Possible 'Fuel Strike' and the Police State

[pqpq]

They won't get any public support because the media is so hostile to unions. The extent of the debate will be "It's inconvenient to me so therefore it's wrong"

[Still]

Originally Posted by Mullardman

What does the panel think?

The Con+Dem election manifesto promises to roll back NuLab's authoritarian state we're so much BS.

[Mescalito]

Originally Posted by pqpq

They won't get any public support because the media is so hostile to unions. The extent of the debate will be "It's inconvenient to me so therefore it's wrong"

You have it in one, pqpq. That's all the debate required or necessary.

Chris

[Michael L]

They wo't get any public support because they are holding the vast majority of the UK to ransom. No fuel for delivery trucks and Sainsbury's et al run out of food in about a day. Those who drive to work won't be able to do so. To those who'd expect people to take public transport instead? You're probably long retired and have no idea how hideous ths UK road network can be.

Sack the bastards and replace them with some of the 11000 Service Personnel being made redundant.

What this has to do with a Police State is something I'd like to see explained. Has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell.

[pqpq]

4,4965 posts, about half of them trolling. Do you not have anything better to do?

[Steven Toy]

I agree in part. I know a few truck drivers struggling to find work. Train them up in flammable substances and off they go.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Steven Toy

They are striking for the wrong reason and therefore will not receive the widespread public support they need.

A strike over fuel duty would be another matter.

Ah, striking over something you agree with is another matter.

I think people are discussing the principle of whether or not strike action should be allowed or suppressed here in the UK. What is your opinion on that as a matter of principle, Steven?

Originally Posted by Seeker_UK

A difficult one.

I agree but only if it doesn't affect the movement of food and other supplies around the country and emergency services. Otherwise, like with the fire brigade strikes, it is a national civil "emergency" and one of the things that the military are there to do is to provide support.

If food is affected then that's part of the impact of the strike that should focus the minds of people. Service personnel should only be used in a civil emergency and this isn't any such thing, the government making use of service personnel for this is basically very wrong.

I seriously believe those supporting the government position on this would take us back to Victorian times given the chance. I don't think some realise it, but that's how it is imo.

If fuel runs out and I can't fill my car I'll walk to work and back. It's 6 miles and it'll do me good.

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by Steven Toy

I disagree. Fuel tanker driver is one of those vital but not especially skilled jobs that is better paid already than nurses and teachers. That is called holding the country to ransom and rightly their action should be sidestepped.

Are you bonkers? Have you ever driven a truck? Tankers weigh a great deal and are potential bombs. We've had few blow ups. Don't you think that might be due to the professionalism of the truck drivers?

Without fuel for my car I would really be in the brown smelly stuff.

[russel]

Originally Posted by mmterror

I lived quite a comfortable lifestyle on £30k a year. Wasn't difficult. £30k is a lot of money.

You realise just how quite a massive sum that was when you don't have it all of a sudden.

People don't realise how lucky they are till it's all gone.

Trouble is most people try to base their lives and aspirations on those that earn 10x as much. Doesn't work.

I am guessing you do not have children, you would need a lot more than 30K a year for a comfortable lifestyle if you did.

[Steven Toy]

I think people should have the right to strike but the government and others equally have the right to make contingency plans to minimise the impact of their strike.

Because the effects of withdrawal of their labour are so immediate and universally devastating they could demand as a unified force to be paid more than doctors for what is essentially a semi-skilled job.

[nat8808]

Originally Posted by Mullardman

So, the Unite union tell us that employees of several fuel tanker firms have voted for possible strike action. Potentially inconvenient for us all, but their right.

Next, it seems that our government are ordering the training of serving members of HM Forces, (Who do not have the right to strike) to make fuel deliveries if necessary.

Now, I may be wrong, but this seems to me like a government using its power over the military, to defeat the democratic right of any worker to withdraw their labour.

By extension, any group of workers can be forced to accept any working conditions by recourse to ordered military intervention.

What does the panel think?

Mull

I think you can see it that way if you choose and it suits and supports your already held opinions..

Look at it another way; fuel is needed by many many insitutions and groups in order to prevent deaths and unnecessary destruction and danger.

It is almost of a military importance that these services and industries are kept going - emergency services, food distribution, police (non-emergency), energy services etc etc.

Whatever our views, surely we don't want people to die because ambulances have to economise on fuel, nor more riots because the streets are unpoliced, nor power stations shutting down because fuel can't be transported or nuclear power stations being unmanned because engineers can't get to work etc etc. The list could go on.

There are many lines of work where the right to strike (which I would defend) could cause real death and destruction. I think it is then perfectly acceptable to then try to keep things going despite the strike.

Still, you do not need an actual strike to cause disruption! All you need is rumour and talk of it and that will cause panic buying and its own disruption.

That is already happening and, in part, even this thread puts thoughts of panic buying in peoples minds..

Moreover, I think your reaction is an overreaction anyway - probably about 100 or a bit more MOD drivers to replace 2000+ striking drivers is NOT an attempt to bypass the right to strike!

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Steven Toy

I think people should have the right to strike but the government and others equally have the right to make contingency plans to minimise the impact of their strike.

Contingency plans that include Service personnel is for civil emergencies only, extending the use of Service personnel for this action undermines the right to strike.

You either support the principle that workers have at least some rights or you support the notion the employer is able to walk all over the worker...ie back to Victorian times. It's as simple.

Which is it?

This has nothing to do with personal inconvenience as that is small-minded at best.

[Steven Toy]

I support the basic right to withdraw labour. You can't force people to work as that would be slavery. However the government can make contingency plans as they see fit and in the national interest. Either that or the tanker drivers will be demanding salaries of 100+k per year.

[Bob McC]

http://www.jobisjob.co.uk/tanker-driver/jobs

Can't find one over £30K a year and most are way below, around £10 an hour.

[Bob McC]

Originally Posted by Brian

Contingency plans that include Service personnel is for civil emergencies only, extending the use of Service personnel for this action undermines the right to strike.

You either support the principle that workers have at least some rights or you support the notion the employer is able to walk all over the worker...ie back to Victorian times. It's as simple.

Which is it?

This has nothing to do with personal inconvenience as that is small-minded at best.

What "right" to strike? It doesn't exist in the UK
http://labourlist.org/2011/06/what-i...ght-to-strike/