I don't want to rehearse all the previous discussion - I am clearly as entrenched as you and continuing to throw grenades at each other when we should be planning the Christmas truce football match seems pointless.
So agree to disagree by all means but "decent tube drivers" as opposed to what?
"He hasn’t said that young men are committing violent crime because Doctor Who has become a woman"
No that's pretty much exactly what he said.
"In recent years we have seen Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, Luke Skywalker, the Equalizer all replaced by women, and men are left with the Krays and Tommy Shelby," the MP for Don Valley says. "Is there any wonder we are seeing so many young men committing crime?"
Left with the Krays?!
Marcus Rashford Brian Cox Daniel Radcliffe Ed Sheeran Harry Styles ???
And if the focus is just on TV and film
Idris Elba Ralph Fiennes Anthony Hopkins Gary Oldman Shaun Evans
Oh and if he can cite the Krays let's not forget Jack Warner as George Dixon.
Still I'm sure that particular brain fart sounded good to him.
A very stretched budget that, even after being torn apart by chancellor Osborne, was delivering year on year savings. And that was hit by the removal of the operating grant, a continued freeze on fares and an ambitious plan to turn the operating loss into a profit in four years (well, that was the plan in 2018). Many countries see their public transport, particularly in their capital city, as providing a social service and subsidise it accordingly. Why not here I wonder?
So putting the argument on it's head.
How would acceptance by the RMT of the new shift patterns/working practices have a long-term positive impact on low paid London workers? Over and above, say, funding public transport properly.
I'm not sure that those impacted by the changes would regard them as relatively minor to be honest impacting, as they do, the fabled work/life balance and, in some cases, a person's ability to continue in their current role (once we consider the impact of changing shift patterns on child care, etc). Indeed they, and their colleagues, regard the issue as important enough to vote for industrial action. I'm not sure that a TU which said, "It's only a small number of our members objecting so the working practice changes can be left to management to change unremarked" would survive for very long.
I'm also struggling to find any recent example of TU objections to automated ticket barriers (which of course have to be manned anyway in case of emergency) or automatic doors on trains (except of course where the introduction of which has led employers to try to remove the role of the guard on a train with the consequent compromising of passenger safety). Got a citation or two?
This is not the 70's and the RMT are not, in my view, holding the country to ransom. To suggest otherwise does seem a little disingenuous.
These are fair points but I fail to understand why you believe it is the RMT membership who should resolve them.
If TfL is under-funded (which of course it is) then perhaps addressing that point is the responsibility of others rather than a TU. Even if you feel TfL are doing a stand up job in the face of extremely difficult circumstances, should not THEIR efforts to resolve the funding issue be focused on increasing the subsidy (let's not forget, the government cut funding for TfL by £700m a year and yet despite that TfL reduced their operating deficit, with the assistance of all the employees, from £900m per annum to about £200m p.a. Then covid hit and whilst the government predicted a 30% drop in passengers there was, over a prolonged period, a 90% drop).
If the workers who use the tube are underpaid then either their employers should be shamed or legislated into fixing that or they should unionise and help fix it for themselves (both potential solutions there offer a greater longer term benefit to those people than a TU not protecting its own members by taking a few days' strike action).
Like others I just feel you have the wrong target for your ire no matter how justified your motives may be.
OK noted that you have a handle on the nature of the dispute.
Noted too your call for RMT members to roll over "for the greater good".
And finally, after you have raised the issue in such an emotive manner and failed to really address any of the points the less abusive people on the thread have made trying to tease out of you why you think we should all (well at least the tube drivers) worsen our own lot because other workers are even worse off (and not just financially), noted too that you no longer wish to debate.
I think I've tried my best to be civil and I think I have raised some counter arguments worthy of consideration. I have less patience than some of the more respected people on here, so you drop out of this one and I will allow myself the indulgence of not taking anything you say in future with any seriousness.
I'm inclined to the view that giving away the right to collective bargaining is a major step backwards in terms of both labour relations and human rights leading, as I believe it would, to the atrophying of the TU movement with subsequent (predictable IMO) reductions in standards of working conditions, individual worker's rights as well, of course, in pay and other "rewards" packages.
I have no doubt that certain elements of our society would love to see TUs become little more than a combination of the CAB and pro bono lawyers. Whilst this is, as you imply, a very important part of the role TUs play it is not all they can do, and should be allowed to continue to do, for their members.
Your faith in legislation does not cut it for me I'm afraid. Progress on things like minimum wage (or alternatives such as guaranteed basic income) has, at least in this country, been particularly slow. Indeed it is perhaps instructive that the Scandinavian countries, who regularly seem to reach the top of things like the quality of life index, have no legislation surrounding minimum wage but allow wage levels to be set via ........... collective bargaining. I don't have your faith that working standards would be enshrined in law were it not for the past (present and probably future) actions of organisations like TUs - the evidence of history remains too powerful.
I do find the way you couch your alternatives somewhat weighted so perhaps you could answer the question. What, do you think, this dispute is specifically about?
So in order not to temporarily inconvenience "the little guy" you want the RMT (and only the RMT) to ignore their obligation to the membership as they see it to protect a reasonable work/life balance. You also want, also so as not to cause a short-term difficulty to "the little guy", some of the RMT members (just the tube drivers) to make their own lives worse in the long term.
I don't think it is in the best interests of the people you profess to be concerned about for the rest of us to allow our own working conditions to suffer. That does sound like the race to the bottom that others have mentioned.
Why don't we help "the little guy" get unionised and help them in their own struggle to improve their lot (whether that be pay, conditions, contract of employment, etc)?
The thing is that Trades Unions were set up, largely around industries, specialisms, etc - particular groups of workers if you will, to protect their members' interests and give those workers a "voice".
You have couched your argument very much as if the RMT want to "stick it to the man". I suggest that is a long way from the truth. The RMT, as is their stated aim, want to protect jobs and conditions for their members. As others have already remarked, withdrawal of labour is seen by all TUs - including the RMT - as an action of last resort and usually only enacted where negotiations have completely broken down (the threat of strike action is another matter altogether of course).
Do the RMT and their members care about "the little guy"? Of course they do. Is it the fault of the RMT membership that significant numbers of people working in London are forced into low paid employment? No, clearly not.
Why is it beholden upon that particular group (the TU) to take account of other workers' (unionised or not) interests? If this is a requirement then repealing the laws surrounding secondary strikes seems the obvious way forward so that other workers can show solidarity with their colleagues and help drive the wider social reforms this country needs.