Do You Support The Bus Drivers - Yes Or No

[nelwd]

Ahead of the inevitable statement from both sides later today about how both sides have the support of the public I thought it would be interesting to see which side really do.

Straight forward yes or no, there are plenty of other threads to debate the issue in.

[Amadeus]

This is going to be a slightly one sided poll...

[WTF]

I pay tax so i must be?

[nelwd]

This is going to be a slightly one sided poll...

My idea was to try and make it as fair as possible. Any ideas as to how to make it less one sided?

[homarus]

How about a brief statement as to why you voted a particular way ?

I voted yes even though I agree they are paid too much, reason being that they originally agreed to cuts as long as management took th same hit but were laughed out of the room .

 

If cuts must be made they have to be fair and equitable and involve all not just those that the self styled ruling elect have chosen .

[Celt]

Yes, for the same reasons as Homarus, plus the fact that Government can seemingly rip up a Contract of Employment and start again as and when it suits them.

[immortalpuppet]

Its the 21st Century not the 80's.

 

I do think they they have a point of principle if they are being "forced" to re-sign contracts, although where I am we have 3 or 4 different contracts in place for doing the same job, each with their own protected rights from a past era, strangely enough some people are being paid for lunch hours and some are not. Change to work contracts are inevitable and I don't see the problem with having new and old contracts working along side. I fecking hate unions that think its ok to offer a service and then use that as leverage for strike action, its like divorcing parents using the kids against each other. Complete power trip and totally unnecessary in this day and age in my opinion. There are more less draconian ways of making a point.

[WTF]

Its the 21st Century not the 80's.

 

I do think they they have a point of principle if they are being "forced" to re-sign contracts, although where I am we have 3 or 4 different contracts in place for doing the same job, each with their own protected rights from a past era, strangely enough some people are being paid for lunch hours and some are not. Change to work contracts are inevitable and I don't see the problem with having new and old contracts working along side. I fecking hate unions that think its ok to offer a service and then use that as leverage for strike action, its like divorcing parents using the kids against each other. Complete power trip and totally unnecessary in this day and age in my opinion. There are more less draconian ways of making a point.

 

i don't have a problem with different contracts for the same job, but existing contracts should be left till they expire. New contracts should be different, it worked ok for the police housing allowance?

[IOMRS97]

What is the point of having a contract in the first place if one side can chose to ignore it? Strange how savings are always made from the bottom tier in any organisation...

[fred w]

Different gov dept's are setting about it different ways dccl/bus vannin a frontal confict

the dsc by farming out their home care and residental workers to the 3rd sector

the other dept's have yet to show their hands but basically it's attack the terms and conditions of their

workforce

the probelm here is the policy has undermined the industrial relations system put in place by the government and sets an example th other businnes here they can do the same as many have already done so

this is going to come back and bite the government and employers as the trust of the employer/ employeerelationship is undermined/destroyed

[Albert Tatlock]

This a complex matter, not as simple as picking one side to support.

 

There are major issues on both sides of this dispute, from incompetent managers to overpaid bus drivers and even incompetent spendthrift MHK departmental heads. Then of course there are those from history guilty of creating this mess.

 

The government are going to have to revisit ALL contracts of employment IMO. They should be doing it across all levels including their own T&Cs, but most importantly removing levels of management where currently across government/CS/PS 1 in 4 employees is HEO grade (manager grade) or above.

[dilligaf]

Different gov dept's are setting about it different ways dccl/bus vannin a frontal confict

the dsc by farming out their home care and residental workers to the 3rd sector

the other dept's have yet to show their hands but basically it's attack the terms and conditions of their

workforce

the probelm here is the policy has undermined the industrial relations system put in place by the government and sets an example th other businnes here they can do the same as many have already done so

this is going to come back and bite the government and employers as the trust of the employer/ employeerelationship is undermined/destroyed

 

The government are not setting an example to others, they are just doing what most, if not all employers have to do when change is needed. Change is most certainly needed with the present cash situation and those "workers" who get paid loads for doing not a lot will always be the first to face the real world, regardless of who they are employed by.

[Lonan3]

Given the limited options in the poll, I have to vote 'yes.' That is based on the same reasoning that the likes of Homarus have declared above - that if cuts are to be made within a department, they have to be made across the board and not restricted to those at the foot of the operation.

My only serious complaint is that the tactics emloyed by the union have been extremely naive. Going straight to strike action when negotiations have broken down is rather like droping a nuclear bomb when the possibility still exists that sanctions might be effective. An initial 'work to rule' would, in my view, have been an effective first step that might well have helped to garner a little more support from the public - and targetting the school times (just about the only times when the buses are full and providing a well-used service) is, in my opinion, a serious tactical error.

Even though I support the principles that they're standing up for, I have serious doubts about the intelligence of the leaders of the action.

[GD4ELI]

It's important to show that the government is in charge, and for once is actually governing.

[Lonan3]

It's important to show that the government is in charge, and for once is actually governing.

Even if it's both incompetent and wrong?