northlewferret wrote:This would involve some serious legislation being enacted to ensure continuity of all services involved while ensuring a fair outcome for everyone involved. Strikes are futile and only serve to cause disruption to the economy of the country, business, and the individual now manning the picket lines. It would involve an independent panel being set up to deal with grievances from whichever quarter. Decisions would be binding on all and strikes would be outlawed with resulting fines on erring unions. They cannot afford to lose money or members just as management cannot afford to lose custom or money through bad practices on either side.
The Ferrit
I worked for a couple of years for Salstream ( the warehouse and logistics side of Christian Salvesen with the exclusive contract with Marks & Spencers ) the union there was the GMB & they had a no strike agreement in force - I had no fear of that agreement being abused by the management ( M&S have always had a good rep of looking after staff & keeping them happy - and I had no worries that they'd extend it to their suppliers ), the diametrical opposite is true of current management at RM.....if there is a weakness in the workforce's / union's armour, they WILL exploit it at the earliest opportunity for their gain, no matter the cost to others ( look at the fact that RM refused to negotiate until after national strikes were called - and they still had the brass neck to paint the union as the bad guys in the media! ) A no strike agreement is perfectly acceptable to any worker,
if the side that gains the advantage of no strikes, concedes the advantage of exploiting the workforce
I would be concerned if someone like you were to create the legislation you outlined to outlaw srike action - in your post, you said...
Strikes are futile and only serve to cause disruption to the economy of the country, business, and the individual now manning the picket lines. It would involve an independent panel being set up to deal with grievances from whichever quarter. Decisions would be binding on all and strikes would be outlawed with resulting fines on erring unions. They cannot afford to lose money or members just as management cannot afford to lose custom or money through bad practices on either side
Nowhere did you mention the role of management ( or in RM's case, HM Government as well ). A disagreement needs two sides to be involved - what sanctions do you expect to be management to be under if they exacerbate or provoke a strike? Who decides who is at fault, Government, CBI, TUC - or an "independant" panel chosen by any or all of the above? For someone that says he has been involved in change at work ( without explicitly saying which side you were on, but leaving the implication hanging that you were doing it for the workers ) you have very little idea of the basics of IR disagreements. ( Sadly the majority of mass media are in the same position )
) we just want it done fairly and with some common sense, to just slash and Burn