19 Mar 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoAs much as I hate it when there is a strike in public transit for some idiotic reason, your idea doesn't make any sense. Let alone all the legal objections (I'd guess you don't care much for them), sacking them all would make sure that there isn't just a day or two of trouble, but rather months and months while you try to replace the workers and train the replacements and even after that the service will still suffer because off all the lost experience in the organisation. In short, no one calls their bluff because it isn't a bluff, the workers do hold a lot of power in an organization.
Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoThere are laws protecting strikers in some cases, of course.
Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
But aside from that, I'm sure there are times where it's more efficient to negotiate with strikers than the fire them.
Where it's less efficient to negotiate them than to fire them and where the law does not protect them, they are fired. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers who went on strike. Major League baseball, when confronted with the threat of an Umpire strike, simply said that all strikers would be fired.
Where that tactic is legal and would work, it's employed.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoWhy do we put up with management that cause their employees to strike, thereby threatening vital public services? All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by BartsRonald Reagan called the bluff of the aircraft traffic controllers in the USA who went 'on strke' in the 80s, and replaced them overnight, despite the fact that they were far more skilled,and therefore more difficult to replace, than the waiters and waitresses now trying to hold BA to ransome.
As much as I hate it when there is a strike in public transit for some idiotic reason, your idea doesn't make any sense. Let alone all the legal objections (I'd guess you don't care much for them), sacking them all would make sure that there isn't just a day or two of trouble, but rather months and months while you try to replace the workers and train the repl ...[text shortened]... heir bluff because it isn't a bluff, the workers do hold a lot of power in an organization.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoI think a lot of people, in the U.S. and observers out here too, thought that what Ronald Reagan did to the aircraft traffic controllers was unjust. It was however a demonstration of political muscle that the aircraft traffic controllers were not equal to.
Ronald Reagan called the bluff of the aircraft traffic controllers in the USA who went 'on strke' in the 80s, and replaced them overnight, despite the fact that they were far more skilled,and therefore more difficult to replace, than the waiters and waitresses now trying to hold BA to ransome.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFJust or unjust my point was to remind Barts that the action worked even though it involved far more skilled staff,and therfore more difficult to replace, than those involved in the current dispute with BA.
I think a lot of people, in the U.S. and observers out here too, thought that what Ronald Reagan did to the aircraft traffic controllers was unjust. It was however a demonstration of political muscle that the aircraft traffic controllers were not equal to.
20 Mar 10
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think that anyone dissatisfied with his or her job should look for a better one, like 'Old Bill' in WW1 who advised his mates to look for a better shell-hole in which to shelter if they were not happy witn the one they were in.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoThat is one possibility. But of course people have collective bargaining rights too. So this means that people don't automatically have to walk away from dissatisfying situations. They can choose to try to make the situation better for themselves and for their successors. This would be another another possibility rather different from yours.
I think that anyone dissatisfied with his or her job should look for a better one...