Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Mar '10 13:27
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
  2. 19 Mar '10 13:31
    If you sack all personnel, who is going to do the work?
  3. 19 Mar '10 13:35
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
    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 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.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Mar '10 13:47
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services.
    If the services are 'vital' maybe the workers should be paid more. It's well worth looking into that. The facts of each case are different.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Mar '10 14:11
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
    There are laws protecting strikers in some cases, of course.

    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.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    19 Mar '10 16:15
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
    Why 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.
  7. 19 Mar '10 16:25
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.
    In the interest of clarity, who is threatening strike, or is there a current strike?
  8. 20 Mar '10 12:11
    Originally posted by Barts
    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.
    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.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Mar '10 12:17
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    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.
    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.
  10. 20 Mar '10 12:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    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.
    Just 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.
  11. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    20 Mar '10 12:41
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    Just 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.
    Why do you hate ordinary workers so much?
  12. 20 Mar '10 12:47
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I 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.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Mar '10 12:54
    Although I have not been keeping close tabs on this story, I think the cabin crew's claim seems just. I think the poor industrial relations at B.A. have a lot to do with management's handling of the negotiation process.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 Mar '10 12:58
    Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
    I think that anyone dissatisfied with his or her job should look for a better one...
    That 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.
  15. 20 Mar '10 13:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Why do you hate ordinary workers so much?
    Hate? You seem to have a problem.