m.a.n rules:
all due respect truckyboy what mine’s were there in wapping. do you mean the print workers ?
If he’s saying that the print unions and all the rest supported the miners in 1984 it didn’t happen.Which was the problem.In which case they shouldn’t have been surprised when Thatcher then went after them after defeating the NUM.Which was the elite Royal Navy and RAF combined of the Union movement in which even that couldn’t do solidarity itself when the Notts miners lost the plot and broke ranks.Although to be fair probably predictably when the TUC had already deserted them. 
workersliberty.org/story/201 … hed-unions
re the comments regarding strike pay, some years ago unite (aeeu as was ) ran a 35 hr week campaign . money was collected from all members and put into a fund . sites were selected to go on strike for a 35 hr week and the fund would subsidise the strikers ,therefor avoiding them being starved back to work . it worked !!! however , come future pay talks the 35hr week got sold for lump sum payments and/or better pay increases so the scheme died a death . there was (probably still is ) millions of pounds in a fund that is locked . the last I heard the union was trying to find to find a way to stop the treasury getting its hands on "a dormant " fund . the best laid plans of mice and men 
35 hour working week? Sounds bloody brilliant to me, but I know plenty of drivers who would think differently.
There will never be one size fits all for truck drivers, we need some sort of two tier system…
Tier 1 - The ‘traditional road hauliers’ AKA trampers. Basic 50 hour working week, overtime after 10 hours each day at a nice premium, plus parking money, plus night out money. Maximum 60 hours a week with opt out option.
Tier 2 - The day/night men. Basic 40 hour working week, overtime after 8 hours each day at a nice premium, plus meal allowances. Maximum 60 hours a week (inclusive of POA & breaks) with no opt out option.
Not that well thought through but something like that, up for discussion…
good idea we have to make a stand one day . what did we do when the wtd was introduced …nothing …same with cpc …nothing we get everything we deserve crap hours crap parking time to stand up for our industry but don’t hold your breath
rob22888:
35 hour working week? Sounds bloody brilliant to me, but I know plenty of drivers who would think differently.
There will never be one size fits all for truck drivers, we need some sort of two tier system…
Tier 1 - The ‘traditional road hauliers’ AKA trampers. Basic 50 hour working week, overtime after 10 hours each day at a nice premium, plus parking money, plus night out money. Maximum 60 hours a week with opt out option.
Tier 2 - The day/night men. Basic 40 hour working week, overtime after 8 hours each day at a nice premium, plus meal allowances. Maximum 60 hours a week (inclusive of POA & breaks) with no opt out option.
Not that well thought through but something like that, up for discussion…
That sounds ok from my pov.
Thing is though, it will NEVER work mate, reason being…it is too much like common sense and simplicity. 
They much prefer a complete hotchpotch and an over complicated cluster ■■■■ set of rules.
Carryfast:
. . . in which even that couldn’t do solidarity itself when the Notts miners lost the plot and broke ranks.
Scargill had already lost three national ballots in January 1982, October 1982 and March 1983. He couldn’t risk losing another one. In those three ballots only three areas voted for strike action, Yorkshire, Kent and Scotland, all other areas voted against. The strike was declared illegal in September 1984 through two cases brought by South Yorkshire and Derbyshire miners.
truckyboy:
This protest was advertised a while ago, its author nameless, and for a reason no doubt, but its a call to drivers to take action, no time, no place, just dont go to work that day…sorry, but it aint gonna work…the majority of drivers today need leadership, without leadership, they dont know what day it is, which is why theres so many moaning about conditions…if your not happy…move on, find a company who will look after you more than the one your with, its not that difficult, and sooner or later the low paid employers will have to up their game, or pack it in, thats the only choice you have, is to fight for your own rights and conditions. I have read a lot of posts, ive heard of drivers asking my company wants me to pay this, or that, to sign this or that, tell them to do one, get together in that company, then you have power, no company will sack the lot of you, if they do , theres other ways to deal with them, but at least, stand proud, and dont be bullied.
Once in a while there’s a post which is worth the time of day. But your words won’t matter a ■■■■, drivers will still take that job at £8hr for the first 55hrs, they will still moan and winge about facilities, t’s &c’s etc - and they will still prefer to come on here for a moan rather than organise within their own company to improve pay and conditions.
