Southern Rail

[Libero]

Southern are also asking all the conductors to sign an NDA which restricts them being able to comment at all on the ongoing issues or take part in any further action in the future relating to staff changes if they are to receive their back pay over the last 6-12 months of which they are obviously entitled. Two sides to every story. Its horrendous the impact that is having on commuters and both sides need to sort it out but one side antagonising the other with impossible conditions is not going to help the situation.

Whilst I would be more than happy to condemn over zealous action by the unions involved, actually Southern as a company have just lost the plot and have no idea of how to manage any situations that involve industrial relations.

I would question their current position RE NDAs and obliging people to forfeit their right for future action in legal terms to be honest.

 

[Grays_1890]

IMO - This particular dispute is by design with the go ahead by the Government, this is intended to break the Union and remove Guards across the network. If you think this is necessary or not is beside the point its the underhand way it has been carried out. I know some are very pro Shareholder and anti union but regardless of that this dispute was orchestrated from the start.

Look at the contract that Govia has on this line (compared to almost all others) I don't have the details now but it is a management contract rather than a Franchise meaning they are not on the hook in the same way for delays and missed trains.

You may think it is a good thing to smash the union but at least be aware that this is not primarily about changing working practice but an attack on one of the last powerful unions left.

No one is losing their job though, they are just being asked to take different role on the trains which includes selling tickets.

 

[scaramanga]

Unionism is collective action in the workplace to better worker's conditions and pay hold businesses/taxpayers to ransom in order to prop up a pointless job or overpay for simple work. It has nothing to do with the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

FTFY

 

[scaramanga]

IMO - This particular dispute is by design with the go ahead by the Government, this is intended to break the Union and remove Guards across the network. If you think this is necessary or not is beside the point its the underhand way it has been carried out. I know some are very pro Shareholder and anti union but regardless of that this dispute was orchestrated from the start.

Look at the contract that Govia has on this line (compared to almost all others) I don't have the details now but it is a management contract rather than a Franchise meaning they are not on the hook in the same way for delays and missed trains.

You may think it is a good thing to smash the union but at least be aware that this is not primarily about changing working practice but an attack on one of the last powerful unions left.

Is there a not-underhand way to break a union?

Surely any advance notice of such attempts would have just started this action sooner and would probably have intensified it.

I couldn't be happier that this is being done, my issue is that it's not going far enough. The government is shouldering the cost for this, the government should be training up new, non-unionised, guards and preparing to sack the ones on strike.

 

[scaramanga]

Southern are also asking all the conductors to sign an NDA which restricts them being able to comment at all on the ongoing issues or take part in any further action in the future relating to staff changes if they are to receive their back pay over the last 6-12 months of which they are obviously entitled. Two sides to every story. Its horrendous the impact that is having on commuters and both sides need to sort it out but one side antagonising the other with impossible conditions is not going to help the situation.

Whilst I would be more than happy to condemn over zealous action by the unions involved, actually Southern as a company have just lost the plot and have no idea of how to manage any situations that involve industrial relations.

I would question their current position RE NDAs and obliging people to forfeit their right for future action in legal terms to be honest.

It wouldn't be enforceable, it would just affect any payouts that might happen in the future. You can't ask someone to sign something that stops them doing or makes them do something they don't want to, you can only increase or decrease recompense over that matter.

 

[Libero]

It wouldn't be enforceable, it would just affect any payouts that might happen in the future. You can't ask someone to sign something that stops them doing or makes them do something they don't want to, you can only increase or decrease recompense over that matter.

The fact they are being asked to sign this form is a highlighted example of just how stupid the people who run Southern are. Its a pointless exercise that does nothing to end the dispute and everything at furthering the issue.

My understanding is all the conductors are pretty much happy to accept the change in job role but most certainly won't accept the threat of not receiving pay owed to them for time worked if they take part in industrial action hence why the dispute has gone on even further. I don't see why anyone should have to accept that from an employer regardless of public/private sector, unionised or non unionised.

 

[r-u-s-x]

No one is losing their job though, they are just being asked to take different role on the trains which includes selling tickets.

