Dublin Bus strike enters 3rd day

Dave!

Surprised there isn't already a thread on this... Or it's possible I overlooked it!

Anywho. The sh*t's about to get real with this particular industrial dispute as hundreds of thousands of workers prepare to head back to the office after the long weekend.

What's the feeling on this one? I don't think there's any real support for the unions here, and I think the more the public become aware of the modest recommendations by the Labour Court, and the longer it goes on, the more they'll turn against the drivers.

Whether the unions give a damn about what anyone thinks besides their own members is another matter... Clearly they don't much care what the Labour Court has to say.

jank

It is just Union posturing trying to feel relevant.

20Cent

jank wrote: »

It is just Union posturing trying to feel relevant.

They seem pretty relevant today.

nesf

It should be illegal for public sector workers who provide an essential health or economic service to go on full strike. They should have to provide essential coverage similar to nurses and doctors.

Sierra Oscar

nesf wrote: »

It should be illegal for public sector workers who provide an essential health or economic service to go on full strike. They should have to provide essential coverage similar to nurses and doctors.

I am surprised they didn't go on some sort of work to rule first, with the threat of an all out strike if things weren't resolved. That way they could turn around if it came to an all-out strike and highlight as to how they tried and tried to get things resolved.

Obviously I know negotiations have been ongoing for ages, but a lot of people don't. Lots of people out there just think this blew up over the last week or two. A work to rule would have flagged the issue well in advance and might have resolved the matter before it got to this 'crisis' point.

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

It should be illegal for public sector workers who provide an essential health or economic service to go on full strike. They should have to provide essential coverage similar to nurses and doctors.

I may agree with that for services that can endanger lives if stopped (health/fire services for instance), but if you expand that beyond services that can endanger lives, you begin the slippery slope towards wider banning of strikes in general (in some cases, going to the ridiculous extent, of companies bribing corrupt governments to become 'essential services').

Unions co-operating together in strike action are about the only entities capable of affecting political change in this country - workers right to strike (which is a right enshrined in international treaties, that Ireland is a part of) is a right that (where it comes to non-health-endangering services) supersedes others desire not to be inconvenienced (which would be at the expense of the workers banned from striking), and any erosion of that is a wider threat to labour rights.

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

I may agree with that for services that can endanger lives if stopped (health/fire services for instance), but if you expand that beyond services that can endanger lives, you begin the slippery slope towards wider banning of strikes in general (in some cases, going to the ridiculous extent, of companies bribing corrupt governments to become 'essential services').

Unions co-operating together in strike action are about the only entities capable of affecting political change in this country - workers right to strike (which is a right enshrined in international treaties, that Ireland is a part of) is a right that (where it comes to non-health-endangering services) supersedes others desire not to be inconvenienced (which would be at the expense of the workers banned from striking), and any erosion of that is a wider threat to labour rights.

I'm not even going to dignify that stream of sensationalism with a response.

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify that stream of sensationalism with a response.

Yes labor rights and the International-treaty enshrined right-to-strike are 'sensationalist' - you have a poorly thought out argument, and when pointed out it leads to the erosion of essential labour rights, you balk and make an accusation of sensationalism, instead of providing an argument or acknowledging fault in argument.

mike65

Break up Dublin bus but I imagine hell would freeze over before that would happen.

The union would have been much smarter had they taken out the buses as per but just let people on for free - that keeps the public happy while denying the company revenue (indeed loosing revenue as the buses still use fuel).

Manach

mike65 wrote: »

The union would have been much smarter had they taken out the buses as per but just let people on for free - that keeps the public happy while denying the company revenue (indeed loosing revenue as the buses still use fuel).

Offhand, in the national CIE strike that had been mooted but struck down due to legal liability issues - AFAIK

Sir Humphrey Appleby

This is the ideal opportunity to once and for all end the parasitic CIE/Union monopoly on bus services in Dublin and elsewhere. Hopefully the Minister will now begin the process of bus deregulation and allow private operators to tender for bundles of routes at a set pso subsidy.

seamus

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes labor rights and the International-treaty enshrined right-to-strike are 'sensationalist' - you have a poorly thought out argument, and when pointed out it leads to the erosion of essential labour rights, you balk and make an accusation of sensationalism, instead of providing an argument or acknowledging fault in argument.

You pointed out the fault in your own argument when you mentioned the phrase "slippery slope".

