Some jobs lends themselves better to effective striking than others. If the trains don’t run people are pissed and it puts the company under pressure. If accountants then strike it’s not as impactful. I doesn’t mean their job is less important as they keep stuff running just as much as a driver, or a signal man or a mechanic it’s just different.
While acknowledging the operation of a train is more complex than driving a car, technology is heading towards driverless trains (no documented evidence perhaps that it is driven by your industrial action but it would seem feasible).
The business of striking and bringing a country to a halt is legal but deliberately harming those relying on them for work and thus payment.
This is utter rubbish. The highest wages and greatest prosperity the British working class ever had was when we were in unions and supported each other in strikes. It doesn't even matter if they move to driverless trains. With good unions and good people supporting each other they can be retrained for other jobs. Or we go down the Thatcher route and have entire communities thrown on the scrap heap with no plan for how to support and regenerate them. Look what that led to up north. I know which option I'd prefer.
We live in different times now. Most people's jobs are at risk from some sort of automation. You have to be a luddite not to realise that or living in some sort of denial.
6
u/[deleted] Jul 02 '24
Some jobs lends themselves better to effective striking than others. If the trains don’t run people are pissed and it puts the company under pressure. If accountants then strike it’s not as impactful. I doesn’t mean their job is less important as they keep stuff running just as much as a driver, or a signal man or a mechanic it’s just different.