Not going to get involved in the rights and wrongs of the negotiating position you either agree or disagree.

What I wanted to point out is,

The government gave Govia a contract ( fairly unique to them) that means they are not profit orientated in this line. They get a management fee, this means that GOVIA are more insulated to strike action than others who are given a Franchise.

Govia then changed a working practice that the knew would cause a dispute and then engaged with the Unions in a manner that would lead to a strike.

There will be opinion on the fact that this Union is too militant or not but the way GOVIA engaged in this the strike was inevitable. Based upon the Governments response I think they are complicit in this. In essence it appears that the ongoing strike action is being used to increase public displeasure on the Union.

I don't want this to get into the ins and outs of the Union as that is a no win situation as people will be cemented to their view. But I wholeheartedly believe that this whole episode has been engineered (like the junior Dr). What I think is a little off is the disregard for the commuters but I guess they think in the long run it is worth the battle.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

They can all do one

No doubt your view of them is completely reciprocated.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

FTFY

This is bordering on crankdom Scara, ha, ha ,ha.

 

[Libero]

FTFY

You are wrong on all levels with your attitude to this imo. I am not left wing in any aspect whoever unions are at times a vital part of the workplace and both sides should be sensible and maintain a good working relationship in order to further the ends of the company and the employees.

Whatever you might think about those people who do jobs in a unionised environment, they are trying to earn a living and provide much like you and the alternative to their current working conditions could involve many of them having to sign on and add to the unemployment levels which doesn't really benefit anybody long term does it?

 

[scaramanga]

The fact they are being asked to sign this form is a highlighted example of just how stupid the people who run Southern are. Its a pointless exercise that does nothing to end the dispute and everything at furthering the issue.

My understanding is all the conductors are pretty much happy to accept the change in job role but most certainly won't accept the threat of not receiving pay owed to them for time worked if they take part in industrial action hence why the dispute has gone on even further. I don't see why anyone should have to accept that from an employer regardless of public/private sector, unionised or non unionised.

It's not stupid. Most people don't understand contract law - I don't and I deal with a lot of it.

Usually, having signed the agreement is enough to stop someone doing that the agreement asks them not to. Just look at the non-competitive employment clauses on the end of employment contracts. Case law says a maximum gap is around 3 months, yet people obey 6, 12, 18 or even 24 all the time.

 

[scaramanga]

You are wrong on all levels with your attitude to this imo. I am not left wing in any aspect whoever unions are at times a vital part of the workplace and both sides should be sensible and maintain a good working relationship in order to further the ends of the company and the employees.

Whatever you might think about those people who do jobs in a unionised environment, they are trying to earn a living and provide much like you and the alternative to their current working conditions could involve many of them having to sign on and add to the unemployment levels which doesn't really benefit anybody long term does it?

If they are the best person for their job, then they don't have to worry about their job security.

In terms of unions negotiating wages, people are paid what the market dictates is a worthwhile amount. If an employer is not paying enough or doesn't offer good enough conditions then they won't fill the roles they need to fill.

There is no good that can ever come of a trade union.

 

[Libero]

If they are the best person for their job, then they don't have to worry about their job security.

In terms of unions negotiating wages, people are paid what the market dictates is a worthwhile amount. If an employer is not paying enough or doesn't offer good enough conditions then they won't fill the roles they need to fill.

There is no good that can ever come of a trade union.

Totally disagree and if attitudes like your own in relation to that subject were less prevalent then unions probably wouldn't be required. Being militant or extremist on either side of the fence is still ultimately the same thing.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If they are the best person for their job, then they don't have to worry about their job security.

In terms of unions negotiating wages, people are paid what the market dictates is a worthwhile amount. If an employer is not paying enough or doesn't offer good enough conditions then they won't fill the roles they need to fill.

There is no good that can ever come of a trade union.

I don't believe that the market knows best I believe a mixed economy is better than a completely free. I look east to the Nordics and Germany as a template for the economy and think this is better for society as a whole. I understand that you would look west (I think as I don't know of any completely free market democracies) to the US.

