John Cuthber

Imagine not realising that most of those benefits were bargained for- typically as an alternative to a pay rise. Imagine not understanding that maternity pay is government mandated. Imagine not realising that, when the company loses money, they can lay off staff. Imagine thinking that you get paid for doing nothing while on strike. Oh; I see you don't need to.

It's more complex than you seem to think I work for the government, but the government is not my employer. My employer is part of a government department but they are "middle men". The actual budget is set by the treasury. So the negotiations are about how to share about the money that the government has already capped and announced the cap. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-pay-remit-guidance-202122 The pay remit is set (pretty much "in stone" before formal pay talks begin. Most of the people involved in those pay talks are not employees of the union, but of the department. There's some flexibility in trying to get the department to go to treasury to plead for more money. So like I said Did it not occur to you to find out how public sector pay works before trying to tell us what's wrong with it? Well, they usually work for these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_services_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_fire_and_rescue_services And I suspect the negotiation arrangements are similar to those where I work with something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire_Fire_and_Rescue acting as the employer and one or more of the local authorities setting pay.

OK. I'm a TU member and a representative. And I work for the government. And the Union of which I'm a member, and for which I'm a rep does not negotiate with government even though most of the members work for the government. I'm fairly sure that's true of the other unions that represent staff in the public sector. You may remember recent criticism of Grant Shapps for his refusal to get involved in negotiations. Why are you trying to argue about something of which you are clearly ignorant? A while ago, there fire service went on strike for more pay. The government (not their employer, btw), rather stupidly, pointed out that for every job in the fire service they typically have 10 applicants or some such, so the people looking for that work clearly think it's well enough paid already. Anyone with a brain pointed out that, if that's the criterion, then the MPS should get a pay cut. But the point remains; the jobs are seriously oversubscribed. If there are a lot more applicants than jobs then you will certainly need "something extra" to get you in. But that's nothing to do with Union membership, is it? So your observation is irrelevant. It's also true that the fire service has very high levels of union membership. But you seem to miss something. That's because they choose to join a union. They aren't forced to, it's just sensible for them to do so. If you believe that illegal activity is taking place you should report it to the relevant enforcing authority.

What?

OK. One guy says "Unions do [some action]." I point out unions don't do [some of the actions they are widely said to do]. You say that means I don't think that unions do [ some third thing], even though I pretty much said that they do. Fundamentally, Unions choose member, they don't choose employers. So, no, they don't target the government as a "cash cow" because- guess what- the government doesn't pay unions. Unions will target angry workers. If governments want to make life difficult for unions, all they have to do is treat their staff well.

Would you take on a job based on that contract? In particular, would you do it given that the employer is known to want to cut your wages and remove employment rights?

Yes and no. You can't sack them for striking. But, if that strike leads to customers taking their business elsewhere then you can lay off staff because you no longer have work for them. That also applies if you want to shed staff for other reasons. If, for example, the postal workers are on strike, that doesn't mean that other courier companies like TNT or FedEx are unable to do the work. In what way do you think that unions are "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"? Re.

And once again... All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. In most countries, the government is the biggest single employer. Of course it has an advantage in the labour market. Even more so in some situations, for example the NHS is by far the biggest employer of doctors and nursing staff. Did I? Where?

In Germany the business owners listen to the unions before there's a strike . In the UK they wait until afterwards. The difference isn't the Unions.

That's not the truth is it? It wasn't the miners who picked the fight; it was the government. And they did it because they wanted to deprive workers of any means to resist their dictatorship. "You can't fight city hall". The miners were doomed when Maggie decided she didn't want them. As Bob Crow pointed out, "If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose".

The other, much more common, form of self harm is the one where management give too much money to themselves and the shareholders. This obviously undermines the company. For the good of the companies, the workers have to prevent this. They do so via unions and, if needs be, strikes. It is sometimes necessary to remind managers that, without the workforce, nothing happens. That's a fine argument, right up until you realise that the people profiteering from work are generally wealthy enough to avoid paying taxes. Do you understand that the majority of the public actually support better pay for public sector workers? https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-public-support-for-nursing-staff-going-on-strike-builds-210722 You say that as if it's somehow a problem. Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. Do you see this; Many people are not good negotiators doctors and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. in the same light? A union will do well if the people they represent do well. Bankrupting an employer will not meet that goal. The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

You do realise, don't you that: A Union doesn't go on strike A Union does not call for a strike A Union doesn't get a pay rise? The Union is the means by which the workers may organise do those things.

They can. Businesses make people redundant every day. They also sack them for other reason. Go and ask your boss for a 10% pay rise. Then you will find out who is in a position of power. I presume you can't answer my previous question. The train operating companies wish to get their staff to work essentially longer hours at a worse rate of pay. The government is spinning this as "they want more money". The actual issue is that the travelling public will be less safe because those running the system will be more tired (and, in the slightly longer run, the job will be done by people who weren't able to get a better job; pay peanuts; get monkeys...). So the strikers are defending themselves against savage wage cuts and preserving safety of the travelling public so... are they using strikes against the public? But , because of inflation, they no longer have the same real-terms income. Why do you think they should accept a reduction in their standard of living? In particular, why should they accept it when the people "running" the businesses are typically getting paid huge bonuses? Do you not realise that's the asymmetry of power I mentioned earlier? How many of those are still going? here's a hint "All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. " From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_Kingdom

A bit of careful googling will let you know quite a lot about the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT#Preparation

Why do you want to increase the extent to which essential workers are exploited? To address the fundamental inequality of the "employer/ employee" relationship. If you think there are no consequences then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it. No; it's common sense. In what ways?

Not nearly as concerned as we should be about a government that's seeking to provoke it.

Wiki disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral#/media/File:Six_Quadrilaterals.svg.

OK, show us how.

Yes. That's why I'd do it.

I won't- I promise.

So, you do realise that the Right are just less well informed, don't you? Maybe you should listen to those who learned to think and to express those thoughts. Just "thinking" isn't good enough. You need to study how the world really works. You need evidence.

Russia invaded another country. Are you saying they can be trusted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboni_pile Or balance some KCl in a dish exposed to the air against a counterweight. As the humidity (+ temperature) changes the stuff will gain + lose moisture and will tip back and to. In principle, you can use that motion to drive a mechanical clock. Good luck KCl would be a poor choice for this (unless you live somewhere with a humidity that's about 85%). Magnesium nitrate would be better near 50% RH This is a better bet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos_clock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_spectroscopy

Lightning involves currents of something like 10,000 amps (it's very variable) The circuit breakers at your fuse box probably limit the current your house can draw to less than (about) 100 amps. So the lightning only draws the same as about 100 houses (if they were all "maxed out") probably more like 1000 houses most of the time. However, if you want to compare power, you have to take the voltage into account, and lightning has a much higher voltage- something like a million times higher than that supplied to your house. A lightning strike would power about a billion households. But not for long. If you try to measure very very small currents say, less than 10^-15 of an amp, you don't get a steady current. The effect of each electron passing becomes "noticeable". If the average current is only 1000 electrons per second, then the variability is quite large- about 32 electrons per second on average. This is one source of "noise" in electronic systems.