Potential mass strike action in the UK

[studiot]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

but there's a difference between target and aim...

but there's a insert 'big ' difference between target and aim...

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

but there's a insert 'big ' difference between target and aim...

Depends on your perspective...

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Depends on your perspective...

No not really.

It's just that some people confuse the two.

You aim at a target or you aim somewhere else, if you are aiming at all.

But a target can exist independently of whether anyone is aiming at it or not.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

It's just that some people confuse the two.

Am I one of them?

[studiot]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Am I one of them?

I don't know.

I would have added +1 to your original statement I quoted if you had included  'big' in it, because I think the differences I have outlined are major ones, not small ones.

 

[dimreepr]

Just now, studiot said:

I don't know.

I would have added +1 to your original statement I quoted if you had included  'big' in it, because I think the differences I have outlined are major ones, not small ones.

 

I agree, but it's not so obvious too, everyone; sometimes 'big' is the word they object to...

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Fundamentally, Unions choose member, they don't choose employers.
So, no, they don't target the government as a "cash cow" because- guess what- the government doesn't pay unions.
Unions will target angry workers.
If governments want to make life difficult for unions, all they have to do is treat their staff well.

Follow the money...if you can't trace what government unions get paid back to government money...I can't help you.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure? 

Word's matter, sometimes it's almost imperceptible, but there's a difference between target and aim...

LOL. So words matter, but you feel free to attribute words I didn't use, to ones I did.

Give your head a shake Dim.

Edited September 1, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

government unions

What?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

What?

 

Public service unions...the ones that negotiate with governments...because that's the source of the money they run on...

...their cash cow...

...their bread and butter...

...or choose your term with the connotation you prefer...

[mistermack]

On 8/30/2022 at 10:33 PM, John Cuthber said:

And once again...
All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)^[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. 

Oh right, so it's a bit like murder then? It's now illegal so it never happens now.

Just try and get a job as a fireman. You'll eventually find after a lot of waiting and trying that you need to "know someone".

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Public service unions...the ones that negotiate with governments...because that's the source of the money they run on...

...their cash cow...

...their bread and butter...

...or choose your term with the connotation you prefer...

OK.

I'm a TU member and a representative. And I work for the government.
And the Union of which I'm a member, and for which I'm a rep does not negotiate with government even though most of the members work for the government. I'm fairly sure that's true of the other unions that represent staff in the public sector.

You may remember recent criticism of Grant Shapps for his refusal to get involved in negotiations.

Why are you trying to argue about something of which you are clearly ignorant?

 

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

Just try and get a job as a fireman. You'll eventually find after a lot of waiting and trying that you need to "know someone".

A while ago, there fire service went on strike for more pay. The government (not their employer, btw), rather stupidly, pointed out that for every job in the fire service they typically have 10 applicants or some such, so the people looking for that work clearly think it's well enough paid already.

Anyone with a brain pointed out that, if that's the criterion, then the MPS should get a pay cut.

But the point remains; the jobs are seriously oversubscribed.
If there are a lot more applicants than jobs then you will certainly need "something extra" to get you in.

But that's nothing to do with Union membership, is it?

So your observation is irrelevant.

It's also true that the fire service has very high levels of union membership.

But you seem to miss something. That's because they choose to join a union. They aren't forced to, it's just sensible for them to do so.
 

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

Oh right, so it's a bit like murder then? It's now illegal so it never happens now.

If you believe that illegal activity is taking place you should report it to the relevant enforcing authority.

[studiot]

At the risk of getting my head bitten off from both sides of this argument.

I think you guys are arguing at cross purposes.

 

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Public service unions...

 

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

The government (not their employer, btw),

 

I am with Mcswell in considering a lumped public sector.

But I am with Cuthber for most of the comments about this sector.

 

BTW firemen work for local government  is that not 'government'  ?

 

I also think there are far too many entrenched outdated attempts to create an 'us and them' by dividing society and its activities up into the private sector and the public sector.

 

Also a little bit of history.

 

In 1984, at the time of 'the miner's strike' the miners worked for the nationalised National Coal Board.

