Soldier z:
In my opinion the tanker drivers have already lost.
it’s bread and butter stuff to all three services.
They will find 1000 drivers without any trouble if required many of the lads will see it as a chance to get civvy driving experiance.
Says it all.A great opportunity for employers to impose army driver wages,terms and conditions throughout the fuel tanker sector of the road transport industry. At least until the east europeans undercut them for the job.
And minimum wage for everyone else in which case there won’t be enough money to pay for what’s left of the army anyway.
Soldier z:
In my opinion the tanker drivers have already lost.
it’s bread and butter stuff to all three services.
They will find 1000 drivers without any trouble if required many of the lads will see it as a chance to get civvy driving experiance.
Says it all.A great opportunity for employers to impose army driver wages,terms and conditions throughout the fuel tanker sector of the road transport industry. At least until the east europeans undercut them for the job.
And minimum wage for everyone else in which case there won’t be enough money to pay for what’s left of the army anyway.
I thought that this proposed strike wasn’t about wages but rather about the potential of tankers exploding left, right and centre all over the country because of Health and Safety innit■■?
If it comes to a showdown between Unite and the establishment it will probably turn out the same as all the other failed Union actions since Thatcher’s policies sent the country back to the 1920’s.If it’s a case of the army being involved (in whatever form) v workers the army will win,just as the police won during the miners strike and the strikers are just wasting their time and wages.
Take away all the bs about Afghanistan in which the Army,as usual,are just following the same suicidal orders as Russian conscripts did during the pre Yeltsin era,without question (there’s nothing heroic about that),what are you left with .
Which brings us back to the original question raised by the OP.The unions are wasting their time in trying to improve things when the country is effectively under martial law in one form or another,under force of unquestioning army/police,and that issue will need to be dealt with before they stand any chance whatsoever of being able to return the economy,and their members’ ability to bargain,to where things stood during the 1960’s and the pre Thatcher years.
The UK economy,as it stands at present,shows all the signs and results of being in the situation of being run by a dictatorship for the benefit of the government’s chosen few cronies dependent on their ability to buy influence and power at the highest levels.
The 1920’s? The miners strike? Russian conscripts before the Yeltsin era? What on earth has any of this got to do with the proposed industrial action by fuel drivers? (That’s a rhetorical question so please don’t bother answering it)
Martial law “in one form or another”? Martial law is martial law; it comes in one form, not any other - and there’s nothing vague about it! The British Army delivering fuel will not be martial law. It’s not martial law when they pick up bin bags or put out fires either - never has been!
Your comments about British forces “following suicidal orders without question” and the fact that you think “there’s nothing heroic about that”, shows how out of touch with actual reality you are. And quite frankly it’s downright silly and particularly offensive. No matter what these troops are asked to do, and regardless of what any of the population think, they took an oath for Queen and Country.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want an answer to the question.There’s a connection between all those issues and an army made up of those who follow all orders to the point of never refusing.
I don’t think that there’s anything in any oath for queen and country that would justify an order for the army to get involved in a civil dispute between a civilian employer and a civilian employee and I don’t think that there’s anything in the union’s plans that would risk fuel supplies to emergency services.Assuming that’s the case where’s the justification for anyone in the army not refusing the order .
Soldier z:
In my opinion the tanker drivers have already lost.
it’s bread and butter stuff to all three services.
They will find 1000 drivers without any trouble if required many of the lads will see it as a chance to get civvy driving experiance.
Says it all.A great opportunity for employers to impose army driver wages,terms and conditions throughout the fuel tanker sector of the road transport industry. At least until the east europeans undercut them for the job.
And minimum wage for everyone else in which case there won’t be enough money to pay for what’s left of the army anyway.
I thought that this proposed strike wasn’t about wages but rather about the potential of tankers exploding left, right and centre all over the country because of Health and Safety innit■■?
I think that’s the mistake that Unite has made in trying to concentrate the issue on something which they think wouldn’t be found offensive by the average Sun or Daily Mail reader instead of the defence of existing terms and conditions.