That said, while I can see merit in nesf's suggestion, the contention point is what you define as an essential service. I don't consider public transport to be an essential service. But that's because I don't rely on it. I'm sure some big employers out in Cherrywood are sweating about the effect this may be having on their workforce.

However, unlike emergency services, people can always find their way around without public transport. A tiny minority of people will be completely stranded, but by and large everyone has an alternative, it just may be a bit more inconvenient. We're not as dependent on public transports in Dublin as other cities; probably because the busses were so unreliable for so long that people are accustomed to having a plan B. If the Tube in London went on strike for three days, the city would come to a halt.
The unions' strength by striking is also massively weakened by the rise in telecommuting.

KyussBishop

seamus wrote: »

You pointed out the fault in your own argument when you mentioned the phrase "slippery slope".

That said, while I can see merit in nesf's suggestion, the contention point is what you define as an essential service. I don't consider public transport to be an essential service. But that's because I don't rely on it. I'm sure some big employers out in Cherrywood are sweating about the effect this may be having on their workforce.

However, unlike emergency services, people can always find their way around without public transport. A tiny minority of people will be completely stranded, but by and large everyone has an alternative, it just may be a bit more inconvenient. We're not as dependent on public transports in Dublin as other cities; probably because the busses were so unreliable for so long that people are accustomed to having a plan B. If the Tube in London went on strike for three days, the city would come to a halt.
The unions' strength by striking is also massively weakened by the rise in telecommuting.

You are mistaking saying that something will happen, with saying something makes it easier for something to happen - in this case, putting in place the legal framework to further erode labour rights, does create a 'slippery slope' that allows much easier expansion of the restrictions (it does not guarantee anything will happen though).

It's the same way that you can say blocking of file-sharing websites, creates a 'slippery slope' where a framework and precedent is put in place that makes it far easier to move towards wider Internet censorship - it is logically fallacious to say that definitely will happen, but it is not fallacious to say it makes it easier, and that political-precedent in other countries makes it more likely.


In my view, an 'essential service' needs to be measured in the damage it causes to other people, versus the damage it causes to the workers labour rights - so long as it's not risking other peoples health, labour rights should supersede others desire not to be inconvenienced.

iba

Hi,

I have an annual Dublin Bus ticket. Does anyone know if Dublin Bus have to refund me any money for the days that they are on strike and I cannot use my card?

Spent €5.25 on the train today to get to work.

Regards

jank

20Cent wrote: »

They seem pretty relevant today.

By inconveniencing tens of thousands of other workers? Well if that is the only way they can contribute to the nations capital I think it may be best for a lot of them to give your their days jobs and let other people who want to work take them.

FTA69

nesf wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify that stream of sensationalism with a response.

It isn't sensationalism. Workers across the world are facing increased attacks on their terms and conditions. In the UK we are seeing a drive toward a "flexible workforce" wherein employers are trying to roll back workers' rights on a mass scale. This includes the mass use of zero-hours contracts, a refusal to raise the minimum wage as well as charging people £1200 to go to tribunal thus pricing justice out of the hands of the low-paid.

It isn't sensationalist to question any initiatives seeking to limit strike actions. At the end of the day a worker's labour is his/her own and they always have a right to withdraw it.

raymon

Only 21% of journal.ie readers support the strike.

Not a very popular strike by all accounts.

Maybe it is because they are the third highest paid bus drivers in the EU

raymon

Link to salary details and EU league table

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/tag/dublin-bus/

Jonny7

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't sensationalism. Workers across the world are facing increased attacks on their terms and conditions.

I would have presumed workers around the world have better terms and conditions and rights than at any other time in history.

Regarding Dublin Bus, well something seems a little amiss here, the 6th highest paid bus drivers in the world in a strike over a paltry 12 million in cost cutting.

FTA69

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would have presumed workers around the world have better terms and conditions and rights than at any other time in history.

Why would you presume that? In the UK the minimum wage isn't a living one, there are zero hours contracts, predatory agencies undermining existing pay and conditions and a raft of other forms of exploitation. Coupled with this working people are also squeezed outside of work by organisations such as pay-day loan companies and other social vultures. It's tough times out there for a lot of people.

And if you want to talk about workers "around the world" we recently saw hundreds of workers killed in a sweatshop in Bangladesh.

Jonny7

FTA69 wrote: »

Why would you presume that? In the UK the minimum wage isn't a living one, there are zero hours contracts, predatory agencies undermining existing pay and conditions and a raft of other forms of exploitation. Coupled with this working people are also squeezed outside of work by organisations such as pay-day loan companies and other social vultures. It's tough times out there for a lot of people.