I get the impression that you are aware of counter arguments to your own view point but in this matter you either disregard them or disagree. You do tend to make your statements as a matter of fact rather than opinion, I don't believe that there is consensus in the field that your dogma is the correct one however.

 

[scaramanga]

Totally disagree and if attitudes like your own in relation to that subject were less prevalent then unions probably wouldn't be required. Being militant or extremist on either side of the fence is still ultimately the same thing.

Why shouldn't market forces dictate the price of labour? It works perfectly well for everything else.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't believe that the market knows best I believe a mixed economy is better than a completely free. I look east to the Nordics and Germany as a template for the economy and think this is better for society as a whole. I understand that you would look west (I think as I don't know of any completely free market democracies) to the US.

I get the impression that you are aware of counter arguments to your own view point but in this matter you either disregard them or disagree. You do tend to make your statements as a matter of fact rather than opinion, I don't believe that there is consensus in the field that your dogma is the correct one however.

I think that the theory of using market forces to set labour rates is a perfectly sound one, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument why that wouldn't work.

We have yet to see a labour market that is left free of meddling and interfering, but there is no reason to suggest one set up that way would not be at least as good as the Scandinavian model you prefer (although there are so many differences to our economies that it's incredibly difficult to suggest anything that works for one would work for the other).

 

[r-u-s-x]

I think that the theory of using market forces to set labour rates is a perfectly sound one, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument why that wouldn't work.

We have yet to see a labour market that is left free of meddling and interfering, but there is no reason to suggest one set up that way would not be at least as good as the Scandinavian model you prefer (although there are so many differences to our economies that it's incredibly difficult to suggest anything that works for one would work for the other).

Is there a western democracy that you can point to that is close to your ideal? As I said I would have thought Texas and some of the southern states would be the closest, could this not be used as an indication of the positives and negatives that this type of economy would bring? people often use Russia as an example of why communism does not work but as far as I am aware there has never been a major communist economy but this does not mean we can not use their experience in judging if a communist state is possible / desirable.

I thin Unions are both necessary and desirable (text book examples) and there are many instances where they are also beneficial to the company when done right. The problems arise when instead of working together (owners and Union) they work against each other. I don't think there are many instances of working in harmony in the UK, this may be a sociological thing or it just has not been tired. I read an article in the Economist a number of years ago stating that this is how it has worked in Germany, with Union participation on the board. it meant that during times of substantial growth the unions actual suppressed wages as this was beneficial in the long term, but likewise there was no fall in conditions during leaner times.

 

[Libero]

Why shouldn't market forces dictate the price of labour? It works perfectly well for everything else.

Market forces can still dictate the price of labour with or without a union, they just get a little helping hand to a point that is acceptable to both parties as opposed to one side. I don't really understand why you have an issue with people managing to squeeze more money out of a company for their wages?

It amounts to the normal, forward thinking attitude of trying get as much money as you can to better yourself but it sounds like you would like an underclass that you could lord over and earning what you feel they should earn although why you feel it is your business or why you are even interested what unionised industries pay considering you don't work within them is beyond me.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

This is the last stand of the unions in the rail industry, in the next few years all rail workers will be on new contracts to reflect the modern workplace and then when they strike will just be sacked, they can go down the work centre and get a job as a supermarket worker or something else befitting their skills or lack off. Waste of space southern workers, except the large amount who are happy to except the conditions because they understand they need their job.

 

[scaramanga]

Market forces can still dictate the price of labour with or without a union, they just get a little helping hand to a point that is acceptable to both parties as opposed to one side. I don't really understand why you have an issue with people managing to squeeze more money out of a company for their wages?

That's how market pricing works. It comes to the price that is acceptable to both sides.

If you introduce a union then you're not getting the equilibrium price because you're loading the power to one side.

It amounts to the normal, forward thinking attitude of trying get as much money as you can to better yourself but it sounds like you would like an underclass that you could lord over and earning what you feel they should earn although why you feel it is your business or why you are even interested what unionised industries pay considering you don't work within them is beyond me.

I have a vested interest because I'm a customer of unionised industries and I'm a tax payer. They not only cost me more in monetary terms, but worse than that, they've stolen my time.