Yep, I admire the sentiment. But as I said, my issue with this was that, in pursuit of this aim Crow was prepared to trample on anybody (including fellow TfL workers of his own and other unions) and generally hurt his fellow common man more with the manner of their strikes than he did "the bankers, politicians and the idle rich". That's the issue I have. I'm not sure there's any realistic alternative - certainly not one that I'm qualified to propose, but I don't think Crow and Co. went about it the right way at all. He alienated far too many people who should have been natural allies. Maybe the problem lies in the fact that other unions just simply aren't strong enough to counterbalance, I don't know, but I don't see why it was acceptable to damage small businesses in the way he did, all so that a small category of workers could enjoy a salary nearly double the average wage. That being said, his conviction, principled attitude and relentless pursuit of his stated aims was entirely admirable. He certainly didn't try to bullsh*t and said exactly what he meant, which immediately puts him above 99% of normal politicians at any rate.
Interesting that you talk about the negative impact on small businesses Rob - how exactly do you think small businesses in London are going to be impacted as soon as the government flogs off the soon to be empty ticket offices to Tesco, Waitrose et al? Local convenience stores, bakeries etc located near tube stations are going to take massive hit and many will go bust, all in the name of profit for the big guys. Far worse than having a day or two of inconvenience once every couple of years or so if you ask me.
And also, isn't it more a fact that the average wage is only half what these guys earn, rather than the other way round? In the public sector the tube workers are the only group of employees who have seen pay increase anywhere near in line with the increase in the cost of living, and that's down to Bob Crow fighting for what he believes is right. As a public sector worker myself I've had pay increases of zero, zero and one percent in the past three years whilst the cost of the weekly shop has rocketed. There's too much of a "race to the bottom" going on, and Bob wasn't prepared to stand for that for the people he represented - and bloody good on him I say
They are turning the transport system into a micro chipped machine that doesn`t need humans to sell tickets or drive the trains, without Bob Crow this will be much easier. Without the underground London can`t function so he had Boris by the nuts every time.
Munky - any thorough response to your post would be pointless because (a) broadly speaking I agree and (b) to an extent I'd be playing Devil's Advocate. All I can say is that yes, there are two ways of looking at it, but, rather than speaking in macro, I think engineering consistent pay rises when the rest of the country is suffering because you have the means to disrupt an entire economy is undeniably heavy handed and insensitive. I strongly believe it backfired and that the workers have suffered as a result. That the strikes went through without majority support highlights that actually these strikes were not strongly supported by ordinary TfL workers. That, to me, suggests Crow was a man who was not completely in touch with his own Union. I don't know the figures and economic cost of the changes to the ticket offices directly or indirectly so it would be difficult to have a reasoned debate on which cost more (though I do think you're under-estimating the toll these strikes take on everyone else). However, I would point out that recent collective action has successfully (and impressively) challenged LA decisions on these sort of matters. Similarly, the local government as well as the country's government is subject to democratic vote, and therefore answerable for their decisions to the local people. Bob Crow and his union are not. So you are not comparing like with like. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree "good on him" in standing up for the people he represented, but (a) I don't believe he fully represented the majority opinion (though I appreciate that is difficult to assess purely on strike voting) and (b) in doing so, he took advantage of other equally badly off people (as well as the rich, etc) who weren't fortunate enough to have the power of a union behind them and therefore he simply increased their suffering. Perhaps the issue is that other people deserve better representation? I would tend to agree, but that does not justify them being taken advantage of. An impressive man he was, deserving of hatred and vitriol he is not. But that does not mean that anyone should portray his actions as anything other than (admittedly justifiably - it was his job) entirely self-interested and without consideration for the long term damage to the reputation of his representees.
Would like to find out about this better off Britain for losing someone who stood up for what he believed in? Far too much apathy today and erosion of society morals and principles for my liking.
Bob Crow just stood up for his members.That was what they paid him to do,that's what he did.In that respect he was no different from the bank bosses who are paid (much more)to rip us all off for their and their shareholders benefit. The media seemed to treat him differently though thinking that it was unacceptable when he went on holiday.Rather different standards applied here I think.