I did say world, for example China, workers rights have been increasing dramatically.

It's easy to pick up the Daily Mail and start getting angry at specific recession related issues, but in real terms, across the world, there's no denying workers rights have been steadily been getting better over the decades.

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

I did say world, for example China, workers rights have been increasing dramatically.

It's easy to pick up the Daily Mail and start getting angry at specific recession related issues, but in real terms, across the world, there's no denying workers rights have been steadily been getting better over the decades.

That's true, but that workers lot in the world is getting better all the time, does not mean we should ever stop upholding current standards for workers rights, and constantly refining them to an even higher standard.

That something is worse elsewhere, is never an argument to stop seeking better standards.

FTA69

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's easy to pick up the Daily Mail and start getting angry at specific recession related issues, but in real terms, across the world, there's no denying workers rights have been steadily been getting better over the decades.

First of all, all the issues facing workers I mentioned above are not single issues related to the recession, they're part of a co-ordinated strategy that seeks to undermine workers' influence and also their share of the wealth they produce. Ever since Thatcher and successive governments, workers have been in under constant attack. Recently we saw a man with heavy personal interests in Wonga.com (and a Tory donator to the tune of £500k) hired by the government to draw up a report to "reinvigorate" the economy. Surprise surprise his recommendations include freezing the minimum wage and charging for use of tribunals amongst other things.

It isn't just the odd thing here and there.

Secondly, the fact that workers' standards have increased has been as a result of a century of hard slog by trade unions that some people on this thread would have us believe are irrelevant.

Jonny7

Strikes should not be supported on principle. Case by case basis. Sometimes they are more than justified, other times not so much.

In this situation it's hard to sympathise with the bus-drivers.

Fun fact: the average bus driver's salary in Ireland put them in in the top 1% of all earners in the world.

raymon

Strike is over from tomorrow.

Bus drivers have copped on to themselves for now.

20Cent

Looks like the strike worked back to the discussion table.

johnnyskeleton

As a short term solution, why can't taxi drivers/mini bus operators be permitted to run the most common routes picking up single passengers at a fixed price eg €3 pp in the day time, €4 in the evening, with a facility to reimburse travel card holders. Anyone really stuck will at least have some form of transport open to them.

In terms of the overall dispute, privatisation is the only option. Dublin bus is not of national importance such like bus eireann, can easily face competition from private firms, and the public wouldn't be held to randsom.

Put another way, I don't object to the workers striking - I object to the fact that a better, more efficient service is prohibited, by law, from taking up the slack.

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

First of all, all the issues facing workers I mentioned above are not single issues related to the recession, they're part of a co-ordinated strategy that seeks to undermine workers' influence and also their share of the wealth they produce. Ever since Thatcher and successive governments, workers have been in under constant attack. Recently we saw a man with heavy personal interests in Wonga.com (and a Tory donator to the tune of £500k) hired by the government to draw up a report to "reinvigorate" the economy. Surprise surprise his recommendations include freezing the minimum wage and charging for use of tribunals amongst other things.

It isn't just the odd thing here and there.

Secondly, the fact that workers' standards have increased has been as a result of a century of hard slog by trade unions that some people on this thread would have us believe are irrelevant.

Unions belong in a time when workers had to work or starve. Now, we have many different models through which people can offer their labour for reward.

I think people should stop saying "no one will give me a job" and start saying "this is the service I offer". Many firms now have people working there who are not employees in the traditional sense, but carry out a trade from the company's premises with the company's goodwill behind them, but are fundamentally self employed and if they are not happy with the money they get they can go elsewhere or do something different.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

FTA69 wrote: »

First of all, all the issues facing workers I mentioned above are not single issues related to the recession, they're part of a co-ordinated strategy that seeks to undermine workers' influence and also their share of the wealth they produce. Ever since Thatcher and successive governments, workers have been in under constant attack. Recently we saw a man with heavy personal interests in Wonga.com (and a Tory donator to the tune of £500k) hired by the government to draw up a report to "reinvigorate" the economy. Surprise surprise his recommendations include freezing the minimum wage and charging for use of tribunals amongst other things.

It isn't just the odd thing here and there.

Secondly, the fact that workers' standards have increased has been as a result of a century of hard slog by trade unions that some people on this thread would have us believe are irrelevant.

Dublin Bus workers create debt not wealth. Secondly workers get a share of the wealth they create,its called wages!

