When should we sidestep 1200 strikers holding us to ransom?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 28 Apr 2008, 08:13

Adam1 wrote:Vortex - isn't this strike action a perfect example of the "Realpolitik" that you once told us is inevitable in the real world? I don't understand why you are so surprised by it now.

I'm not surprised by it - but I don't have to like it.

Post by **adam2** » 28 Apr 2008, 08:54

Vortex wrote:OK, so I am supposed to be perfectly happy when anyone with 'leverage' and a 'valid cause' turn outs the lights, stops the trains running, cuts of the water supplies, closes down the hospitals etc?

There are probably MANY small groups who could cripple the country in pursuit of a pay rise etc.

If we recognise the right of these groups to strike at will then the country will grind to a halt - and stay that way. Shades of the 1970s.

Is that what you REALLY want?

In a vibrant economy everyone does well and so strikes etc are not needed - but in a downturn some will try to maintain their standard of living at the expense of others.

They may have the power to do this.
It may be a problem as old as time.
However it is not fair on the bulk of the population who have no special 'leverage'.

IMHO IF the present dispute DID "turn out the lights, stop the trains, turn off the water and close the hospitals" on a significant scale, then the government should intervene to avoid loss of life.
However at present the effects are not that serious and I dont believe that the government should interfere in a private sector industrial dispute; except in extreme circumstances.

As a last resort the government could declare a state of emergency or even martial law, at present we are a long, long away from the need for such extreme actions.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 28 Apr 2008, 09:49

Vortex wrote:OK, so I am supposed to be perfectly happy when anyone with 'leverage' and a 'valid cause' turn outs the lights, stops the trains running, cuts of the water supplies, closes down the hospitals etc?

There are probably MANY small groups who could cripple the country in pursuit of a pay rise etc.

If we recognise the right of these groups to strike at will then the country will grind to a halt - and stay that way. Shades of the 1970s.

Is that what you REALLY want?

In a vibrant economy everyone does well and so strikes etc are not needed - but in a downturn some will try to maintain their standard of living at the expense of others.

They may have the power to do this.
It may be a problem as old as time.
However it is not fair on the bulk of the population who have no special 'leverage'.

What do you suggest then Vortex? Slap the workers sorry arses in chains, and put guns to their heads??? I mean, how do you suggest getting an unhappy work force to work? It's no easy problem, and the labour market should ideally be the freest market around, or else you're heading for slavery aren't you?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 28 Apr 2008, 10:46

Let's be blunt here: There is a difference between an unhappy workforce, and a greedy workforce taking the piss.

Back in the 1970s the government introduced mandatory wage restraint - but it could NOT get the laws passed .... until lawyers were specifically excluded from the law. They wouldn't do the paperwork until they were given this special treatment.

The lawyers were taking the P ... and got away with it, totally unfairly.

The Grangemouth workers clearly believe they are in a similar situation ... and may indeed get away with it too.

However it does not make it right ... even if it is Realpolitik.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Apr 2008, 11:20

The Civil Service - no nepotism. Which planet was that?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Apr 2008, 11:40

amused_dude wrote: Today I cycled to the community allotment with my friend riding a bike I found in a skip last month.

Bloody excellent stuff

!

FWIW I think that HMG are 'standing by' and using this as a fortuitously-provided test of the UK's supply lines and/or resillience in the face of decreasing supplies.

Anwen · Post by **Anwen** » 28 Apr 2008, 12:01

stumuz wrote:But these short term JIT breakdowns which will become far mare regular will not affect us, because we on this forum are ready. If we are not, what have we been doing for the last 18 months?

Trying to make whatever preparations I can manage as a disabled single mum only able to work part time and thus on ?notmuch, because of course if one works part time hours one gets part time money, even if one is doing all the work of a full time job in that time. Which is certainly more prepared than the average person, but far from ready.

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 28 Apr 2008, 12:27

Maybe we should have a chat with these strikers about reality. Ie. anybody joining now would not retire for 40-50 years by which time your pension will be the least of your problems.

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 28 Apr 2008, 12:51

stumuz wrote:But these short term JIT breakdowns which will become far mare regular will not affect us, because we on this forum are ready. If we are not, what have we been doing for the last 18 months?

Anyone who is sitting back smugly now, thinking they are prepared almost certainly isn't.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 28 Apr 2008, 12:55

WolfattheDoor wrote:Maybe we should have a chat with these strikers about reality. Ie. anybody joining now would not retire for 40-50 years by which time your pension will be the least of your problems.

Sent to the Union Website:

I sympathise with the refinery workers at Grangemouth, but I think they need to consider this dispute in the terms of the future of the oil and gas industry, in the UK and worldwide. They must be aware the the North Sea is in permanent decline (since 1999) and as such the long term prospects for any UK refinery is not good. The world supply of oil is also likely to decline, and this will have profound implications for jobs and pensions for all of us, but refinery workers in particular. They may not be aware of the extent of this threat, and they would do well to review the evidence. Good resources can be found on the web, www.theoildrum.com is an excellent site, and www.powerswitch.org.uk has a good UK perspective. I think you would be doing your union members a great service if you were to review these or sites or similar resources as a matter of great urgency, as they could well affect your judgments in relation to the current dispute.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 28 Apr 2008, 13:32

Declining industries who are used to being 'essential' services notoriously will fight to the last to preserve their 'jobs for life'.

It happened with the coal industry, I fully expect it to happen with the oil industry.

These people won't go quietly - expect a repeat of the 1970s except with oil and gas instead of coal.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Apr 2008, 13:37

Yes but who will play Maggie to their Scargill and what's more what on earth will the said New Maggie propose replaces oil?? You can't have a nuke-powered car...

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 28 Apr 2008, 13:43

RenewableCandy wrote:Yes but who will play Maggie to their Scargill and what's more what on earth will the said New Maggie propose replaces oil?? You can't have a nuke-powered car...

There's no Maggie now, only a completely spineless and impenetrably dense Gordon Brown.

Man the lifeboats.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 Apr 2008, 00:08

You've got the analogy wrong. Grasping Gordon is the equivalent of the, at the time, rapidly outgoing Smiling Jim Callaghan and Our Dave is the incoming equivalent of Maggie. There doesn't seem to be anyone around deranged enough to be "Arthur", though.

Jim was a lot "nicer" than Gordon, but Dave is a lot "nicer" than Maggie.

Dave has got renewables in his sites and he's already suggested that we might be a lot happier with less "stuff".

peaky2 · Post by **peaky2** » 29 Apr 2008, 00:54

The question that really needs asking of course, is how can so few people in one place affect so much? Imagine that this was not a strike, but an explosion (Buncefield anyone?) that severely damaged Grangemouth and put it out of action for 6 months. Now who is "holding the country to ransom"? Would it be INEOS for not paying enough attention to safety? Would it be our government for being so negligent in creating such a deck of cards where a failure in one place has a huge ripple effect? Is it the voters for not looking at the real issues and electing these short-sighted, and uninformed politicians who serve the electorate's seeming fixation on tax cuts and saving money above anything?

If we had local CHP generation, a larger numbers of solar powered installations, a locally-based network of wind and wave energy farms, reduced demand for heating and travel, a planned extensive public transport system, an extensive quality cycle network, more local shops, better insulation, you get the picture - then you are a big part of the way to creating a resilient system that can cope with serious accidents or malfunction. But that seems to be the last kind of society our government wishes to promote or people want to vote for and so we end up with exactly what we've got.

It's not called centralised power generation for nothing