Whatever the actual reasons it’s obviously a lost cause anyway if the army are going to do their job if they decide to strike so why bother that’s my view of it.The union doesn’t seem to have thought this through.
Carryfast:
I think that’s the mistake that Unite has made in trying to concentrate the issue on something which they think wouldn’t be found offensive by the average Sun or Daily Mail reader instead of the defence of existing terms and conditions.
Whatever the actual reasons it’s obviously a lost cause anyway if the army are going to do their job if they decide to strike so why bother that’s my view of it.The union doesn’t seem to have thought this through.
Yes. Stop the bull manure and just reveal the real reason for the strike rather than hide behind H&S including a truck crash shown on video that has sod all to do with tanker drivers and Bunsfield in flames.
Carryfast:
I think that’s the mistake that Unite has made in trying to concentrate the issue on something which they think wouldn’t be found offensive by the average Sun or Daily Mail reader instead of the defence of existing terms and conditions.
Whatever the actual reasons it’s obviously a lost cause anyway if the army are going to do their job if they decide to strike so why bother that’s my view of it.The union doesn’t seem to have thought this through.
Yes. Stop the bull manure and just reveal the real reason for the strike rather than hide behind H&S including a truck crash shown on video that has sod all to do with tanker drivers and Bunsfield in flames.
What the heck is all that about?
I think they’re just trying to show that the job probably isn’t something that you’d want Ivanovic from Bucharest who just arrived a few weeks ago with his new exchange British licence and ADR saying that he’s happy to do the job for £5 per hour and anything else is a bonus,to be doing.
I admit that Unite have taken the wrong way forward in concentrating on the safety aspect of the dispute, it is transparently a attempt to garner public support, which will backfire.
As far as fighting a battle that is lost already because they cannot win whilst the armed forces are prepared to stand in, I am not sure that is the case.
I doubt that the armed forces can field enough personnel to deliver all fuel and will concentrate on emergency service supplies. Thus there will be a continuing shortage for the general public.
The strike will largely then succeed or fail on the publics’ perception of who is being intransigent.
As the gov’t (in the form of the employers) will no doubt have the support of the media it is likely that any public support will wane pretty quickly
The army etc are already fairly thinly spread and will be even more so whilst they are doing security work during the Olympics so should the strike continue for a long time I could see that gov’t/army may have to call in reservists etc to maintain the strength of the army in other fields etc.
I am also a bit surprised that there are those on here who constantly complain whenever unions are mentioned that they lack the will to fight for anyone nowadays but when a union leader comes along who is prepared to fight they are then eager to castigate the same union for fighting.
They justify this claim by citing the fact that the union is only prepared to fight for high profile workers but neglect to mention this is a fight that has only become so high profile because the gov’t is prepared to intervene in the name of keeping the emergency services supplied with fuel, to be honest do any of you think that the union would have attempted to deny the supply of fuel to fire fifghters/ ambulances etc?
Had it not been so nationally important then the fight would still have been there but would not have had
I can only assume that these people have in the past been let down in in a previous dispute ( which may or may not have been justified) or that they simply support the gov’t/bosses aspirations to encourage a race to the bottom until ultimately everyone is on the same wage even if it means everyone is on the minmum wage , in order to satisfy their own envy of those who are better off .
Some posts certainly have a taste of “sour grapes”
del949:
I admit that Unite have taken the wrong way forward in concentrating on the safety aspect of the dispute, it is transparently a attempt to garner public support, which will backfire.
As far as fighting a battle that is lost already because they cannot win whilst the armed forces are prepared to stand in, I am not sure that is the case.
I doubt that the armed forces can field enough personnel to deliver all fuel and will concentrate on emergency service supplies. Thus there will be a continuing shortage for the general public.
The strike will largely then succeed or fail on the publics’ perception of who is being intransigent.
