Hell has been relocated!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Friday, 19 June 2009

Total applause

I provide work, you provide pay. That’s the basis of the contract of employment.

I stop working, you don’t have to pay.

You stop paying, I don’t have to work.

Simple really….no?

Then consider this story.

As I repeatedly say, I am not a union basher (and in this case it looks like the unions are keeping this at arms length!), but I applaud Total and Jacobs.

My reasons for this are,

1) 51 jobs were lost. That requires statutory consultation. THAT is where you make your points as a collective workforce. If consultation wasn’t properly carried out you get an injunction and make them start again.

2) Wildcat strikes are illegal. You may agree with this, you may not. But that is the law. The workers here have a history of doing this. It is simply unacceptable.

3) Having illegally withdrawn labour the strikers are in breach of their contracts. There are legal and legitimate ways to organise industrial action. This is not one of them.

I’m sorry, but I have no sympathy for the workers, although I do for their families who will suffer as a result of this stupid macho dick-swinging behaviour (you can guarantee the vast majority will be blokes).

These workers have tried to run the business through mob rule. They threw their toys out of the pram, and guess what, no-one wanted to give them, them back…….


Fernandomando said...

Margaret Thatcher would be proud

humanresourcespufnstuf said...

It's interesting to read cases where there are actual consequences for dangerous judgement.

As a point of curiousity, are work slowdowns a union tactic in the U.K.?

HRD said...

@Fernando - You know it!

@Puf - Work to rule is a sure fire tactic here. And of course unofficial slowdowns and sabotage do occur......but far be it from me to suggest they are organised by the Unions......