On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:29:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and
survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be
payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
assisted with that.

Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any
firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get
massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.

Possibly, but the supplier would presumably have addressed that issue
in their contract.



The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been
bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore
didn't back it.

Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.

Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.

We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
world.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl