Strike-related inanity

[graculus]

Since the posties have been on strike this week and are also going on strike again next week (go to ACAS, for crying out loud!) I present to you a summary of the inane comments that have been making me grind my teeth this week where the strike action is concerned:

1. But it's so inconvenient!

That would be the point. A strike that didn't inconvenience anyone would be useless, as the idea is to make management think 'oh, this isn't good, let's think again...'

2. What do they think they're doing, striking when the economy is in such a mess?

They think they're exercising their democratic right to strike, in keeping with the laws around how strikes can be called in this country. Which are pretty clear, thanks very much.

3. Sack them all and replace them with folks who are currently unemployed!!11!! (also seen in conjunction with 1.)

Erm, no. That would be illegal. As long as the unions have gone along with the clear conditions about legal strikes, it's completely against the law for Royal Mail to sack union members for taking strike action in keeping with that law.

4. They should be grateful to have a job at all!

This one is always entertaining - it's usually prefaced by 'you public sector types with your high wages and your cushy conditions, the rest of us are paying our bosses for the right to work!' (echoes of the 4 Yorkshiremen). That always makes me wonder, if working for the public sector is such a well-paid easy ride, then why are you lot dumb enough to do something else?

5. They should be made to work!!!11!! (thanks, temaris, I forgot that one!)

Slavery was outlawed in 1833, thanks very much. And unlike nursing etc. you can't even use the emotional blackmail that being a postman is a vocation and therefore you shouldn't strike, you hard-hearted so and so! :P


Have I missed any common inanities? Those seem to be the main three five (with sub-variations) knocking around... BTW, my understanding of the planned 'modernisation' RM management are looking for involves the concept that since they're 10% down in volume of stuff sent, they need 30% less staff to deal with the remainder.

Comments

Sorry for DP

[leethet.livejournal.com]

I'm not a fan of what I've seen of modern unions in general (in my experience they foster an incredible level of laziness, ineptitude, and entitlement). However, I've always supported the right to strike (I think it's essential that workers have these rights; I do support the concept of unions and what they've historically done) and been horrified at some of the treatment strikers are subject to. I know corporations (and governments) aren't doing as well as they were, but the real life losers are ALWAYS the workers, never the stockholders. Even if they get concessions, it's always less than what they had before - and these aren't rich people striking; they're regular working people. People forget that when there's a strike on, the company will always put out misleading "information" about how well they treat their workers. We've had a couple of big strikes in my region (Supermarket workers [who, I noted when I talked to several of them, actually had no idea why they were striking. As a newsperson I knew better than they did] and an aerospace firm) and in the end they didn't really win; they still ended up worse off than before.