Originally Posted by
Krystal n chips
The fireman's strike of 77 seems to have become the default comparison on here but it's not a reasonable comparison.
As has already been mentioned, there were a lot more military personnel available and the firemen had a very valid case, plus growing public support. My "Green Goddess " training was basically, this is a hydrant, this is a hose reel, there's the fire, point hose accordingly . However, I never deployed. Some of those who did weren't averse to doing so it has to be said for the change and variety....although for some, this changed rapidly after attending a couple of house fires in London...and recovering the former occupants once the fire was extinguished.
What many of those being critical of the proposed use of the military seem to conveniently overlook is, these industrial actions are not "spur of the moment ", strikes are very much the last, not the first resort and the reasons are cumulative over the years...plus, it helps, if, as reported, the Gov't actually begins to talk and negotiate...rather than refuse to do so.
Unless the strikers are civil servants, "the Government" are not the employers, and even then [semantics] it is the Crown.
And yet, loosely, although the employers are arms-length from Government, clearly the latter has a dog in the fight. As an example, the railways are enormously subsidised by the taxpayer, so any pay rise is likely to involve the Treasury. The Post Office does not involve Government except in so far as the service is essential. The NHS is definitely not Government-run [I am not convinced that it is "run" as most people define "run". And so on.
We hear "They" ought to do something about "it".
"It" is an omnishambles caused by short-termism [governments for many years], incompetence by over-paid administrators and ill-intent by the enemy within.
I should have emigrated to NZ when I had the chance ................. Oh! Wait ...............................?