Probably be best if unions and workers only took industrial action that inconvenienced no one, not even their employers, in fact no one even noticed.

Some people just don't quite get the entire point of industrial action or why it works.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think the problem for trades unions is the modern practice of recruiting staff via agencies. If Amazon and Sports Direct are outsourcing the management of those who work on their premises to third parties it's much harder for the unions to organise and campaign on the workers' behalf.

Obviously that's why major companies use agency staff, because they are not directly employing the people they mistreat,

Does it work in the modern era? Can you give some examples?

Thank you for bringing that point up. That's very interesting. If what you say is correct and doesn't require any correction, then that would be a loophole which is there to be exploited and allow big business to completely exploit people.

I'm not an anti-capitalist by any means, but I definitely think that the system needs to ensure checks and balances are in place to protect people. With globalism becoming more prevalent and with more major companies making their mark on countries it's even more important to reevaluate our laws, because an international company may find it easier to circumvent national practices which apply to native businesses.

Well, pretty much everyone who works in London will either not be able to get to work or be covering for someone who can't.

Can't see that myself. Anyone still intending to vote for Jerry will most likely echo it

They do it at those times for maximum impact.

The prison officers took action recently which was deemed unlawful by the courts however I work in a prison at have seen first hand the huge cut in numbers of staff, the inability to retain staff, the marked increased violence toward staff and other inmates, the rise in illegal drugs, the rise in self harm and suicides....despite going through all the 'correct' protocol to highlight this, nothing was done and it was clear that serious events were (and have) unfolded.
Sometimes for safety and protection of staff and service users there seems no other avenue.

Yes, obviously, max impact ( he's not been on tv for a while ). The Southern rail strikes are continuing, because they affect workers in London, where (i'm told) there are still jobs ......

Not at all.

I live and work in London and use trains/Tube regularly, it just depends on where you live or work. It's only Southern Trains that are on strike, so those who basically come from South of London (outside TFL areas) are affected.

Some good points here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-...b_4743724.html

No, some are to do with unreasonable staff cuts and some are to do with large amounts of pay being withheld.
And the reason you don't hear about Amazon warehouse staff going on strike is because most don't work their for more than 2 years so, thanks to the coalition they could just be sacked with no right to a tribunal.

But there must be people where you work who can't get in on strike days, do you just let their work pile up?

Not forgetting Southern Rail. Corbyn's attitude isn't likely to effect his standing with the public.

I work in many places, but yes there have been a few grumbles/rants from people who are arriving late or have much longer commutes; surprisingly few who don't get in though. For the most part, it's just like when people are off sick or on holiday, other people manage or if possible, work is done from home.

I would imagine that you see more direct travel related issues, living in South London; I dare say that roads and TFL are much busier during peak hours??

I'm more in the South West trains area so no extra traffic. Public transport is lighter because so many people can't get in.

I would just like to say that I totally agree with the right to strike, except when anybody actually does it.

Are all these strikes mostly in the public or private sector?

100% this.

Because Corbyn.

A mix of both, but mostly the latter, thanks to the wonders of privatisation.

With all the people saying the strikes are Labour's fault for not calling the unions off, is that an admission that the Tories need Labour to do their job for them? Or do people think that what Labour really need to do in order to improve their relations with the working class is to tell them "please stop striking and just do whatever the rich businessmen tell you to."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38357582

Just goes to show that sometimes unions are too busy pretending to be a political party and don't focus on their members.

It cannot be easy for them not having a puppet Labour Party in power. No wonder Corbyn is a favourite of theirs.

Because Labour's USP post 1974 , was being able to control the unions - but it proved totally incapable of controlling the hard left militants in 1979. That meant voters seeing a different answer was needed, and that it involved destroying militant union power.

Today, we have the same hard left unions that backed Corbyn to be leader, fermenting http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...ries-c0hm3r3sh the same political strikes that they promised they would when he became leader - to bring the government down. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ase-chaos.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ripple-UK.html
https://www.swp.org.uk/sites/all/fil...l%20200416.pdf

Their problem is that they have now been recorded saying the reason behind the strikes is subversion and insurrection . That leaves the door open for the government to act against the militants if it can find a legal way It also leaves Corbyn being forced to denounce political strikes , with no rational explanation, or side with them .

And its also beginning to raise questions in some key unions about why they are led by assorted Trotskyites, and communists, intent on a revolutionary political agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-rival
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38347947
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n..._in_politics_/

Corbyn, if Cameron was leader, would be left a bleeding wreck by this. Its better than sectumsempra as offensive spells go. It remains to be seen if May and Conservative MPs can make the blame for strikes stick where it belongs , and whether Corbyn nails himself- by trying to avoid condemning his own supporters, who share his views.

There is a theory the strikes are organised to "bring down the government".

So I ask... are these strikes going to make you more or less likely to vote Labour?

I'm all for bringing the government down if it's done through the ballot box. If the current shower are shown up for the incompetent sack of brown smelly stuff they are in the process then all the better!

No theory. A quote from the RMT chairman.

It would make me far less likely to vote labour, especially whilst Corbyn (who is just a union puppet) is leader.