PDA

View Full Version : UK postal workers...striking without sympathy?


Reginald
31st October 2003, 09:04 AM
[/rant on]
And off we go again. If the postal workers think that they can gain 1% of the initial (I use that word deliberately) sympathy that the firemen had, then I think they are in for a very, very nasty surprise.

There are very few parallels that can be drawn between the two actions. To start with the fireman's strike was lawful, the PO worker's strike is not.

Up until the point when some of the archaic practices of the fireman’s working week were revealed, public sympathy was overwhelmingly with them. The firemen didn't really win their dispute, they made a little ground financially but may have to accept major changes in working practice. Also the firemen (in general) assisted the army in ensuring that people were safe throughout the action.

On the other hand as far as public sympathy goes the PO workers seem to have none, or little. They are happy to cause the maximum difficulty for the general public and business.

Who are the people that these strikers are inconveniencing (or worse), well anyone waiting for a benefit cheque may have to wait longer, great when you are on 70 quid a week. Industry has to wait for payment, sometimes that represents a large part of their cash flow, without it , and with no agreed length of time to this dispute, people are at serious risk of losing their jobs (Yes brother workers, we stand together!). Other businesses are trying to get catalogues and literature out in time for xmas, if they cannot do so they will lose money and again jobs are in jeopardy.

Before anyone slams into me saying that I am some right wing anti-union person, let me state for the record. Trades unions are a VITAL part of business in the UK. They are an essential counter balance to the managerial/shareholder machine. In terms of health and safety they represent a front line in improvement and help to maintain the working conditions of millions of men and women in this country. I believe in the right to take lawful industrial action. I believe in the democratic process that can lead to industrial action. I have worked in heavy industry for many years in my past, I have been in several trades unions.

What I most certainly don't agree with is unlawful action that can only serve to damage people who have no part in, or any chance of assisting in, a resolution to thePO worker's grievance.

This action is of the highest level of selfishness and should be met by the employer with the strongest option open to them. The workers should be sacked.

[/rant off]

BillyTK
31st October 2003, 09:14 AM
The action is unlawful because they haven't conduct a postal ballot for strike action. They carnt conduct a postal ballot because there's no-one to deliver the ballot, because they're on strike. Good excuse, eh?

Jaggy Bunnet
31st October 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by BillyTK
The action is unlawful because they haven't conduct a postal ballot for strike action. They carnt conduct a postal ballot because there's no-one to deliver the ballot, because they're on strike. Good excuse, eh?

Is the action unlawful? I think it would be unlawful if it was sanctioned by the union (due to the lack of ballot) but is there anything illegal about individuals simply deciding not to go to work?

richardm
31st October 2003, 09:21 AM
On the specific matter of the strike being unlawful...

It seems to me that the ultimate sanction any worker has is to withdraw his or her labour. I believe that all the shackles of no-strike-without-ballot were applied after the miner's strikes back in the 80s, as a device designed to help weaken the unions.

So while I find it inconvenient that my local postbox has been nailed shut, I do find it hard to criticise them for taking action. This isn't something that has blown up from nowhere, it has been simmering for ages, and the PO management have done nothing about it.

This is, of course, a government plot to force through two hidden agendas.
1. They want all benefit recipients to have their money paid electronically - by stopping dole cheques in this way people will be scrambling to sign up.
2. They want to open letter handling to other private firms, rather than keeping it all within the Royal Mail. They can use this strike as an excuse to do so (In fact, they are already doing so, as the watchdog is already removing restrictions for the duration of the dispute - I suspect that I did not need to include the words "of the dispute" in reality)

richardm
31st October 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Is the action unlawful? I think it would be unlawful if it was sanctioned by the union (due to the lack of ballot) but is there anything illegal about individuals simply deciding not to go to work?

It seems ridiculous, but I believe it is unlawful in the wake of Thatcher's Union-Smashing.

Edited to add: Not quite, actually. I was thinking that the guys striking around the country in support of the London posties were secondary pickets, but of course they're not.

The problem for the workers is that they are not complying with the terms and conditions of their contract, and so are eligible to be sacked. Presumably the Royal Mail is not mad enough to do that. (Not until all the fuss has died down, anyway)

Reginald
31st October 2003, 09:44 AM
Everyone can withdraw their labour. Be it in a strike or by resigning. However You do have to face the consequences of such actions. I agree that the PO won't sack them. But what will happen is that contractual restrictions on using 3rd party carriers will be relaxed as an emergency measure and guess what?...........they will never be put back! The business of delivering post will move more and more into the fully private sector. Jobs lost, harder working conditions and everything that goes with it. The people striking will ultimately suffer and (IMHO) losing the PO the role of major mail carrier in the UK will be a disaster.

Jon_in_london
31st October 2003, 11:54 AM
The firemans strike was different because everyone was genuinely concerned about what would happen during the strike. I didnt suport them, bollocks to them! they get a sh-t load of money to work 4days on 4 days off, what about our troops? get paid much less for doing a much more dangerous job 24/7.

Anyway, postal workers? they can get stuffed. I dont care about them. They can all lose their jobs.

Dragon
31st October 2003, 12:04 PM
Hey Jon, stop beating about the bush old son, tell us what you really think!

A dose of de-regulation will sort the buggers out. Tricky bit will be ensuring that the non-profitable (but necessary) parts of the service like rural deliveries stay at a reasonable price.

geni
31st October 2003, 12:12 PM
It is quite clear that the union will not be happy untill the post office becomes a workers cooprative. If I was the CEO I would be vry tempted to through in the towl and let them. At leat then they would have to admit that repeatly going on strike is bard for the post office.