... as Magnus Magnusson might say.
When the union embarks on a campaign, it has to see it through. Station staff - including some of LUL's lowest-paid grades - sacrificed two days' pay to act not just in their own interests, but in the interests of colleagues and passengers. Our union should respect that sacrifice and not settle for small beer.
That doesn't mean that we go on and on and on and on, never agreeing any compromise deals. But it does mean that we should go as far as our fighting capacities can take us.
But RMT has a bad habit of dipping its toes into the cold water of strike action, then running for cover. It's a bit like the opening sequence of the Monkees.
(It should be said that the woeful TSSA is too terrified to even look at the water, let alone get its little toes anywhere near the water's edge.)
"Come on, Tubeworker, examples please!" ... "So you reckon you've got a better way of doing it, eh?". Click here.
The latest yellow peril looks suspiciously like a "copy" and "paste" version of a management internal bulletin on the shorter Working Week, and the Negotiators again look to save face. Well its time to see who's who. The underlying feeling is dismay at the way this is going in the light of the recent SOLID STRIKES. My own feeling is that a challenge needs to be made to ther functional council, on top of a call for a NO vote. Some would say this is playing into management hands and showing a lack of unity, the basis of the union itself. I disagree it would send a clear message that the minority who are negotiating are not fully representing the views of the MAJORITY of the union. I am sure there will be dissent at this cop-out referendum and stalling to let the rosters come in, coupled with trying to put the onus for any deal made back on the members, not those who have negotiated it. So anyone looking to stand up, and speak up please do so, it would be shameful to sit by and let this go by unchallenged, as any future negotiations will be in these same negotiator/management hands, with probably the same outcomes, so who best to represent us but ourselves. I hope I have said what many are thinking.
I agree. And also, I think we should do away with full-time release for functional reps. If they had had to spend, say, half their time on duty on stations over the last year, they would have been more in touch with what members felt, and would have been more aware of the need to keep people informed.