Drivers are their own worst enemy - and nothing will change!
the old timer:
The only way unions can raise large backing funds is by charging its members, so to get enough in a pot for unlimited strike funds may make workers turn there back from the union for the high union fees. Also full pay on strike , I know a lot of drivers would look for any excuse to down tools so that they got paid for doing nothing. more realistic would be campaign for an higher minimum wage that is a realistic living figure then everyone earns a decent wage and all companies start from a level playing field in an industry that the wage bill is approx. 30% of vehicle revenue in most sectors.
Perhaps a progressive, powerful-in-waiting Union might like to start raising money by implementing a low level of strike pay without raising union subs to begin with. This can be paid for by withholding the funding from the Labour party, who have yet to be fit for purpose in my lifetime. There are plenty of “middle of the road” workers (of whom I’m not one - I’m center right) who would not dream of joining any outfit taking a sub off me - that then donates to a party I don’t believe in. It’s like asking an Atheist to put £20 in the collection place at a friend’s Church wedding FFS.
Later, as the membership grows, and the NEC no longer sitting on their arses doing nothing but drawing their huge salaries - actually get to double up as “Fund Managers” in “peacetime” as it were, when they carefully put their member’s money to work, and become a financial institution rather than a donor to an obsolete political party that’s not done anything for them, other than get them ignored by the incumbent government of the day. Yep, that includes Blair’s “Tory Lite” New Labour, which won enough votes to get it over the line for a decade - by promising not to be “In the Union’s pockets any more”, along with a strategic dropping of Clause 4 of course. 
I don’t think there would be as much motivation for “downing tools on any excuse to get paid to do nothing” as for some of us - standing on a picket line in all weathers for even the same money as usual (full strike pay) - would come as a hardship to those workers with the cushiest jobs. They, would tend to be the more senior drivers set in their ways as well, that may well be the ringleaders that younger members look up to. The fact that the Tories have kept the minimum wage past two elections now - suggests they actually agree that it’s not a bad idea, and it will be kept over coming years. No need to pay Labour to lobby for it then.
Stanley Knife:
Carryfast:
. . . in which even that couldn’t do solidarity itself when the Notts miners lost the plot and broke ranks.
Scargill had already lost three national ballots in January 1982, October 1982 and March 1983. He couldn’t risk losing another one. In those three ballots only three areas voted for strike action, Yorkshire, Kent and Scotland, all other areas voted against. The strike was declared illegal in September 1984 through two cases brought by South Yorkshire and Derbyshire miners.
I’d guess that fits the definition of a breakdown in solidarity within the mining union/s.IE the Yorkshire/Scottish/Kent miners had the right to expect and take for granted secondary action in support of their case.Not the choice of only give us that support if you feel like it.Let alone to add insult to injury the TUC then abandoning them too.The result being where the union movement is now.Weak and borderline pointless.The only piece of karma in all that being that the UDM miners lost their jobs just like all the rest.
If the day ever comes when there’s a national all out strike by any trade, you can bet that the strikers will all be out of work within a few months, replaced by people brought in from cheaper countries.
Be careful what you wish for…
Carryfast:
Let alone to add insult to injury the TUC then abandoning them too.
It’s a moot point regarding what actually happened. Scargill says he never asked for their help as he didn’t trust their motives; the TUC say they couldn’t support a national strike without a national ballot.
newmercman:
If the day ever comes when there’s a national all out strike by any trade, you can bet that the strikers will all be out of work within a few months, replaced by people brought in from cheaper countries.
Be careful what you wish for…
Ironically that’s the contradiction in the Unions’ politcally driven policy in that they actually support that open door immigration policy. 
All of which could be easily sorted if the Labour Party eventually gets its act together and becomes a credible electable force of the Left.That being the realisation that the Socialist dream is finished and we need to get a grip on immigration.Together with the return of the right to take secondary action.
Stanley Knife:
Carryfast:
Let alone to add insult to injury the TUC then abandoning them too.
It’s a moot point regarding what actually happened. Scargill says he never asked for their help as he didn’t trust their motives; the TUC say they couldn’t support a national strike without a national ballot.
To be fair Scargill arguably had good reason to be fed up with the TUC.It was clear that the miners were being subjected to divide and rule tactics in the form of the government pretending that some jobs were safe and those miners then naively breaking ranks and failing to support those who’s jobs were under threat.With that situation being clear to the TUC.While,with few exceptions,the point is support of striking workers by others should be a given and without that automatic solidarity Unions become pointless.
