There was a bit of talk about it last week when it was actually happening. Barristers have also had a strike, and several other groups are talking about it.
I’m not a mind reader but I imagine Starmer’s thinking was that it was providing opportunities for the Tories to blame them for the strikes, which they did anyway. The wisdom of that judgement is debatable, and no one seems to have actually been punished, yet.
Yeah, I know they're a right wing rag and not to be taken seriously, I just found the headline funny. I skimmed the last couple pages and must have missed the discussion, my bad
Not a lot has happened yet, other than the public not really reacting in the way the Cons hoped they would and Mick Lynch 420-noscoping some gormless interviewers.
Yeah from the sounds of it he's doing a pretty good job? Saw this earlier:
Dorries also today managed to confuse rugby union with rugby league while giving a speech at a rugby league event. None more thick.
The mistake I can forgive (I don't know the difference, but my knowledge of rugby more or less stops with the understanding that the ball is supposed to be that shape), but she put it in a speech about how much she loved rugby and was a huge fan, so that was a nice own goal.
Dorries also today managed to confuse rugby union with rugby league while giving a speech at a rugby league event. None more thick.
The mistake I can forgive (I don't know the difference, but my knowledge of rugby more or less stops with the understanding that the ball is supposed to be that shape), but she put it in a speech about how much she loved rugby and was a huge fan, so that was a nice own goal.
More a field goaldrop goal. And it's not like she didn't try. She's just always deserving of a penalty.
I'm not 100% sure of all of the differences (League is for the North, I think, and therefore better), but a) I'm not the minister for sport and b) it would be trivial for me to look up enough to not make a fool of myself in a speech
League is for real hard men and women and Union is for public schoolboy rahrahs
Anyway I am disappointed with Starmer on the strike. I think that he should support the strike, publicly. That said if it cost him an election I'd be pretty fucking hacked off. On the other hand would it? I doubt it.
In Australia League is where all the sex offenders end up, but I admit that might be a regional issue and not related to the merits of the sport itself.
Which strike? We've got train workers, barristers, BT workers just voted to strike.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
Does Dorries think that the Rugby Union is striking this summer?
+4
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
edited June 2022
I'm pretty sure if you're in the Labour party and someone asks you about a strike you ought to be contractually obligated to offer a response from somewhere on the following scale:
Most supportive: "I'm on my way to the picket line myself just making a quick pit stop at the red flag shop.
Labour is entitled to all it creates! Workers unite you have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Least supportive: "It's a shame it's come to this but I support the right of unions to take the actions they deem necessary to represent the needs of their members."
Which strike? We've got train workers, barristers, BT workers just voted to strike.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
There was a documentary (*ahem*) involving striking police back in about 1987 or so, wasn't there, what was it called again? Oh yeah, Robocop.
I'm pretty sure if you're in the Labour party and someone asks you about a strike you ought to be contractually obligated to offer a response from somewhere on the following scale:
Most supportive: "I'm on my way to the picket line myself just making a quick pit stop at the red flag shop.
Labour is entitled to all it creates! Workers unite you have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Least supportive: "It's a shame it's come to this but I support the right of unions to take the actions they deem necessary to represent the needs of their members."
I mean option 2 has been the party line in interviews. With a side of "the government could stop this if it wanted, in a good way".
The question I want answered is why a strike rather than free rail til the bosses agree to the deal.
The most obvious response here was about disruption, oh no, X can't get to a hospital appointment (though I did appreciate the number of people in call your and yours who did complain that it was tricky, but they get why this is happening), so trains are free for a day. The owners won't be happy, but it makes a strong case and blows the rest of their critisms out f the water.
First job? Trip to the interview is on us!
OAP can't see friends because of the cost of living crisis? Got your back today, everything's free!
Current user level is not sustainable? Watch a massive boost when trains are free!
Or is that kind of behaviour - preforming duties but not those that collect money, specifically illegal.
Which strike? We've got train workers, barristers, BT workers just voted to strike.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
Reasonably sure teacher and nurse unions have made noise about striking as well.
It’s got to be pretty close to all the keyworkers who the Tories clapped and pretended to give a shit about.
Which strike? We've got train workers, barristers, BT workers just voted to strike.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
I thought Police were thinking of working to ... eh I don't remember the name? Spec? Rule? Basically no paid/unpaid overtime, clock out on time and no doing duties outside your job. Which isn't a strike but could be quite disruptive.
Which strike? We've got train workers, barristers, BT workers just voted to strike.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
Reasonably sure teacher and nurse unions have made noise about striking as well.
It’s got to be pretty close to all the keyworkers who the Tories clapped and pretended to give a shit about.
Teachers it was calculated over past 15 years or so have had in real terms a 20% decrease in earnings due to the pay freeze that has happened. NASWUT are demanding a 12% increase and have rejected the inadequate pay offers from both the Northern Irish and Scottish areas. At the same time, there is a massive crisis in teacher recruitment, retention and overall wellbeing for a decade before COVID and Brexit.
