[martyn20]

Originally Posted by gummy mummy

People round here didn't go out panic buying, my husband has a scooter to go to work but he didn't panic buy, my daughter and her husband both have cars which they need to get to work but they didn't panic buy. Maybe when the date of a strike is announced they will but as it is they feel there is no need to.

Well fair enough, you do not seem to think the same way as a lot of others in the country this week clearly.

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Encouraging people to stock up on fuel thereby creating what you were trying to avoid is even crazier.

Yes that's exactly what he did by saying don't panic but fill up when you are at the pump anyway and maybe use a single jerry can. Yes that is the same as saying stock up.

[Orri]

Originally Posted by martyn20

Did the government respond to a strike threat by the Union? The threat being statements like 'we will decide on details of the strike over the next 2 days'

The response to that "threat" and an ongoing panic was to heighten the sense of alarm. This is akin to peaceful protesters being beaten and the security forces claiming that as those protestors had started it their response was justified.

Suggesting people keep a reasonable enough level in their tank to last for a few extra days might have been enough especially as there are stations that would not have been affected by a strike.
Suggesting people keep their tanks topped up might have been deniable as far as encouraging the ongoing panic was concerned.
Going on to suggest that even that would not be enough is either poorly thought out or in fact a deliberate suggestion that even a full tank will not be enough.

If you do not understand the concept of proportional response to a threat then I assume you would be for simply shooting someone for being slightly intimidating.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

So if Mr McCluskey call the strike and we see more people queuing and more people using jerrycans, and families unable to go on holiday ad supermarkets unable to get food for the shelves, he will be doing an effective job. No matter how many of those disrupted are also his members?

Yes he will. He is paid to represent his members and if they vote in favour of industrial action they are entitled to strike - it's the law of the land. If the employers concede some ground as a result of the ballot and the threat of strike action then he will have represented his members' interests very effectively.

At present the two sides are attempting to negotiate a settlement and no strike has been organised. Let's hope they reach an agreement. I see that the run on petrol has eased now that the government have withdrawn their advice on topping up!

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

Yes that's exactly what he did by saying don't panic but fill up when you are at the pump anyway and maybe use a single jerry can. Yes that is the same as saying stock up.

He encouraged people to change their behaviour instead of advising them to continue buying petrol normally. That was his mistake - and the government have had to retract the advice after the utter chaos it caused.

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by martyn20

We are talking about what caused the panic at petrol station last week. You just can't bring yourself to say the Union were even a small part of the problem will you?

If you believe that workers have no rights and that they should have no one there to support them then I guess you will also believe that unions are to blame for giving them support instead of letting their members (who actually pay them to represent them when they have a dispute) to be walked over by their employers.

What do you think of the The Press Association article which claims that David Davis is also blaming the Government for it's carelessness in handling the situation?

And senior Tory backbencher David Davis said the Government only had itself to blame for some of its difficulties. "Some of it has been carelessness, the issues over the fuel strike, they haven't thought things through properly," he told BBC News.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...1333256930936A

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by Orri

The response to that "threat" and an ongoing panic was to heighten the sense of alarm. This is akin to peaceful protesters being beaten and the security forces claiming that as those protestors had started it their response was justified.

Suggesting people keep a reasonable enough level in their tank to last for a few extra days might have been enough especially as there are stations that would not have been affected by a strike.
Suggesting people keep their tanks topped up might have been deniable as far as encouraging the ongoing panic was concerned.
Going on to suggest that even that would not be enough is either poorly thought out or in fact a deliberate suggestion that even a full tank will not be enough.

If you do not understand the concept of proportional response to a threat then I assume you would be for simply shooting someone for being slightly intimidating.

You are not making any sense at all now with your wild simalies, think I have finished speaking to you now.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

You are not making any sense at all now with your wild simalies, think I have finished speaking to you now.

I bet he's gutted!

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by gummy mummy

If you believe that workers have no rights and that they should have no one there to support them then I guess you will also believe that unions are to blame for giving them support instead of letting them be walked over by their employers.

What do you think of the The Press Association article which claims that David Davis is also blaming the Government for it's carelessness in handling the situation?



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...1333256930936A

That is clearly not what I was saying, check my previous post, I was a union rep for many years.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

That is clearly not what I was saying, check my previous post, I was a union rep for many years.

So what do you think the union should do in the face of their members' anger about this issue?

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

I bet he's gutted!

Well their comes a point when you start talking about shooting people and beating workers when the conversation is clearly going nowhere

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

Well their comes a point when you start talking about shooting people and beating workers when the conversation is clearly going nowhere

To be fair I think he was merely trying to illustrate the concept of proportionality with an exaggerated example.