Sierra Oscar

raymon wrote: »

Strike is over from tomorrow.

Bus drivers have copped on to themselves for now.

Bit of a victory for the strikers at the moment, they have received assurances that the measures they were protesting against will not be implemented pending an agreement and the measures themselves are up for discussion.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Bit of a victory for the strikers at the moment, they have received assurances that the measures they were protesting against will not be implemented pending an agreement and the measures themselves are up for discussion.

I wouldn't agree . I think the only winner here is the lower paid worker who can get to work tomorrow.

I don't think the overpaid bus drivers are the victors you describe.

hytrogen

20Cent wrote: »

They seem pretty relevant today.

by ousting the workers of the greater suburban Dublin area?

A century ago, to the month lest we forger, the working class lived in slums in inner city and the affluent used to commute via the trams from the suburbs, therefore the so-called 'great lockout' caused by the unions brashness only affected the business enterprisers & upper classes. The trams soon after became replaced by buses.
Where as the past few days they have affected their own groups of working commuters from the greater Dublin region who use the bus.
So tell us who exactly are they relevant to when the shoot their own groups, whom they are supposed to represent, in the foot? :cool:

nesf

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't sensationalism. Workers across the world are facing increased attacks on their terms and conditions. In the UK we are seeing a drive toward a "flexible workforce" wherein employers are trying to roll back workers' rights on a mass scale. This includes the mass use of zero-hours contracts, a refusal to raise the minimum wage as well as charging people £1200 to go to tribunal thus pricing justice out of the hands of the low-paid.

It isn't sensationalist to question any initiatives seeking to limit strike actions. At the end of the day a worker's labour is his/her own and they always have a right to withdraw it.

You don't think it sensationalist to state that if we brought in "no-strike for essential services" law that companies would be bribing the Government to get included in the essential services category? In a country with very little industrial relations strife outside of the public/semi-state sector?

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

You don't think it sensationalist to state that if we brought in "no-strike for essential services" law that companies would be bribing the Government to get included in the essential services category? In a country with very little industrial relations strife outside of the public/semi-state sector?

Did I say that will happen? No. I pointed it out as an extreme from another country:

KyussBishop wrote:

I may agree with that for services that can endanger lives if stopped (health/fire services for instance), but if you expand that beyond services that can endanger lives, you begin the slippery slope towards wider banning of strikes in general (in some cases, going to the ridiculous extent, of companies bribing corrupt governments to become 'essential services').

I may agree with banning strikes around essential services that would directly threaten peoples lives if stopped, but in all other cases workers rights (as enshrined in international treaty) should take precedence over everyone elses desire not to be inconvenienced (at the expense of the workers banned from striking).

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

Did I say that will happen? No. I pointed it out as an extreme from another country:


I may agree with banning strikes around essential services that would directly threaten peoples lives if stopped, but in all other cases workers rights (as enshrined in international treaty) should take precedence over everyone elses desire not to be inconvenienced (at the expense of the workers banned from striking).

That's the point of the slippery slope fallacy. I can take anything, e.g. giving workers the right to strike, and turn it into something evil sounding by attaching some extreme possibility to it, "but wait, this could mean all doctors could go on full-out strike and hold the country truly to ransom!"

iba

Wouldn't mind if the Government went on strike

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

That's the point of the slippery slope fallacy. I can take anything, e.g. giving workers the right to strike, and turn it into something evil sounding by attaching some extreme possibility to it, "but wait, this could mean all doctors could go on full-out strike and hold the country truly to ransom!"

Slippery slope is a fallacy when you say something will happen, it is not a fallacy when you point out that doing one small thing, has a potential set of logical consequences, that could easily lead to further erosion of rights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Description

Given the past 30 years of precedent, of erosion of labour rights all around the world, and the gradual encroachment of laws banning strikes in certain industries, particularly in the US, there is lots of past precedent for abuse of this; the destruction and general clampdown on unions is not made up sensationalism, and by-and-large it is being pushed by wealthy corporate interests.

Given this widespread assault on unions and labour rights that has been prevalent for so long, your argument needs to meet a very high standard, to justify any erosion of worker rights (with, again, the right to strike being enshrined in international treaties), past that required to protect people from damage to their health, as a result of strikes.

nesf

You didn't say may, you implied a direct causal path. "Begins the slippery slope towards X" is the fallacy you're talking about.