Carryfast:
the point is support of striking workers by others should be a given and without that automatic solidarity Unions become pointless.
I don’t think I’ve ever read anything I disagree with more.
Blind secondary support for any strike whether the strikers are in the right or the wrong, really!!!
tachograph:
Carryfast:
the point is support of striking workers by others should be a given and without that automatic solidarity Unions become pointless.
I don’t think I’ve ever read anything I disagree with more.
Blind secondary support for any strike whether the strikers are in the right or the wrong, really!!!
As I said there are always exceptions to the rule and they are usually clear enough from the outset.With the definition of solidarity meaning the premise being on secondary action unless good reason can be shown otherwise which certainly doesn’t mean ‘blind support’.The 1984 miners strike clearly not being one of those exceptions.The result showing what happens when solidarity among union members breaks down.
Check out Mick McGahey’s statements in the final two paragraphs here.
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 540175.stm
Time has proven that Scargill, McGahey & co were right in their predictions and protestations, but when they couldn’t even carry their own members, through a national ballot, it leaves them on stoney ground when searching for others to blame.
newmercman:
If the day ever comes when there’s a national all out strike by any trade, you can bet that the strikers will all be out of work within a few months, replaced by people brought in from cheaper countries.
Be careful what you wish for…
Maybe the biggest lump of “Brexit voters” within the economy - are those very workers who fear their jobs going to johnny foreigner then?
And there was me thinking that it’s the “lack of actual full-paid full time jobs full stop” that was motivating us all.
I believe there wouldn’t be this agency economy (“gig economy”) that there is - if it were not for a whole army of in-work benefit claimants doubling up with others of their irk that fill out the masses of both agency worker AND full-time but on minimum wage worker too. That only leaves Self-employment for far too many of home-grown Brigts who, like myself - are finding good T&C jobs a bit thin on the ground of late.
Stanley Knife:
Carryfast:
Let alone to add insult to injury the TUC then abandoning them too.
It’s a moot point regarding what actually happened. Scargill says he never asked for their help as he didn’t trust their motives; the TUC say they couldn’t support a national strike without a national ballot.
The day that striking became illegal without the ballot and no secondary picketing - was the day the TUC should either have disbanded, or gone renegade - by moving it’s funds overseas, and then setting about the most strategic way to break the law in all strike-related actions.
Think about it: If it’s illegal to win, and you keep on playing as you were, then you’re either a mug deliberately throwing away member’s money OR already in the pockets of government, lying about being for the members when it’s clear you’re actually in the pockets of big business - like Blair.
The public let this happen - because the public face of striking is “this is a king-sized pain in the arse”.
Does anyone still “hoot if you support us” when they drive their private car past a picket line any more?
Stanley Knife:
Time has proven that Scargill, McGahey & co were right in their predictions and protestations, but when they couldn’t even carry their own members, through a national ballot, it leaves them on stoney ground when searching for others to blame.
Scargill and McGahey had both provided a clear and just case to the union movement ( in this case that being the TUC let alone the miners ) also supported in parliament by people like Skinner.That was realistically where their responsibility and remit ended.It was then up to the union memberships across the country in every sector to honour their responsibilities in answering that call.Who else could possibly be to blame other than the whole union movement,in the form of the TUC and rebel miners in general,who didn’t want to join the cause because of self interest in that case ?.It was a shameful example in the history of the union movement and the working class struggle.The end result being where we are today with calls for solidarity usually falling on deaf ears and the CBI etc then predictably doing as they please because they hold all the cards.
Winseer:
Think about it: If it’s illegal to win, and you keep on playing as you were, then you’re either a mug deliberately throwing away member’s money OR already in the pockets of government, lying about being for the members when it’s clear you’re actually in the pockets of big business - like Blair.
It seems clear that the TUC and the Labour Party needs to answer the inconvenient question,as to why have they gone along with an agenda,which has outlawed the right to strike,in the form of secondary action.While supposedly at the same time supposedly supporting an agenda of ‘workers rights’,in which the right to take secondary action is enshrined as part of that ‘right’.
Bearing in mind that it is still possible to outlaw secondary picketing while at the same time legalising secondary action.With the two things being mutually exclusive and a contradiction anyway.