Comments
Varolyn t1_j6nj6c6 wrote
When did BBC become so anti-Union?
Curiousgimea t1_j6nwgz8 wrote
State media protects the state no matter how independent they claim to be
-Optimal-Reflection- t1_j6o4md3 wrote
The BBC isn't state media.
Moranic t1_j6orr8u wrote
Parliament controls their funding, they're not directly controlled but when the government controls the purse you're never truly independent.
-Optimal-Reflection- t1_j6nkt8o wrote
What about this do you feel suggests the BBC has a view on the situation?
wart365 t1_j6nlmoj wrote
A more neutral view would posit that daily life is already disrupted, thus forcing a protest. Repeating the PM's statement is a useless assessment when the PM is useless.
-Optimal-Reflection- t1_j6nnfy4 wrote
Reporting what the government says about something is "pro" them? Lol.
You missed the union leaders' quotes in the article? Or did you just not bother reading it?
Varolyn t1_j6nm3xu wrote
Both the title and the tone of the article present an anti-union bias, even if that tone is subtle.
-Optimal-Reflection- t1_j6nnixp wrote
Yes - the quote comes from the government. Reporting what they've said isn't exactly anti union, is it? Lol.
Edit: downvote away, chaps, what a weird take on impartial reporting
wart365 t1_j6nmdcc wrote
For those quick to compare this to the negated US strike from last year, Biden at least met railroaders halfway and they can still pull the rug out if they want. And in an ironic twist, America's conservatives were fully prepared for a total strike meltdown just to make Biden look bad, and now have such power (if only tenuously) to block a strike ban. America's threatened rail strike was also contained to freight, as American passenger RR workers lack the scheduling problems that prompted the (threatened) strike.
We already see Sunak's long-term strategy here anyway: as public services close more will be shifted to online-only. The article mentions this vis-a-vis education and healthcare but this will be forced more generally as transport closes. This will also permit outright firings and service closures which is his only real response to the strikes, as he has not postulated any way to resolve them otherwise and lacks the votes to do so.
Varolyn t1_j6npw5h wrote
Conservatives from both the House and Senate near unanimously voted to prevent the strike and force the deal through to the workers.
[deleted] t1_j6o5gi0 wrote
[deleted]
Varolyn t1_j6o6rye wrote
That contract that Biden negotiated and eventually forced on the railroad workers really wasn't that good. Go on r/railroading and they'll explain more. The "sick leave" that the workers got was a joke and was not what the union asked for. If Biden was really pro-union or pro railroad workers, he would've let them strike.
MrJenzie t1_j6o3lhc wrote
should have PAID THEM BETTER you tory cheap bastards
but then, they don't want a public service as it is
[deleted] t1_j6oi0bq wrote
[deleted]
autotldr t1_j6nkhzp wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
> Mass strike action on Wednesday will cause "Significant disruption", Downing Street has said.
> Workers from seven unions will be on strike on 1 February.
> The prime minister's official spokesman said: "We know that there will be significant disruption, given the scale of the strike action that is taking place tomorrow, and that will be very difficult for the public trying to go about their daily lives."We are upfront that this will disrupt people's lives and that's why we think negotiations rather than picket lines are the right approach.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: strike^#1 Union^#2 Work^#3 take^#4 action^#5
[deleted] t1_j6ntsqn wrote
[deleted]
BGAL7090 t1_j6nx2bi wrote
...He said, his voice dripping with sarcasm
kofisbootyos t1_j6njjaj wrote
Thats the point. Its also what happens when you push people to their limit after years of austerity.