As the gov’t (in the form of the employers) will no doubt have the support of the media it is likely that any public support will wane pretty quickly
The army etc are already fairly thinly spread and will be even more so whilst they are doing security work during the Olympics so should the strike continue for a long time I could see that gov’t/army may have to call in reservists etc to maintain the strength of the army in other fields etc.
I am also a bit surprised that there are those on here who constantly complain whenever unions are mentioned that they lack the will to fight for anyone nowadays but when a union leader comes along who is prepared to fight they are then eager to castigate the same union for fighting.
They justify this claim by citing the fact that the union is only prepared to fight for high profile workers but neglect to mention this is a fight that has only become so high profile because the gov’t is prepared to intervene in the name of keeping the emergency services supplied with fuel, to be honest do any of you think that the union would have attempted to deny the supply of fuel to fire fifghters/ ambulances etc?
Had it not been so nationally important then the fight would still have been there but would not have had
I can only assume that these people have in the past been let down in in a previous dispute ( which may or may not have been justified) or that they simply support the gov’t/bosses aspirations to encourage a race to the bottom until ultimately everyone is on the same wage even if it means everyone is on the minmum wage , in order to satisfy their own envy of those who are better off .
Some posts certainly have a taste of “sour grapes”
If it’s just the case that the government want the involvement of the army to guarantee emergency service supplies and nothing more then I’d change my comments to reflect that.I’d say in that case that it’s probably worth the union trying it first to make sure then just call an indefinite strike not a few days here and a few there and the government’s and the army’s motives would be far less contentious than the issue which the OP raised at the start.
But that doesn’t seem to add up considering the government’s track record in the use of force to break strikes in previous examples like the miners strike and the fact that no responsible union would want to stop emergency service supplies anyway .
My attitude,towards the public and those workers who don’t seem to understand that the unions have to make a stand somewhere,in order to reverse the downward trend throughout the country towards incomes and terms and conditions, should be a hardening of the union position just emphasising the disparity which is being built up between the government’s chosen few like bankers etc and the hypocricy of anyone who wants to continue defending that situation.Then just go for it and see what happens.They might just get a pleasant surprise when they find out that many people have really had enough and they might as well start here as anywhere with this group of workers in doing something about it.Just so long as they then don’t forget to keep the ball rolling if they win.
If it comes to a showdown between Unite and the establishment it will probably turn out the same as all the other failed Union actions since Thatcher’s policies sent the country back to the 1920’s.If it’s a case of the army being involved (in whatever form) v workers the army will win,just as the police won during the miners strike and the strikers are just wasting their time and wages.
Take away all the bs about Afghanistan in which the Army,as usual,are just following the same suicidal orders as Russian conscripts did during the pre Yeltsin era,without question (there’s nothing heroic about that),what are you left with .
Which brings us back to the original question raised by the OP.The unions are wasting their time in trying to improve things when the country is effectively under martial law in one form or another,under force of unquestioning army/police,and that issue will need to be dealt with before they stand any chance whatsoever of being able to return the economy,and their members’ ability to bargain,to where things stood during the 1960’s and the pre Thatcher years.
The UK economy,as it stands at present,shows all the signs and results of being in the situation of being run by a dictatorship for the benefit of the government’s chosen few cronies dependent on their ability to buy influence and power at the highest levels.
The 1920’s? The miners strike? Russian conscripts before the Yeltsin era? What on earth has any of this got to do with the proposed industrial action by fuel drivers? (That’s a rhetorical question so please don’t bother answering it)
Martial law “in one form or another”? Martial law is martial law; it comes in one form, not any other - and there’s nothing vague about it! The British Army delivering fuel will not be martial law. It’s not martial law when they pick up bin bags or put out fires either - never has been!
Your comments about British forces “following suicidal orders without question” and the fact that you think “there’s nothing heroic about that”, shows how out of touch with actual reality you are. And quite frankly it’s downright silly and particularly offensive. No matter what these troops are asked to do, and regardless of what any of the population think, they took an oath for Queen and Country.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want an answer to the question.There’s a connection between all those issues and an army made up of those who follow all orders to the point of never refusing.