[OLD HIPPY GUY]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Yes he will. He is paid to represent his members and if they vote in favour of industrial action they are entitled to strike - it's the law of the land. If the employers concede some ground as a result of the ballot and the threat of strike action then he will have represented his members' interests very effectively.

At present the two sides are attempting to negotiate a settlement and no strike has been organised. Let's hope they reach an agreement. I see that the run on petrol has eased now that the government have withdrawn their advice on topping up!

I think that the union now have a golden opportunity to embarrass Cameron and the government,
All they need to do is issue a statement along the lines of,

"in view of the fuel shortages and utter chaos caused by the government, We have decided not to make a bad situation even worse, and have therefore decided not to take industrial action, and we intend to pursue our grievances through other means"

That would be sweet,

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

So what do you think the union should do in the face of their members' anger about this issue?

I think you get better results by coming to consensus around the table instead of threatening strikes and withdrawing labour.
My own union was linked directly to an employer but was not the only union the members could join, our union had very productive talks and made a lot of ground, the other union refused to talk, called strikes and damaged their relationship totally with the employer.
In a recent unrelated strike many of the people who stepped up to fill the gaps made by striking employees and keep the company running were also in the same union that had called out their fellow workers, that does not make sense to me, the union in question lost hundreds of members angry at the pressure that their own union had put on them.

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

To be fair I think he was merely trying to illustrate the concept of proportionality with an exaggerated example.

Indeed but you have to draw the line somewhere

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by OLD HIPPY GUY

I think that the union now have a golden opportunity to embarrass Cameron and the government,
All they need to do is issue a statement along the lines of,

"in view of the fuel shortages and utter chaos caused by the government, We have decided not to make a bad situation even worse, and have therefore decided not to take industrial action, and we intend to pursue our grievances through other means"

That would be sweet,

But the unions have stated a strike is their last resort so if they are accepting their are other means why did they ballot for strike action?

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by martyn20

That is clearly not what I was saying, check my previous post, I was a union rep for many years.

The 'you' was not aimed at you per se it was for anyone who thinks unions should not support their members.

My husband was a union shop steward for many years and he would even now fully support anyone who went on strike.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by martyn20

But the unions have stated a strike is their last resort so if they are accepting their are other means why did they ballot for strike action?

Because those other means might well fail and if they then want to call a strike they need to have a mandate to do it. And of course it creates some additional leverage in the negotiations if the threat of a strike is on the table.

[Analogue110]

Originally Posted by martyn20

So if Mr McCluskey call the strike and we see more people queuing and more people using jerrycans, and families unable to go on holiday ad supermarkets unable to get food for the shelves, he will be doing an effective job. No matter how many of those disrupted are also his members?

No. Strike action is the nuclear option when all else has failed, but they need to keep that option open or their position is weaker.

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by martyn20

But the unions have stated a strike is their last resort so if they are accepting their are other means why did they ballot for strike action?

Maybe so there will be no red tape to go through if it comes to actually taking strike action ?

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by gummy mummy

Maybe so there will be no red tape to go through if it comes to actually taking strike action ?

But in the past Unite have called strikes after getting a yes ballot, you think this is different?

[swingaleg]

Maude was playing politics..........the Government is having a shocking few weeks and he was trying to deflect attention, to put it out there that the real story at the moment is the Labour party's main backers ruining the country by going on strike and asking why isnt Milliband stopping them ?

In fact two days earlier on the Monday, the hapless Maude was fronting up in the Commons for Cameron in an 'emergency debate on party funding' called in response to the Cruddas story

Various MPs were getting up and asking Maude about details of the Cruddas allegations and he replied to nearly everyone by not answering the question but saying 'what about the Labour party and the Unions, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner'

Surpringly for such an experienced politician he seems remarkably devoid of both gravitas and common sense

[swingaleg]

Originally Posted by martyn20

But the unions have stated a strike is their last resort so if they are accepting their are other means why did they ballot for strike action?

It was Thatcher who made it law that Unions had to ballot so many days before any strike action was called

This anti-Union legislation has backfired somewhat as every Union now votes for a strike so as to strengthen their negotiating position..........they know that if they vote 'NO' their representatives will be negotiating with their hands tied behind their backs

[gummy mummy]

Originally Posted by martyn20

But in the past Unite have called strikes after getting a yes ballot, you think this is different?

Before talks have taken place ?

[martyn20]

Originally Posted by gummy mummy

Before talks have taken place ?

The union and the employers have been talking for quite sometime.