presuming they are qualified: harder for subway drivers than bus drivers) to do their work instead, and would've been able to fire the workers who went on strike, it seems like a reasonable strike.

Indeed, the very reason of trade unions is collusion. Now tipping the balance of power towards labour a little through trade unions probably makes sense, as long as the collusion regards wages and benefits, not protection from being fired.

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
No I don't think we work for selfish or greedy reasons. We do so out of neccesity. Because we need to earn to live, or pay rent, buy food, etc etc.

Surely people work to be able to pay rent for a nicer place than they otherwise would have been able to? Surely people work to be able to sustain a different diet than farmers in China? Etc. Aren't those all selfish reasons? (only if one would actually give away all the money they had left after living like the poorest person on earth, he/she would not be working for selfish reasons.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Donald Duck)
They defend the rights of their members: the people currently working for the companies. This is why you see temporary contracts in most of the western world: trade unions have made it so difficult to fire people, that almost everyone new is put on a temporary contract (which doesn't fall under the trade union agreements). The trade unions hardly do a thing about this, and instead focus on upholding the ridiculous privileges their members hold, while ignoring everyone else. This is why e.g. Italy has such large problems with their work force, and their youth.

Luckily I was not in London during either of these events. As long as the company in charge could have hired others (presuming they are qualified: harder for subway drivers than bus drivers) to do their work instead, and would've been able to fire the workers who went on strike, it seems like a reasonable strike.

Indeed, the very reason of trade unions is collusion. Now tipping the balance of power towards labour a little through trade unions probably makes sense, as long as the collusion regards wages and benefits, not protection from being fired.

About unions only defending the interest of their members, don't you think it is logical? Members actually pay their wages and the new staff are very unlikely to enrol and pay the union dues especially if they are younger and earn less.

But does the new EU directive that requires employers to treat any temporary worker/agency working for over 3months exactly like their fulltimers somehow address most of the issue you raise?

Well of course I agree with most of what you say and they make sense in theory. However why do you think an employer should be able to sack a worker who strikes following a legally endorsed strike ballot? The only real power workers have is only to withdraw their labour if they disagree with their employer without facing the sack. So why would the employers meet the unions and discuss discuss/agree better pay for their workers if they can't do anything at all? The unions will become redudant since the employers would simply ignore them like in the private retail sector where wages remain horrendously low.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Donald Duck)
Surely people work to be able to pay rent for a nicer place than they otherwise would have been able to? Surely people work to be able to sustain a different diet than farmers in China? Etc. Aren't those all selfish reasons? (only if one would actually give away all the money they had left after living like the poorest person on earth, he/she would not be working for selfish reasons.

I don't think wanting better things for yourself, better posessions and a better life is automatically selfish. Especially if you are willing to share it with other people or involve it all with other people. I certainly don't think that the only way a person can stop being selfish is to give away money and live like a peon. I don't think that's accurate. People work to live (well most people anyway.) They work so they can pay their rent and earn a decent wage, support themselves and any loved ones. I don't really see how it's selfish if they choose to move into a bigger place should they be able to afford it. I think it's absurd to believe that if not everyone can live in luxury then no-one should.
We have a different diet and a different lifestyle than farmers in China anyway. Different places, different climates so I think that's a pretty unrealistic comparison supposing I did agree with you.

[The_Male_Melons]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
What is up with all these strikes, its so annoying. All the time there's strikes in London. I just want to be able to travel in London, without all this commotion. TFL just seem to be striking left, right and centre while we're in recession and nearing the Olympics. So annoying, just stop striking! We're all poor now, how much more money do you want out of our pockets?

I believe we should have more strikes, protests and hopefully by tomorrow, it will raining heavily.

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I don't think wanting better things for yourself, better posessions and a better life is automatically selfish. Especially if you are willing to share it with other people or involve it all with other people. I certainly don't think that the only way a person can stop being selfish is to give away money and live like a peon. I don't think that's accurate. People work to live (well most people anyway.) They work so they can pay their rent and earn a decent wage, support themselves and any loved ones. I don't really see how it's selfish if they choose to move into a bigger place should they be able to afford it. I think it's absurd to believe that if not everyone can live in luxury then no-one should.
We have a different diet and a different lifestyle than farmers in China anyway. Different places, different climates so I think that's a pretty unrealistic comparison supposing I did agree with you.

