True, but those on the lowest salaries are usually the ones who have the most to gain from strike action.
And strike action is not "foisted" on anybody.
It takes place as a result of a majority vote of the membership.
Do you want to deny them that right?
Absolutely not, but I never said I did.
My point is: say, you have a guy who has a family with a disabled child, who hasn't got savings in the bank as he's stretched thin already.
That person is clearly in a different boat to the others - need not be that, could be a hundred reasons as to why their personal circumstance is different, and why they're more 'stretched'.
They may not have voted in favour of the strike in the first place as they knew it would bring hardship upon their already hard-up familiy, but, if they cross the picket line, they risk the opprobrium of their colleagues - 'scab', 'traitor' etc...
So it's not as simple as saying that all the workers are in the same boat...strike action favours those that can afford to forgo their salary, and punishes those that can't.
My point is: say, you have a guy who has a family with a disabled child, who hasn't got savings in the bank as he's stretched thin already.
That person is clearly in a different boat to the others - need not be that, could be a hundred reasons as to why their personal circumstance is different, and why they're more 'stretched'.
They may not have voted in favour of the strike in the first place as they knew it would bring hardship upon their already hard-up familiy, but, if they cross the picket line, they risk the opprobrium of their colleagues - 'scab', 'traitor' etc...
So it's not as simple as saying that all the workers are in the same boat...strike action favours those that can afford to forgo their salary, and punishes those that can't.
Regards,
Cypher
In the scenario you have painted I have no doubt the striker concerned would get assistance from the union's strike fund (if they're allowed to have such things by this anti-union govt in the future, of course).
In the scenario you have painted I have no doubt the striker concerned would get assistance from the union's strike fund (if they're allowed to have such things by this anti-union govt in the future, of course).
The sheer bravery of the miners and their families who fought for so long against the tyranny of an ideologue madwoman, and the dignity with which many returned to work marching behind their banners was a joy to behold, especially as many had lost everything.
Shame that they were not supported by all in the TU movement - and betrayed by the Notts. miners.
"Beaten but not bowed."
What a load of propaganda.
Arthur Scargill had his own agenda. That was to bring down the Tory Government and replace Maggie with his own little puppet, in the shape of Tony Benn.
His strike was nothing to do with Tory closures of pits. After all the previous Labour Gov't were responsible for closing a greater number.
It's just a damn shame that a workforce and their families were put through the whole strike, just to pander to the ego of a complete and utter prick.
Arthur Scargill had his own agenda. That was to bring down the Tory Government and replace Maggie with his own little puppet, in the shape of Tony Benn.
His strike was nothing to do with Tory closures of pits. After all the previous Labour Gov't were responsible for closing a greater number.
It's just a damn shame that a workforce and their families were put through the whole strike, just to pander to the ego of a complete and utter prick.
Arthur Scargill had his own agenda. That was to bring down the Tory Government and replace Maggie with his own little puppet, in the shape of Tony Benn.
His strike was nothing to do with Tory closures of pits. After all the previous Labour Gov't were responsible for closing a greater number.
It's just a damn shame that a workforce and their families were put through the whole strike, just to pander to the ego of a complete and utter prick.
They were fighting for the future of their communities.
Scargill has been proved right, of course.
And do you really think that hard-bolied miners went through everything they did just to pander to another's ego?
You're living in a Daily Mail-created fantasy land.
They were fighting for the future of their communities.
Scargill has been proved right, of course.
Has he indeed? Proved right that Maggie would close more pits than Labour? Proved right that the pits could produce coal cheaper than their competitors?
Proved right that British Coal wasn't losing £727 million (£1.4 Billion in todays money) per year
In the scenario you have painted I have no doubt the striker concerned would get assistance from the union's strike fund (if they're allowed to have such things by this anti-union govt in the future, of course).
And if that money is insufficient (or it runs out) so the worker is unable to support his family, I assume there would be no problems if they returned to work with the full backing of the union?
Comments
Absolutely not, but I never said I did.
My point is: say, you have a guy who has a family with a disabled child, who hasn't got savings in the bank as he's stretched thin already.
That person is clearly in a different boat to the others - need not be that, could be a hundred reasons as to why their personal circumstance is different, and why they're more 'stretched'.
They may not have voted in favour of the strike in the first place as they knew it would bring hardship upon their already hard-up familiy, but, if they cross the picket line, they risk the opprobrium of their colleagues - 'scab', 'traitor' etc...
So it's not as simple as saying that all the workers are in the same boat...strike action favours those that can afford to forgo their salary, and punishes those that can't.
Regards,
Cypher
Yet couldn't be bothered to strike against the Labour Government that closed many more pits....
Well, they'd have looked pretty daft fighting what is supposed to be their own political wing.
Trade unionism should be decoupled from politics, as should big business too.
Regards,
Cypher
In the scenario you have painted I have no doubt the striker concerned would get assistance from the union's strike fund (if they're allowed to have such things by this anti-union govt in the future, of course).
Yes.In la-la land!:p;):p
What a load of propaganda.
Arthur Scargill had his own agenda. That was to bring down the Tory Government and replace Maggie with his own little puppet, in the shape of Tony Benn.
His strike was nothing to do with Tory closures of pits. After all the previous Labour Gov't were responsible for closing a greater number.
It's just a damn shame that a workforce and their families were put through the whole strike, just to pander to the ego of a complete and utter prick.
All from his Barbican flat! On a miner's wage?
They were fighting for the future of their communities.
Scargill has been proved right, of course.
And do you really think that hard-bolied miners went through everything they did just to pander to another's ego?
You're living in a Daily Mail-created fantasy land.
Has he indeed? Proved right that Maggie would close more pits than Labour? Proved right that the pits could produce coal cheaper than their competitors?
Proved right that British Coal wasn't losing £727 million (£1.4 Billion in todays money) per year
They must have done GGP. After all they blindly followed the idiot without even being given the basic right to vote on the action.
And if that money is insufficient (or it runs out) so the worker is unable to support his family, I assume there would be no problems if they returned to work with the full backing of the union?
Regards,
Cypher
I would say yes