Strike!

[Awesome Wells]

That's the point and actually a reality for both people who are pro union and anti

Please stop this trolling.

Noone is trolling, grow up.

 

[butchersapron]

Striking now will be seen as deliberately disruptive in a climate already hostile to the unions.

When did you see the media ever support any sort of strike at any time? Your point is what's moot here.

 

[J Ed]

Noone is trolling, grow up.

I felt slightly guilty for calling you a patronising twat, thanks for absolving me (and then some) of that

 

[brogdale]

Striking now will be seen as deliberately disruptive in a climate already hostile to the unions.

You sound as though you've never had to withdraw your own labour in strike action. Or, if you have, not really reflected on what you and your comrades were attempting to effect.

 

[Supine]

If it were 'unannounced' how come the BBC were reporting it yesterday?

I didn't see it. And it wasnt mentioned on the local news travel section on bbc this morning.

 

[comrade spurski]

At the start of the summer holidays? They will cop a ton of flak for that!

anyone giving them flak has no right to complain about their own work injustices then. they are striking in order to put pressure on the employer therefore they must strike at a time that is most effective in order to put the most amount of pressure on them...anyone who doesn't grasp this simple fact is either anti union or stupid

 

[butchersapron]

anyone giving them flak has no right to complain about their own work injustices then. they are striking in order to put pressure on the employer therefore they must strike at a time that is most effective in order to put the most amount of pressure on them...anyone who doesn't grasp this simple fact is either anti union or stupid

It's something we often see on here tbh - a) people not understanding the point is to cause disruption and b) thinking that all that counts (whether in terms of winning the strike or wider) is how the strike is presented in the media. Time after time.

 

[brogdale]

I didn't see it. And it wasnt mentioned on the local news travel section on bbc this morning.

I'm sorry you didn't see it, but under present legislation it couldn't have been "unannounced", could it?

 

[redsquirrel]

It's something we often see on here tbh - a) people not understanding the point is to cause disruption and b) that all that counts (whether in terms of winning the strike or wider) is how the strike is presented in the media. Time after time.

And not just on U75, I've had union members make similar points to me, unfortunately.

 

[nino_savatte]

Striking now will be seen as deliberately disruptive in a climate already hostile to the unions.

The whole point of going on strike is to cause disruption. I'm only surprised you haven't added the canard that "unions are outdated".

 

[Awesome Wells]

I felt slightly guilty for calling you a patronising twat, thanks for absolving me (and then some) of that

I don't think you know what trolling is. Talking on the subject at hand is not trolling.

 

[Awesome Wells]

The whole point of going on strike is to cause disruption. I'm only surprised you haven't added the canard that "unions are outdated".

why would i do that?

 

[Awesome Wells]

You sound as though you've never had to withdraw your own labour in strike action. Or, if you have, not really reflected on what you and your comrades were attempting to effect.

And why do you say that?

 

[Awesome Wells]

anyone giving them flak has no right to complain about their own work injustices then. they are striking in order to put pressure on the employer therefore they must strike at a time that is most effective in order to put the most amount of pressure on them...anyone who doesn't grasp this simple fact is either anti union or stupid

You seem to have inferred that I dont support the cause of the PCS staff. Please provide some evidence to support that assertion, if that is what you indeed think. If it isn't, i've really no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[belboid]

And why do you say that?

because of the drivel you come out?

 

[brogdale]

And why do you say that?

My perception on the basis of what you said. Was I wrong?

 

[killer b]

You seem to have inferred that I dont support the cause of the PCS staff. Please provide some evidence to support that assertion, if that is what you indeed think. If it isn't, i've really no idea what you are trying to say.

There was two options, anti union or stupid. I guess you're column B.

 

[Awesome Wells]

My perception on the basis of what you said. Was I wrong?

I've never been a member of a union. Is that relevant? If you have a point in all of this could you get to it quicker.

 

[DotCommunist]

on this thread? really?

 

[Awesome Wells]

because of the drivel you come out?

because you're a twat?

 

[Awesome Wells]

There was two options, anti union or stupid. I guess you're column B.

What is stupid about not being in a union?

 

[killer b]

on this thread? really?

fair point.

 

[nino_savatte]

why would i do that?

I don't know, you tell me. You appear to have a problem with the central rationale for industrial action.

 

[belboid]

What is stupid about not being in a union?

reallly? wow. fuck off the thread then you scab

 

[Awesome Wells]

It's something we often see on here tbh - a) people not understanding the point is to cause disruption and b) that all that counts (whether in terms of winning the strike or wider) is how the strike is presented in the media. Time after time.

'we'?

What a piss poor little troupe you are. Brave class warriors, sticking it to the man by misrepresenting other people who aren't disagreeing with y ou on the internet so you can cary out your sad little cliquey crusade.

Get a life you pathetic cunt.

 

[Awesome Wells]

reallly? wow. fuck off the thread then you scab

i don't think you know what a scab is if you're calling me one. I don't work for the pasport office. Daft twat

 

[Awesome Wells]

I don't know, you tell me. You appear to have a problem with the central rationale for industrial action.

and you reason that on the basis of what?

 

[nino_savatte]

and you reason that on the basis of what?

You're not doing very well here, are you? Why do I say that? It's the standard of your reply and other others on this thread.

As this reply demonstrates, you have failed the grasp the concept of strike action and have taken a line that is not to dissimilar to a public that takes all of its views from the corrupt media.

Striking now will be seen as deliberately disruptive in a climate already hostile to the unions.

Perhaps we should just sign petitions? Perhaps we should just let the bosses fuck us over? Maybe we should just join hands and sing Kumbaya?

 

[8ball]

As this reply demonstrates, you have failed the grasp the concept of strike action and have taken a line that is not to dissimilar to a public that takes all of its views from the corrupt media.

If the public takes all of its views from the corrupt media then AW would be correct.

edit: though i can't figure what the public would think a rationale for a strike would be if it didn't cause any disruption...

 

[belboid]

i don't think you know what a scab is if you're calling me one. I don't work for the pasport office. Daft twat

you are proudly non-union, that makes you no better than a scab.