My argument isn't that people should act differently, my argument is just that earning more money than you require as an absolute minimum and not giving away the rest is a selfish pursuit. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it is selfish.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Donald Duck)
My argument isn't that people should act differently, my argument is just that earning more money than you require as an absolute minimum and not giving away the rest is a selfish pursuit. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it is selfish.

I disagree. I think earning more than we need isn't neccesrily greed, I think people have the desire to be rich because they want assurance that they will have a comfortable life for the rest of their life so they try and get as much as they can. Also such a desire drives people to excel in their chosen field.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I disagree. I think earning more than we need isn't neccesrily greed, I think people have the desire to be rich because they want assurance that they will have a comfortable life for the rest of their life so they try and get as much as they can. Also such a desire drives people to excel in their chosen field.

So can you give an example of people or a profession where people are greedy. Because what you said will apply to the greediest bankers like the Gordon Gecko types, multi-billionaires, loan sharks, drug dealers or workers striking to get their way. Earning more than we need to survive is probably good for the individual and society but it is still greedy. Most things in life are not inherently good or bad and a healthy dose of greed is necessary for society to function.

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I disagree. I think earning more than we need isn't neccesrily greed, I think people have the desire to be rich because they want assurance that they will have a comfortable life for the rest of their life so they try and get as much as they can. Also such a desire drives people to excel in their chosen field.

You seem to say it's not greed, because it is reasonable and/or has positive consequences for everyone involved. I am happy for greed, in some circumstances, to be both reasonable and to have only positive consequences.

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by bkeevin)
About unions only defending the interest of their members, don't you think it is logical? Members actually pay their wages and the new staff are very unlikely to enrol and pay the union dues especially if they are younger and earn less.

But does the new EU directive that requires employers to treat any temporary worker/agency working for over 3months exactly like their fulltimers somehow address most of the issue you raise?

Well of course I agree with most of what you say and they make sense in theory. However why do you think an employer should be able to sack a worker who strikes following a legally endorsed strike ballot? The only real power workers have is only to withdraw their labour if they disagree with their employer without facing the sack. So why would the employers meet the unions and discuss discuss/agree better pay for their workers if they can't do anything at all? The unions will become redudant since the employers would simply ignore them like in the private retail sector where wages remain horrendously low.

I'm not saying it is unlogical, I fully understand that it happens because it is logical. Neither am I trying to argue for the EU directive (as I know nothing about it). However I am saying it ideally wouldn't happen and is bad for society.

Indeed I am saying employers should be able to fire workers for striking. Unions would only be redundant where employees are easily replicable, so that employers would actually want to fire them. This is the case for sales people in lots of shops, but not for tube drivers (and therefore the unions would stay very relevant). It would however make the unions want to increase membership with the amount of alternative people the company could hire, therefore reducing the impact of the other problem.

Sometimes workers make perfectly sensible demands, which companies do not accept. Unions causing a strike can then be a reasonable action. However if the demands were not reasonable, and the employer can therefore find other people to do their work, the employer should be able to replace them all and hire those other people (if the demands were reasonable, the employer cannot find another workforce to accept without these conditions. If they were not, the employer should be able to say no, and continue the economic activity, therefore hiring others. In the 50-50 scenario, the employer would agree to the demands, as hiring new people always costs time/effort/teaching/etc).
That is the only efficient method to decide if the demands are reasonable.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Donald Duck)
I'm not saying it is unlogical, I fully understand that it happens because it is logical. Neither am I trying to argue for the EU directive (as I know nothing about it). However I am saying it ideally wouldn't happen and is bad for society.