KyussBishop

Ok, it would have been better phrased as "opens up the slippery slope towards X" - I was intending to state something may happen, and didn't intend to say it will happen (which is how my post is unintentionally phrased).

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok, it would have been better phrased as "opens up the slippery slope towards X" - I was intending to state something may happen, and didn't intend to say it will happen (which is how my post is unintentionally phrased).

No, that phrasing would still make it look like you're confusing a necessary conditions for a sufficient one.

20Cent

hytrogen wrote: »

by ousting the workers of the greater suburban Dublin area?

A century ago, to the month lest we forger, the working class lived in slums in inner city and the affluent used to commute via the trams from the suburbs, therefore the so-called 'great lockout' caused by the unions brashness only affected the business enterprisers & upper classes. The trams soon after became replaced by buses.
Where as the past few days they have affected their own groups of working commuters from the greater Dublin region who use the bus.
So tell us who exactly are they relevant to when the shoot their own groups, whom they are supposed to represent, in the foot? :cool:

They're relevant to their members this is patently obvious. They managed to get back to the talks and renegotiate the cuts proposed.

One could also argue that the Dublin bus strikers are helping workers in general by refusing to take part in a race to the bottom.

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

No, that phrasing would still make it look like you're confusing a necessary conditions for a sufficient one.

This seems kind of pedantic really; the conditions needed are entirely political, driven usually by unseen business lobbying - you put in the political framework for banning strikes, you're probably ok if you limit it to banning potentially health-endangering strike action, but if you set the precedent of allowing it under less restrictive circumstances, you open a lot of political ambiguity over the term 'essential services' (allowing it to constantly be redefined with minor changes to the law).

This creates the political conditions for expanding what that term covers - something there is potentially a lot of motivation for, for removing public sector union power, particularly in times of right-wing austerity when the state is trying to privatize/sell-off more and more services/assets.

That's a simple enough chain of logical consequences/motivations, with ample past precedent for abuse in other countries - what would constitute necessary conditions here? You're not going to say, I can't claim the potential for a slippery slope here, just because we can't see what business lobbyists (and lobbyists in general) are doing?

markpb

20Cent wrote: »

One could also argue that the Dublin bus strikers are helping workers in general by refusing to take part in a race to the bottom.

You could argue that but you don't have much, or any proof, to back it up.

I could argue that putting a union between a company and it's employees seems to cause a breakdown in communication and lead to tension whenever change is discussed. It seems to create an us vs. them mentality between employees and management.

I could argue that a lot of unions seems to spread fear and distrust among it's members who can't understand why they have it so bad. You can see that right here in this thread, with pro-union people talking about how awful MS and IBM are to work for. It's odd then, that people are clamouring to work for them and when they do, are not clamouring to join a union of any kind.

It's even stranger that as employment grew over the last decade, union membership fell except in the civil, public and semi-state sectors where it's more or less mandatory.

Perhaps unions are only really necessary in the heads of the people who are members already?

seamus

20Cent wrote: »

One could also argue that the Dublin bus strikers are helping workers in general by refusing to take part in a race to the bottom.

One could argue that if the basis of the disagreement wasn't about the workers wanting to retain overtime, which for workers in the rest of the workforce, is a discretionary bonus payment and not part of the core remuneration.
If you don't like the overtime rates, then don't work overtime.

Those banging on about fighting austerity and protecting the little worker are really backing the wrong horse on this one. If what was up for discussion was huge cuts to base salary or a reduction in core working hours, then there might be a winner here.

"Race to the bottom" is a nonsense soundbite which presumes that a company never needs to reduce costs and/or that reducing employee costs is a deliberately cynical and callous move.

20Cent

markpb wrote: »

You could argue that but you don't have much, or any proof, to back it up.

I could argue that putting a union between a company and it's employees seems to cause a breakdown in communication and lead to tension whenever change is discussed. It seems to create an us vs. them mentality between employees and management.

I could argue that a lot of unions seems to spread fear and distrust among it's members who can't understand why they have it so bad. You can see that right here in this thread, with pro-union people talking about how awful MS and IBM are to work for. It's odd then, that people are clamouring to work for them and when they do, are not clamouring to join a union of any kind.

It's even stranger that as employment grew over the last decade, union membership fell except in the civil, public and semi-state sectors where it's more or less mandatory.

Perhaps unions are only really necessary in the heads of the people who are members already?

Do you think that the strike has made future cuts to pay more or less likely?

I'd go with less they'll have a look at other things to cut first instead of going straight to the workers pocket.