They fought pitched battled with the Police, employed by local government but funded mostly directly by central government, as local government itself.

So I repeat my earlier comment that no one has taken up that two parts of the state or public sector engaged in a very minor civil war with each other.

Not a desirable situation.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

OK.

I'm a TU member and a representative. And I work for the government.
And the Union of which I'm a member, and for which I'm a rep does not negotiate with government even though most of the members work for the government. I'm fairly sure that's true of the other unions that represent staff in the public sector.

You may remember recent criticism of Grant Shapps for his refusal to get involved in negotiations.
 

Who negotiates with your employer, on behalf of yourself and fellow Union members?

On 8/29/2022 at 9:38 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage". 

...and their leadership don't do it totally out of the goodness of their hearts...many get paid rather well. (though generally not as much as the top executives in the industries they target...as they don't have much interest where the money isn't flowing)

You quoted the bold and replied:

On 8/30/2022 at 9:00 AM, John Cuthber said:

You say that as if it's somehow a problem.
Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf.
 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[John Cuthber]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who negotiates with your employer, on behalf of yourself and fellow Union members?

It's  more complex than you seem to think
I work for the government, but the government is not my employer.
My employer is part of a government department but they are "middle men".
The actual budget is set by the treasury.
So the negotiations are about how to share about the money that the government has already capped and announced the cap.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-pay-remit-guidance-202122

The pay remit is set (pretty much "in stone" before formal pay talks begin.
Most of the people involved in those pay talks are not employees of the union, but of the department.
There's some flexibility in trying to get the department to go to treasury to plead for more money.

So like I said
 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

the Union of which I'm a member, and for which I'm a rep does not negotiate with government even though most of the members work for the government.

Did it not occur to you to find out how public sector pay works before trying to tell us what's wrong with it?

 

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

BTW firemen work for local government  is that not 'government'  ?

Well, they usually work for these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_services_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_fire_and_rescue_services
And I suspect the negotiation arrangements are similar to those where I work with something like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire_Fire_and_Rescue
acting as the employer and one or more of the  local authorities setting pay.

[dimreepr]

On 8/30/2022 at 1:38 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage".

 

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL. So words matter, but you feel free to attribute words I didn't use, to ones I did.

Give your head a shake Dim.

My mistake, you clearly meant target to mean aim... 🙄

Maybe you can explain the difference, in the context of this thread...

Edited September 2, 2022 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

My mistake, you clearly meant target to mean aim... 🙄

Yes. Correctly.

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Maybe you can explain the difference, in the context of this thread...

I correctly used target as a verb.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/target

1 

 

: to aim an attack at someone or something

• The missile attacks targeted [=were aimed at] major cities. = The missiles were targeted [=aimed] at major cities.
• Thieves often target tourists.
• drugs that target cancer cells
• He has frequently been targeted by the media. [=he has been the target of frequent attacks by the media]

2 

 

: to direct an action, message, etc., at someone or something

• The commercial is targeted [=aimed] at children.
• government programs that are targeted at low-income areas = government programs that target low-income areas

[swansont]

On 8/29/2022 at 7:22 AM, mistermack said:

Or when the employee gets sick, the employer still has to pay them, even though he's getting nothing for his money. Etc etc etc.

I realize things are different in various places, and in the UK there are stronger statutory safeguards for employees than in the US, but this sentiment is wrong. Sick leave is part of one's compensation. You earn a salary or wage, but you also earn time off. For example, I earn 4 hours of sick leave per pay period. When I take sick leave, it's not that my employer is getting nothing. In my case, my employer has already gotten the work that earned me that time off. Same with vacation. You can't decouple the leave from the money - both are part of your compensation.

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Correctly.

Are you sure?

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I correctly used target as a verb.

to aim an attack at someone or something...

Is not the same as to aim to avoid an attack, from someone who target's you...

[John Cuthber]

On 8/29/2022 at 12:22 PM, mistermack said:

Oh right !   That's the relationship where an employee can quit any time he likes, but can't get fired any time the employer likes? When the employer has to pay you for doing nothing, if you choose to have a baby? Or when the company is losing money, rather than making it, the employee still gets the same wages? Or when the employee gets sick, the employer still has to pay them, even though he's getting nothing for his money. Etc etc etc. You're right, the relationship IS fundamentally unequal. 