Nurses its a similar situation, massive shortages, overworked to the point that its on the literal side of killing someone and offered a pay rise that in real terms was a massive pay cut. Add the cost of living crisis and its a perfect storm right now for another winter of discontent.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
There are enough sectors striking now that I'd struggle to see any of them getting picked out specifically as being "bad" - everyone knows how shit things currently are and it's hard to blame someone kicking back at their pay not keeping up with the ridiculous surge in cost of living.
It's probably going to help that just a couple of years ago we were publicly celebrating many of those considering strikes as key workers. Not a huge mental leap to realise that clapping doesn't actually pay the bills.
I'm not in an industry that can do it, so it's possible I've missed the entire point of strikes. I thought the whole idea was to make it clear just how important the strikers were, to the point that the extra money they're asking for is considered to be worth it to keep them doing the important thing.
If you can strike without others feeling the impact, you're probably making a great argument that you aren't needed.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
Again, judging by the teachers I know, they'd probably see that as pointless - they *want* to teach, they want to do it well, they want people to realise the value they bring. There are enough parents who see schools as childcare already, so anything that reinforces that wouldn't go down well.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
The fare thing works because it immediately hits the company in day to day financials. Skipping the teaching will take years before the full cost is understood.
Edit:. ...and the cost is chiefly borne by kids. Not a great look.
If multiple large sectors hit the country with waves of strikes I think it'd actually mean their position would be seen as less isolated and more universal
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
The fare thing works because it immediately hits the company in day to day financials. Skipping the teaching will take years before the full cost is understood.
Edit:. ...and the cost is chiefly borne by kids. Not a great look.
The fare thing wouldn't work because it would give employers a legitimate reason to fire anyone involved. Workers are entitled to withdraw their labour and as long as they follow the rules as to how they conduct their strike they can't be officially sanctioned for it. Going to work and not doing your job as your employer should expect gives them every opportunity to show you the door.
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
The Tories see (state school) teachers as babysitters anyway; as long as the parents are going to work, they give zero fucks about the children.
PSN Fleety2009
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
The fare thing works because it immediately hits the company in day to day financials. Skipping the teaching will take years before the full cost is understood.
Edit:. ...and the cost is chiefly borne by kids. Not a great look.
The fare thing wouldn't work because it would give employers a legitimate reason to fire anyone involved. Workers are entitled to withdraw their labour and as long as they follow the rules as to how they conduct their strike they can't be officially sanctioned for it. Going to work and not doing your job as your employer should expect gives them every opportunity to show you the door.
The whole point of a strike is that enough people do it that you can't fire everyone
Y'all are kicking ass right now, every article I read is about another strike or threatened strike wave.
What are the laws governing striking public sector workers in the UK? More specifically, what, if any, legal restrictions are there on public sector workers as opposed to private sector?
Also, is Starmer/ Labour leadership likely to shift towards a less cautious, more vocally supportive line? It seems that the public reaction is reasonably supportive so far.
Mere hours after Johnson said the matter was closed and the deputy chief whip would not lose the Tory whip, he has now lost the Tory whip. Amazing work, moron. You look, again, like someone has to force you to do the right thing so you don’t get the result you want but also you get no credit for doing it.
Y'all are kicking ass right now, every article I read is about another strike or threatened strike wave.
What are the laws governing striking public sector workers in the UK? More specifically, what, if any, legal restrictions are there on public sector workers as opposed to private sector?
Also, is Starmer/ Labour leadership likely to shift towards a less cautious, more vocally supportive line? It seems that the public reaction is reasonably supportive so far.
I think Labour will keep doing what they are doing as strategically it seems to on some level be working. I.e they'll give soft support (we support the right to strike and these strikes have been caused by the failures of the gov) rather than joining the picket lines
In terms of the strikes it certainly seems like we'll see more, and aggressively so. Its all cost of living crisis related
Public sector workers can strike, the limitations are on the police and armed forces, and NHS staff very rarely strike but could do so
Official account of the Chinese embassy in Ireland. Getting clowned by authoritarian regimes for hypocrisy is a great look, you’re doing amazing, guys.
Posts
I’m not a mind reader but I imagine Starmer’s thinking was that it was providing opportunities for the Tories to blame them for the strikes, which they did anyway. The wisdom of that judgement is debatable, and no one seems to have actually been punished, yet.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The Tories are at it again.
They're never not at it.
The Labor Party's ties to a union EXPOSED! Is... is that not how it's supposed to work?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Steam | XBL
Public now support rail strikes after Mick Lynch TV studio tour, poll finds
(the body of the article is paywalled)
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
More a field goal drop goal. And it's not like she didn't try. She's just always deserving of a penalty.
Anyway I am disappointed with Starmer on the strike. I think that he should support the strike, publicly. That said if it cost him an election I'd be pretty fucking hacked off. On the other hand would it? I doubt it.
I think there's going to be enough to fill a bingo card soon.
(I heard the news saying that police also aren't happy, but they're not allowed to strike. How exactly do they enforce that? If you go on strike, we'll have you arrest- um, hang on.)
Most supportive: "I'm on my way to the picket line myself just making a quick pit stop at the red flag shop.