I don’t think that there’s anything in any oath for queen and country that would justify an order for the army to get involved in a civil dispute between a civilian employer and a civilian employee and I don’t think that there’s anything in the union’s plans that would risk fuel supplies to emergency services.Assuming that’s the case where’s the justification for anyone in the army not refusing the order .
Because when you swear your oath you agree to obey all orders from your superiors
All soldiers must take an oath of allegiance upon joining the Army, a process known as attestation. Those who believe in God, and wish to swear by Him, use the following words:
I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me
HHmmmmm so your CO tells you to go jump in that tanker and deliver the fuel (long as ADR & HGV qualified) you do it
Has anybody noticed that BP has not been mentioned…maybe its because they are supplying all the fuel for the olympic village and transportation.
All you seem to see and hear is Esso and Shell.
Jet,Texaco or Total have not been mentioned either.
The Wincanton lads on Jet, Texaco and Total are having their terms and conditions drastically changed with the introduction of a “white fleet”. More hours, more shifts and worse terms and conditions.
They are not mentioned at all.
The press seem to be picking the companies they choose rather than reporting fairly.
Also the wages they band around are not a true reflection of the industry. Maybe for some driver with London waiting and lots of overtime may achieve it.
Its not going to be long before we are all paying £1-50 per litre and that wont be the fault of the tanker drivers…
Carryfast:
I think that’s the mistake that Unite has made in trying to concentrate the issue on something which they think wouldn’t be found offensive by the average Sun or Daily Mail reader instead of the defence of existing terms and conditions.
Whatever the actual reasons it’s obviously a lost cause anyway if the army are going to do their job if they decide to strike so why bother that’s my view of it.The union doesn’t seem to have thought this through.
Yes. Stop the bull manure and just reveal the real reason for the strike rather than hide behind H&S including a truck crash shown on video that has sod all to do with tanker drivers and Bunsfield in flames.
What the heck is all that about?
I think they’re just trying to show that the job probably isn’t something that you’d want Ivanovic from Bucharest who just arrived a few weeks ago with his new exchange British licence and ADR saying that he’s happy to do the job for £5 per hour and anything else is a bonus,to be doing.
On a serious note I’m sure the fuel company’s could come up with enough agency drivers to cover things rather than get the army involved.
Carryfast:
I think that’s the mistake that Unite has made in trying to concentrate the issue on something which they think wouldn’t be found offensive by the average Sun or Daily Mail reader instead of the defence of existing terms and conditions.
Whatever the actual reasons it’s obviously a lost cause anyway if the army are going to do their job if they decide to strike so why bother that’s my view of it.The union doesn’t seem to have thought this through.
Yes. Stop the bull manure and just reveal the real reason for the strike rather than hide behind H&S including a truck crash shown on video that has sod all to do with tanker drivers and Bunsfield in flames.
What the heck is all that about?
I think they’re just trying to show that the job probably isn’t something that you’d want Ivanovic from Bucharest who just arrived a few weeks ago with his new exchange British licence and ADR saying that he’s happy to do the job for £5 per hour and anything else is a bonus,to be doing.
On a serious note I’m sure the fuel company’s could come up with enough agency drivers to cover things rather than get the army involved.
The Army will be used to maintain essential supplies because they will obey orders. Many agency drivers, if you can get them trained up etc will not cross a picket line when push comes to shove.
taffytrucker:
All soldiers must take an oath of allegiance upon joining the Army, a process known as attestation. Those who believe in God, and wish to swear by Him, use the following words:
I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me
HHmmmmm so your CO tells you to go jump in that tanker and deliver the fuel (long as ADR & HGV qualified) you do it
So the union leadership have the sense to confirm that any action taken wouldn’t apply to essential services supplies.Which then removes any need for army involvement in a civilian industrial matter.
