E10 Rifle wrote:

QUOTE:
I'm not sure I like this 'soft touch' talk: would you be as comfortable describing ill-treated private sector workforces as a 'soft touch'.

Fair point. Maybe not the most felictous phrase - I'm not wedded to it by any means. But you do see my larger point, right?

I put "outsiders" in inverted commas deliberately. I meant an outsider to this particular dispute, though I knew you'd have an interest in it. I support secondary action, so I don't see "outsider" as a bad thing.

I put this up because I thought it was interesting. It's one where there's a series of pulls each way. For instance the Monbiot-style left makes much of big corporations having power over governments. Here we have a union supporting (albeit as their second choice) a big corporation remaining as such.

Thing is, the corporations (plural) taking control from the existing corporation (singular) are likely to have just as much - if not more - collective sway over government as a single private corporation. Yer jolly local small trader isn't going to be in the running to take over such concerns.

Anyway, here's some quite good news on the tubes: http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=110978

I don't accept that they will have as much sway over the government. Of course, they're likely to form an industry umbrella group which isn't exactly going to be full of socialists, but they still have to agree among themselves before trying to extort corporate welfare.

Or do you mean that New Labour will give into them anyway? That's quite likely, indeed.

I'm with Tubby. Why would three companies competing companies have *more* influence over policy than a single monopolist? That doesn't follow at all.

It does look like very good news, E10. I'm not so sure about the maintenance dispute, but I'm told that there was some linkage between the two, which put pressure on the RMT negotiaters to accept a lesser deal for maintenance workers.