Imagine not realising that most of those benefits were bargained for- typically as an alternative to a pay rise.
Imagine not understanding that maternity pay is government mandated.
Imagine not realising that, when the company loses money, they can lay off staff.
Imagine thinking that you get paid for doing nothing while on strike.

Oh; I see you don't need to.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

Is not the same as to aim to avoid an attack, from someone who target's you...

Agree. And I didn't use it in that incorrect context.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, they usually work for these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_services_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_fire_and_rescue_services
And I suspect the negotiation arrangements are similar to those where I work with something like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire_Fire_and_Rescue
acting as the employer and one or more of the  local authorities setting pay

Which clearly demonstrate my point.

You and MacSwell are talking about different things when you say 'the government'.

 

And changing the name local government to local authority does not make any difference.

[mistermack]

Swansont and John Cuthber, 

if you check back, you'll find that my post that you are taking issue with, was a response to John Cuthber's claim that the employer/employee relationship is fundamentally unequal, in favour of the employer. 

I simply pointed out several reasons why that is not so. You seem to be taking my post in isolation, ignoring the reply context.  I fully stand by my remarks in that context, I think they are sound as an answer to a false claim. 

In any case, the relationship varies industry by industry and job by job. That's the nature of a market. If your skills are in demand and vital to a highly profitable enterprise, YOU have the whip hand. As with premiership footballers. In other cases, the employer will be in a stronger postition. But it's up to you, as an employee, to achieve skills through work and talent. If you don't, you can't expect the Union to get you the same money as people who grafted and studied to get where they are. 

In any case, as I said much earlier, how is it right that an employer who is facing people who WON'T do the work they are employed to do, can't sack them? Or even bring in temps to do the work? That is fundamentally wrong and truly IS unequal. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's  more complex than you seem to think
I work for the government, but the government is not my employer.
My employer is part of a government department but they are "middle men".

Apparently it's complex enough for you to have yourself confused.

Are you, or are you not, employed by the government?

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Swansont and John Cuthber, 

if you check back, you'll find that my post that you are taking issue with, was a response to John Cuthber's claim that the employer/employee relationship is fundamentally unequal, in favour of the employer. 

I simply pointed out several reasons why that is not so. You seem to be taking my post in isolation, ignoring the reply context.  I fully stand by my remarks in that context, I think they are sound as an answer to a false claim. 

In any case, the relationship varies industry by industry and job by job. That's the nature of a market. If your skills are in demand and vital to a highly profitable enterprise, YOU have the whip hand. As with premiership footballers. In other cases, the employer will be in a stronger postition. But it's up to you, as an employee, to achieve skills through work and talent. If you don't, you can't expect the Union to get you the same money as people who grafted and studied to get where they are. 

In any case, as I said much earlier, how is it right that an employer who is facing people who WON'T do the work they are employed to do, can't sack them? Or even bring in temps to do the work? That is fundamentally wrong and truly IS unequal. 

I don’t think you’ve made your case that employers are less powerful than the employed, but I don’t see how your statement that “when the employee gets sick, the employer still has to pay them, even though he's getting nothing for his money.” depends on that notion. I have acknowledged that employees in the UK have stronger statutory support than in the US, where sick leave is not universal.

Seems to me that this is more like insurance, where occasionally one could get benefits greater than the premium you’ve paid, but overall that’s not the case. Most workers work, and only take occasional sick leave, so they’ve already earned the time off by the time they take it.

Is sick leave part of one’s compensation, or is it not? 

[mistermack]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Is sick leave part of one’s compensation, or is it not?

You can call it whatever you like. It's still money paid by the employer, while the employee is doing no work. 

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't happen, I'm just saying that the employer/employee relationship is NOT unequal in favour of employers.

If it was so easy employing people and 'living off' their work, we'd all do it. 

What I would agree IS easy, is investing money, and living off people's work. That's where the exploitation happens. But, if you have a better alternative than a capitalist system, then I'm all for it.