| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Killer Unions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM (841 Views) | |
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 01:12 PM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
These people will strike, they know that such actions could/would/will put lives at risk. For what? For a one percentage increase in wages. These are the very people who find themselves claiming they sit on the moral high ground. . Basic without shift allowances etc. etc. factored in. Is it right that with only 13% saying yes that a Union can demand that members strike, withdraw their labour, and put those that have no alternatives at risk. Surely the risk is high enough already? Time for a "no strike clause" to be placed in such contracts, perhaps. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Affa | Jan 22 2015, 04:58 PM Post #81 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Turd! |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 22 2015, 06:47 PM Post #82 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think that post ^ with its defence of using misleading words and its repeat refusal to answer a key raised point says so much about how seriously we should treat the OP file under . . . . . . . |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 04:18 PM Post #83 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What question? Seems to be you and others are fixated on a single word, namely "demand" which has little bearing on the fundamental question which I repeated a number of times. So is 13% sufficient authority to claim a mandate? |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 23 2015, 05:21 PM Post #84 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An essential public service is what it says on the tin [essential-public-service], its not a product for sale, its not in competition, and its not manufactured in order to sell and make a profit, it is something we have simply got to have, like our armed forces. Here below is a list of skills shortages from the governments "Shortage Occupation List", meaning that immigrants and migrants are invited to apply for these jobs. >> 2217 Medical Radiographers, HPC registered diagnostic radiographer, HPC registered therapeutic radiographer, sonographer, specialist nurses working in neonatal intensive care units, nuclear medicine technologists, radiotherapy technologist, ST3, ST4, ST5 and ST6 trainees in paediatrics or anaesthetics, SAS staff doctors in paediatrics or anaesthetics, consultants in paediatrics or anaesthetics, non-consultant, non-training doctors in the specialty obstetrics and gynaecology And so the list goes on You are correct of course that market forces prevail to a degree in health provision, in so much as lots of people are competing for our health professionals, we in this country for example have not been able to fill all our medical posts with home grown talent for 50 years, and we still cant, without immigrants our NHS would cease to function. The problem with you people on the right of politics, is that you want it both ways, you want to drive down wages, terms and conditions in the NHS, but you do not like the fact that we still continue to pull in immigrants to fill the unfilled posts - which way do you want it. ? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 23 2015, 06:13 PM Post #85 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There were the points I raised 2 days ago against your OP and yet you decided to seek to divert attention away from them going on about demand. So can you or cannot answer the point that you are arguing for a cartel to be allowed to exploit? "- the Employer is operating as a cartel in a monopolistic position. You would and I believe have screamed blue murder if a monopoly was allowed to unfettered set financial conditions that dominated your life. Yet you argue for this for some of the lowest paid hard working people in our society. - If as such a monopoly you have an Independent Review mechanism to avoid such issues then you have two choices in life. Either accept its recommendations or be a complete shit. As for the 13% that's just a red herring. Most of those that did vote voted for a strike. Also worth reading what the Union has to say on the matter: http://www.unison.org.uk/at-work/health-care/key-issues/nhs-pay/what-is-the-issue/" |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:32 PM Jul 11