I hope the unions’ strike backfires (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
I hope the unions’ strike backfires
3:26pm Thursday 26th January 2012 in Readers' Letters
I SEE your article about the unions march on the SeaCity Museum (Daily Echo, January 20) and I can’t believe the unions’ comments.
Unison branch secretary Mike Tucker said: “Council staff feel very strongly about the money being spent (on the museum) while money is being taken from their wages. Since last summer people have linked the two.
“If the money hadn’t been borrowed for that the council’s position wouldn’t be so difficult.
They’re going to be paying considerable interest on that and it’s all coming from the same budget (as wages). We’ve seen it being built around us and it’s rubbing it in our face, the way the council is celebrating that building.”
What borrowed money? All money comes from grants and fundraising and none of this money could be used for pay for the public sector workers.
This is just one big political strike done to get the maximum coverage by the unions.
I don’t like the building but for years people in this city have been asking: “Why can Portsmouth build Gunwharf Quays? Why could they build the Spinnaker Tower?
What is our council doing to improve and develop this city?”
No matter your politics, look at the historic dockland in Portsmouth that brings in thousands of tourists, and so, with our history, could we. But we have to build up the tourist trade which would bring jobs to this city.
I'm just glad there’s a council willing to do something about it through the private sector and I hope this backfires on the unions in May and we vote for a Tory council.
WAYNE HOBSON, address supplied.
Comments(8)
loosehead
says...
9:17pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Linesman
says...
9:35am Fri 27 Jan 12
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
Shoong
says...
11:51am Fri 27 Jan 12
Linesman wrote:Wasn't this funded by grants & the like?
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
loosehead
says...
12:12pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Linesman wrote:But the4 unions insisted on the council raising the jobs to go to take more people out of wage cuts & then told their members not to accept it?
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
As you have said there are two sides but many of you seem to have forgotten the unions part as agent provocateur in this dispute Unite have gone out of their way not to participate in constructive negotiations just turn up agree with the council & Unison then tell their members to vote no.
As the above article has said & Shoong this build was funded by grants & fund raising & now £200.000 has been won in grants to help run it so where oh where is there any mention of making people redundant or cutting wages to fund this project?
Linesman
says...
10:04am Sat 28 Jan 12
Shoong wrote:Do you honestly believe that there is not a Council element to this project?
Linesman wrote:Wasn't this funded by grants & the like?
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
Linesman
says...
10:13am Sat 28 Jan 12
loosehead wrote:Agent provocateur?
Linesman wrote:But the4 unions insisted on the council raising the jobs to go to take more people out of wage cuts & then told their members not to accept it?
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
As you have said there are two sides but many of you seem to have forgotten the unions part as agent provocateur in this dispute Unite have gone out of their way not to participate in constructive negotiations just turn up agree with the council & Unison then tell their members to vote no.
As the above article has said & Shoong this build was funded by grants & fund raising & now £200.000 has been won in grants to help run it so where oh where is there any mention of making people redundant or cutting wages to fund this project?
Now that is an interesting word to use.
The Collins English Dictionary gives the following definition:-
"a person employed by the authorities to tempt people to commit illegal acts and so bediscredited or punished (French)."
I think that, inadvertantly, you are correct.
I think that Royston Smith took the action that he did, with the intention of provoking a reaction, which is what he got.
Now, people like yourself, blame the Unions and their membership, but conveniently forget that it was not the Union that 'threw the first punch.'
loosehead
says...
9:08pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Linesman wrote:The unions were in talks with the council, the council put in 5 proposals the union said no to them all.
loosehead wrote:Agent provocateur?
Linesman wrote:But the4 unions insisted on the council raising the jobs to go to take more people out of wage cuts & then told their members not to accept it?
loosehead wrote:There are two sides to every argument and every dispute.
About time someone questioned the unions actions in the letter page
I imagine that if anyone who is now blaming the Union for their proposed strike were in a position where they found that they were to be made unemployed, by and organisation that said they had to cut costs, but were still planning to spend many millions on a museum, they would also consider going on strike.
As you have said there are two sides but many of you seem to have forgotten the unions part as agent provocateur in this dispute Unite have gone out of their way not to participate in constructive negotiations just turn up agree with the council & Unison then tell their members to vote no.
As the above article has said & Shoong this build was funded by grants & fund raising & now £200.000 has been won in grants to help run it so where oh where is there any mention of making people redundant or cutting wages to fund this project?
Now that is an interesting word to use.
The Collins English Dictionary gives the following definition:-
"a person employed by the authorities to tempt people to commit illegal acts and so bediscredited or punished (French)."
I think that, inadvertantly, you are correct.
I think that Royston Smith took the action that he did, with the intention of provoking a reaction, which is what he got.
Now, people like yourself, blame the Unions and their membership, but conveniently forget that it was not the Union that 'threw the first punch.'
The council asked the unions for ideas they said it was up to the council to put forward ideas not the unions.
The council said okay we'll proceed with the last Proposal & write & tell our employees .
The unions had written already to the local Labour party telling them they were going to help bring & end to a Tory council.
They also wrote letters to their members telling them of what action the unions were going to take over the letters way before the thirty days legal requirement by the council.
we had ACAS where the unions refused to talk.We had the latest proposal where Unison agreed to put it to their members & agreed to the terms & unite agreed at the talks.
We then had Unite walking away from those talks & immediately breaking the agreement & telling their members to vote no!
So yes this was a dispute wanted by one of the parties but it wasn't the council they just wanted to secure as many jobs as possible it was both unions originally & now it's all down to Unite
Shoong says...
3:43pm Thu 26 Jan 12
DE, upgrade your web servers no to prevent an overload!