Unions aren't necessary lol we just had an example of one working less than 24 hours age.

alastair

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Dublin Bus workers create debt not wealth.

I'm pretty sure the service they support plays a role in wealth creation. Kinda hard to keep the economy of a nation's capital ticking over without getting people to work/shop/etc in an organised fashion.

The strike's still unwarranted though.

nesf

KyussBishop wrote: »

This seems kind of pedantic really; the conditions needed are entirely political, driven usually by unseen business lobbying - you put in the political framework for banning strikes, you're probably ok if you limit it to banning potentially health-endangering strike action, but if you set the precedent of allowing it under less restrictive circumstances, you open a lot of political ambiguity over the term 'essential services' (allowing it to constantly be redefined with minor changes to the law).

This creates the political conditions for expanding what that term covers - something there is potentially a lot of motivation for, for removing public sector union power, particularly in times of right-wing austerity when the state is trying to privatize/sell-off more and more services/assets.

That's a simple enough chain of logical consequences/motivations, with ample past precedent for abuse in other countries - what would constitute necessary conditions here? You're not going to say, I can't claim the potential for a slippery slope here, just because we can't see what business lobbyists (and lobbyists in general) are doing?

You mistake my point. A sufficient condition would be a strong culture of bribery, since then business could get the State to declare no strikes for essential services and fast food outlets an essential service, for example. The actual changing of strike law isn't really that important here, whether you've corrupt politicians really decides the matter, and really, on a global scale of corruption, we don't.

markpb

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think that the strike has made future cuts to pay more or less likely? I'd go with less they'll have a look at other things to cut first instead of going straight to the workers pocket.

I don't think it made any difference. It's just another chapter in the endless bad blood between the DB unions and the company. Anyone who thinks this will make any difference is incredible naive, there have been strikes in the CIE group for as long as I've been around. Nothing ever changes.

Unions aren't necessary lol we just had an example of one working less than 24 hours age.

No. We had an example of a union spending 14 months negotiating with DB and failing to reach an agreement.

KyussBishop

nesf wrote: »

You mistake my point. A sufficient condition would be a strong culture of bribery, since then business could get the State to declare no strikes for essential services and fast food outlets an essential service, for example. The actual changing of strike law isn't really that important here, whether you've corrupt politicians really decides the matter, and really, on a global scale of corruption, we don't.

I'm not saying businesses will bribe government to get 'essential service' status (I pointed it out in another country, as a rather extreme example, though not one I apply to here) - you can do plenty of damage to unions and labour power, long before you get to that level of corruption.

We have an entire financial industry that successfully influenced government to push deregulation, and was riddled with fraud running up to the crisis (probably still is), where nobody has gone to jail for fraud, and where whistleblowers have been threatened with prison if they expose fraud; we do have quite a corrupt government - more than corrupt enough to start eroding labour power with the right business incentives.

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unions belong in a time when workers had to work or starve. Now, we have many different models through which people can offer their labour for reward.

Unions belong in a time where people are working for someone else and need to bargain collectively to avoid exploitation. They aren't some distant throwback to the past. I work predominantly with migrant workers, many in the cleaning industry. These people are often working in the city-centre for some of the wealthiest banks in the world and yet were getting paid wages that left them below the poverty line. The ones working for subcontractors often faced horrendous working conditions, no holiday pay, sickpay or remuneration for overtime done. Bullying and intimidation of workers was endemic with sexual harassment being rampant. After we organised a lot of them into the union we launched a London Living Wage campaign which resulted in them getting a large pay rise. Employers are also finding that organised and confident workers are a lot harder to treat like animals. Coupled with this we also set up a volunteer-run education project where they go to improve their English and IT skills.

These people would massively disagree with you in the sense that a union is irrelevant to them.

Many firms now have people working there who are not employees in the traditional sense, but carry out a trade from the company's premises with the company's goodwill behind them, but are fundamentally self employed and if they are not happy with the money they get they can go elsewhere or do something different.

What you're advocating is a form of fallacious self-employment which is simply a roundabout way of trying to break the sense of workers acting together in their collective interests by designating supermarket workers, binmen and factory operatives as "independent contractors". It's b*llocks for want of a better word.

jank

If people want to join a union let them but other employees or employers should not have to recognise them. The problem with a lot of unions is that a small minority claim to speak for the majority when in fact they don't. I wonder how many bus drivers wanted to work on Tuesday but were unable to because of these Unions?