Don’t see anything in that oath that would stop me from refusing such an order,being that Unite aren’t an enemy of the Queen,and if I was in the military and was asked to cross a picket line in such circumstances (or follow the failed idea of walking or driving into a minefield to ‘fight’ the Taliban in Afghanistan,while the ‘Taliban’ can walk in at Dover to help add to the government’s pool of cheap labour) I’d refuse the order using this as an example as part of my reasons.
DonutUK:
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel very uneasy with the idea of the Army being used to support fuel companies in an industrial dispute?..
Yes I do feel uneasy at the Army being used in an Industrial dispute.
We do not - as yet - live in a Martial Law State. Although it is as near a Fascist state as possible.
DonutUK:
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel very uneasy with the idea of the Army being used to support fuel companies in an industrial dispute?..
Yes I do feel uneasy at the Army being used in an Industrial dispute.
We do not - as yet - live in a Martial Law State. Although it is as near a Fascist state as possible.
The only possible reason that I can think of as to why the union leadership hasn’t removed the need for military intervention,by stating categorically that they will guarantee essential fuel supplies,in the event of taking action,is that they are scared of the facing up to the reality,of finding out for sure,that the government intends to use troops to break a civilian industrial dispute not to ensure essential fuel supplies .
In which case there’s probably (rightly) no way that the membership would want to waste their time on such a lost cause if they’ve got any sense in just the same way that it was a similar type of government action that stopped the general strike of 1926.
Don’t see anything in that oath that would stop me from refusing such an order,being that Unite aren’t an enemy of the Queen,and if I was in the military and was asked to cross a picket line in such circumstances (or follow the failed idea of walking or driving into a minefield to ‘fight’ the Taliban in Afghanistan,while the ‘Taliban’ can walk in at Dover to help add to the government’s pool of cheap labour) I’d refuse the order using this as an example as part of my reasons.
Never having being a member of the armed forces, I imagine (I don’t know) that a soldier is expected to obey “a lawful order” and as such would have to cross a picket line if ordered to do so. I believe the words after the phrase you quote covers this.
As for not walking into booby traps in Afghanistan, whilst I would sympathise with him, I doubt that it would prevent action against him.
Having said that, I think I read about muslim soldiers being excused from duties where they are / may be ordered to kill, so perhaps there is a loophole
that it was a similar type of government action that stopped the general strike of 1926.
But in 1926 the strike was partly defeated by members of the public (usually the sons and daughters of the priviledged ) steping in to do manual work in order to break the strike.
I.E working as bus conductors etc.
In the present scenario it is unlikely that any Hooray Henry will be volunteering to drive a tanker.
Don’t see anything in that oath that would stop me from refusing such an order,being that Unite aren’t an enemy of the Queen,and if I was in the military and was asked to cross a picket line in such circumstances (or follow the failed idea of walking or driving into a minefield to ‘fight’ the Taliban in Afghanistan,while the ‘Taliban’ can walk in at Dover to help add to the government’s pool of cheap labour) I’d refuse the order using this as an example as part of my reasons.
Never having being a member of the armed forces, I imagine (I don’t know) that a soldier is expected to obey “a lawful order” and as such would have to cross a picket line if ordered to do so. I believe the words after the phrase you quote covers this.
As for not walking into booby traps in Afghanistan, whilst I would sympathise with him, I doubt that it would prevent action against him.
Having said that, I think I read about muslim soldiers being excused from duties where they are / may be ordered to kill, so perhaps there is a loophole
The question is though should refusal of an order,to cross a civilian picket line as part of a civilian industrial dispute,(or just expressing the suicidal nature, let alone the futility,of the type of tactics being used,in the Afghanistan operation,or the reasons for it considering the British immigration policies) be considered in law as refusal of a ‘lawful’ order,depending on the type of society which we want to live in .
As things stand and if that is the case then solly is probably closer to the truth than he many people realise considering how close such a situation would be to the oath of allegiance sworn by German military personnel to Hitler .
However as I’ve said where is the union confirmation that essential supplies would be guaranteed in the event of industrial action and if not what is it that the union is scared of .
At least until the east europeans undercut them for the job. 
.