Labour is entitled to all it creates! Workers unite you have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Least supportive: "It's a shame it's come to this but I support the right of unions to take the actions they deem necessary to represent the needs of their members."
There was a documentary (*ahem*) involving striking police back in about 1987 or so, wasn't there, what was it called again? Oh yeah, Robocop.
Steam | XBL
I mean option 2 has been the party line in interviews. With a side of "the government could stop this if it wanted, in a good way".
The question I want answered is why a strike rather than free rail til the bosses agree to the deal.
The most obvious response here was about disruption, oh no, X can't get to a hospital appointment (though I did appreciate the number of people in call your and yours who did complain that it was tricky, but they get why this is happening), so trains are free for a day. The owners won't be happy, but it makes a strong case and blows the rest of their critisms out f the water.
First job? Trip to the interview is on us!
OAP can't see friends because of the cost of living crisis? Got your back today, everything's free!
Current user level is not sustainable? Watch a massive boost when trains are free!
Or is that kind of behaviour - preforming duties but not those that collect money, specifically illegal.
Best part of this is that she gave this speech in my dear old post-apocalyptic hometown of St. Helens, noted pro-League, anti-Tory hotbed.
I'm surprised she made it out of there without an armed escort.
Come to think of it, I'm kinda surprised she made it in there without an armed escort.
Reasonably sure teacher and nurse unions have made noise about striking as well.
It’s got to be pretty close to all the keyworkers who the Tories clapped and pretended to give a shit about.
I thought Police were thinking of working to ... eh I don't remember the name? Spec? Rule? Basically no paid/unpaid overtime, clock out on time and no doing duties outside your job. Which isn't a strike but could be quite disruptive.
Maybe that was police support staff?
Teachers it was calculated over past 15 years or so have had in real terms a 20% decrease in earnings due to the pay freeze that has happened. NASWUT are demanding a 12% increase and have rejected the inadequate pay offers from both the Northern Irish and Scottish areas. At the same time, there is a massive crisis in teacher recruitment, retention and overall wellbeing for a decade before COVID and Brexit.
Nurses its a similar situation, massive shortages, overworked to the point that its on the literal side of killing someone and offered a pay rise that in real terms was a massive pay cut. Add the cost of living crisis and its a perfect storm right now for another winter of discontent.
Trading figures were out yesterday and they say UK exports are down 14%. Can't think why.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Problem is the most unions outside of RMT are so spineless at times, after NASWUT made the demand of 12% rise, you had the NEU suddenly announce they would take less for example. Or they demand strike action on days that are most convenient for the Government.
They really need to start following the french with strike action, take no bullshit and cause as much metaphorical damage as possible.
British goods are just so good we can't bear to part with them.
The teachers I know really think a strike is needed, but they're slightly worried about the public reaction. Rail strikes are kind of situational - not everyone is affected, there are probably alternatives to your plans, whatever. If teachers go on strike, the impact is felt by far more people - parents have to miss work or pay for alternative childcare, people who work with those parents are inconvenienced as well, etc. I'm not sure if the public reaction would be quite as bad as these teachers fear, but there have been enough negative headlines about teachers in recent times to make them wary.
It's probably going to help that just a couple of years ago we were publicly celebrating many of those considering strikes as key workers. Not a huge mental leap to realise that clapping doesn't actually pay the bills.
If you can strike without others feeling the impact, you're probably making a great argument that you aren't needed.
I wonder if teachers could do something similar to transit workers not collecting fares.
Teachers go to the school and supervise the children, but no lesson plans or instruction.
MWO: Adamski
Again, judging by the teachers I know, they'd probably see that as pointless - they *want* to teach, they want to do it well, they want people to realise the value they bring. There are enough parents who see schools as childcare already, so anything that reinforces that wouldn't go down well.
The fare thing works because it immediately hits the company in day to day financials. Skipping the teaching will take years before the full cost is understood.
Edit:. ...and the cost is chiefly borne by kids. Not a great look.
The fare thing wouldn't work because it would give employers a legitimate reason to fire anyone involved. Workers are entitled to withdraw their labour and as long as they follow the rules as to how they conduct their strike they can't be officially sanctioned for it. Going to work and not doing your job as your employer should expect gives them every opportunity to show you the door.
The Tories see (state school) teachers as babysitters anyway; as long as the parents are going to work, they give zero fucks about the children.
The whole point of a strike is that enough people do it that you can't fire everyone
What are the laws governing striking public sector workers in the UK? More specifically, what, if any, legal restrictions are there on public sector workers as opposed to private sector?
Also, is Starmer/ Labour leadership likely to shift towards a less cautious, more vocally supportive line? It seems that the public reaction is reasonably supportive so far.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think Labour will keep doing what they are doing as strategically it seems to on some level be working. I.e they'll give soft support (we support the right to strike and these strikes have been caused by the failures of the gov) rather than joining the picket lines
In terms of the strikes it certainly seems like we'll see more, and aggressively so. Its all cost of living crisis related
Public sector workers can strike, the limitations are on the police and armed forces, and NHS staff very rarely strike but could do so
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3