Indeed I am saying employers should be able to fire workers for striking. Unions would only be redundant where employees are easily replicable, so that employers would actually want to fire them. This is the case for sales people in lots of shops, but not for tube drivers (and therefore the unions would stay very relevant). It would however make the unions want to increase membership with the amount of alternative people the company could hire, therefore reducing the impact of the other problem.

Sometimes workers make perfectly sensible demands, which companies do not accept. Unions causing a strike can then be a reasonable action. However if the demands were not reasonable, and the employer can therefore find other people to do their work, the employer should be able to replace them all and hire those other people (if the demands were reasonable, the employer cannot find another workforce to accept without these conditions. If they were not, the employer should be able to say no, and continue the economic activity, therefore hiring others. In the 50-50 scenario, the employer would agree to the demands, as hiring new people always costs time/effort/teaching/etc).
That is the only efficient method to decide if the demands are reasonable.

Well I already explained to you that unoins will become redundant if they have no sway over the employer since workers can only exert any influence if they withheld their labour. Allowing employers the right to sack the workers because of striking is in effect rendering striking illegal.

If what you advocate were to happen it will simply significantly drive down wages and working conditions as I am sure you know with the present economy there is enough labour supply if employers were paying half of their current salaries in most industries. Why would the employers ever agree to the demands of the workers since they simply have remind them that they are lucky they got a job and they could easily be replaced if they became any nuisance?

You explained a very serious issue suffered by new employees due to their bosses exploiting a loophole that enabled them to treat temporary/agency workers less favourably. I informed you that recently(as of 1 Oct 2011) the Agency workers' EU directive was implemented which forces employers to pay any temporary staff working for 12 weeks or more the same pay and conditions as their fulltime counterparts. So that problem is or is soon to be redundant.

[Donald Duck]

(Original post by bkeevin)
Well I already explained to you that unoins will become redundant if they have no sway over the employer since workers can only exert any influence if they withheld their labour. Allowing employers the right to sack the workers because of striking is in effect rendering striking illegal.

If what you advocate were to happen it will simply significantly drive down wages and working conditions as I am sure you know with the present economy there is enough labour supply if employers were paying half of their current salaries in most industries. Why would the employers ever agree to the demands of the workers since they simply have remind them that they are lucky they got a job and they could easily be replaced if they became any nuisance?

You explained a very serious issue suffered by new employees due to their bosses exploiting a loophole that enabled them to treat temporary/agency workers less favourably. I informed you that recently(as of 1 Oct 2011) the Agency workers' EU directive was implemented which forces employers to pay any temporary staff working for 12 weeks or more the same pay and conditions as their fulltime counterparts. So that problem is or is soon to be redundant.

That could result in significantly more jobs and oppertunities, stopping all those current university graduates from going into unemployment.

[pr0view]

(Original post by tsnake23)
£65,738 is the annual salary for an MP and its frozen for at least the next year (and decreased by 5% recently as mentioned above). This really isn't much for a high end job based in London. An experienced tube driver would earn a similar amount.

If you want to hear something ridiculous then consider that Bob Crow's reward for causing millions of people misery via strikes and costing the economy millions of pounds is a salary of over £145,000 with it going up by 26% since the start of the recession.

That is the pure hypocrisy of the trade union leadership, they are the biggest capitalists going, manipulating the workers for their own financial gain. And they don't even do anything other than cause trouble.

[pr0view]

(Original post by alex5455)
I totally agree with the strikers, all you right wingers criticising them as selfish are just hypocrites, this is how your precious market works, supply and demand, you demand transport they supply it at the rate they feel is fair, love how you only like the free market when it suits you

They will end up like the coal miners, unemployed. Many other metro system use computers to drive the trains which cost less to initially buy and install that to pay a driver to press a button for a year. Plus you don't have to pay a computer. I love the free market

[Hopple]

(Original post by pr0view)
That is the pure hypocrisy of the trade union leadership, they are the biggest capitalists going, manipulating the workers for their own financial gain. And they don't even do anything other than cause trouble.

Yeah, I think merely being paid a salary means he has a vested interest in having something to 'stand up against' or 'fight for'. If there were no disputes then he'd be out of a job.