Britain never prospered by clamouring for strikes at all opportunities. It is a throw back to Red Robbo at Leyland, Mad Hatter at Liverpool etc. and where was Britain? In the pooh every time. It is not that unions do not have a pole to play, but wages nowadays are decent with tube drivers on £40k which is not a bad gig and one that a hell of a lot of people would gladly swap for. I am also sick of hearing about Public Sector pensions and similarly related strikes and threatened strikes. Those of us in the Private Sector have seen our pots go backwards and taken pay cuts to carry on in employment. Tell that to most of the union bods and they just wouldn't get it (or care) and Crow was symptomatic of that line of thinking.
Sounds like you could do with a strong character to fight for your rights and get you out of this race for the bottom that I talk of then. It's only the bottom 90 odd percent who have seen their pay go backwards, those at the top are doing very nicely thanks - and stashing their cash in overseas tax havens, effectively sucking money out of our economy leaving the rest of us - ie us working class folk - to take the hit. Your final point is surely paradoxical - of course Bob Crow "got it" and that is why he fought so strongly for most of his life so that didn't happen to the people he represented. The difference is that he wasn't a slave to the shareholders, and he had a bargaining tool that as others have said had Boris Johnson and the rest of London by the nuts which gave him leverage to win his battles for his people. There haven't been as many tube strikes carried out as people seem to think, the vast majority are called off after negotiations have taken place, and I'm sure that if there was an alternative bargaining tool that he could have employed other than disrupting the ordinary folk of London then I'm certain he would have looked to use it.
I hear what you are saying Tony but to be honest if Bob Crow would have negotiated for us here in my company, we would all have been out of work three years ago. His bully boy tactics only work in semi-protected environments supported ultimately by the taxpayer, so effectively, I have paid twice. I agree with your point about the fat cats though - 100%
errr I work in the public sector no pay rises for 3 years followed by 1% capped for god knows how long 10% of my income goes to my pension (which i've now had to opt out to to survive!) and our pension scheme has been "rebooted" the new scheme is significantly worse than the old for many. So don't tar us all with the pension schemes that the priviliged few get
My last point on this is that my personal definition of socialism is the redistribution of wealth. In his life, Bob Crow both recognised and abhorred the massive increase in the pay divide between the haves and the have nots and he fought passionately to battle against this for his members. . And despite running the vitriol of many a commuter and the mainstream, right-wing media he succeeded - to a degree. The question is now what happens that he has gone, is there anyone who can fill his shoes or will the tube workers now also be jumping on the race to the bottom with the rest of us? We shall have to wait and see, but I've got a good idea what will happen.
Why? Have the bastards worked out a way to kick out new Widows and Orphans? Wouldn't surprise me - they are like the sick and disabled - weak and helpless and unable to defend themselves - the sort of people that this gang of Eton bully boys takes advantage of. Bankers are paid a kings ransom to make profits for the banks. How can you not make money when you can borrow cash at 0.5% and lend it out at 4% ( mortgages ), 6% ( business loans), 12% ( personal loans ) and 18% ( credit card debt ). Not enough. They break the law ( why are none of them doing time ), fix rates, cheat customers running up huge compensation bills and make bad investment decisions until the taxpayer has to bail them out and yet they still find ways of paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses. Bob Crow was paid a fraction of that. He was paid by his members to improve their pay and conditions and protect their jobs. He did that very well. Managers are paid to try and maintain profit, improve systems and efficiency and teach Bonkers Boris that the underground is not his toy Hornby set. The fact that Bob could do his job very well and the managers couldn't doesn't make Bob the villain of the piece and I just hope for the sake of the workers that a Mark 2 Bob is waiting in the wings to take over.
Good post. Though I would say that the BBC is "mainstream" media and definitely not right-wing! I also think the economy is picking up, which will help all of us, top (as ever) to bottom.
Yeah, fair do's - couldn't resist getting a little dig in there though, regardless of whether or not it was warranted
A bit like the Labour supporting Co-op have done do you mean? Its a shame they are going down the tubes! No more cheap loans for Labour!
Correct Warky - Bankers generally are so corrupt and incompetent that they can bring a bank, which only does mainstream personal banking, has a strong ethics policy and is supposed to be run for the good of its members, to its knees!! And then the same breed of executive managers expect to be paid millions of pounds in salary and bonuses to try and sort it out and expect to be paid those sums whether they succeed or not. As for the rest of the political twaddle could you please explain to me why, when the Labour and Cooperative Party was set up by the Coop and trade union movements to represent their members, you find it difficult to understand, or even unacceptable, for them to continue their financial support.
