Proper Use of Military Pesonnel?
Good chance for a spot of decent investigative journalism?
If Unite want some publicity for their issues, give it to them, but make sure its a warts and all report, on the good and bad within the industry....
If Unite want some publicity for their issues, give it to them, but make sure its a warts and all report, on the good and bad within the industry....
I don't know if it is the Most Daring Raid...but certenly it is one of the list.
The Argentine Air Force had modified a Lockhead C-130H loading 12 dumb bombs in two pylons under the wings.
The original intended target was the Queen Elizabeth II...
The Argentine Air Force had modified a Lockhead C-130H loading 12 dumb bombs in two pylons under the wings.
The original intended target was the Queen Elizabeth II...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could Cosmic be suggesting what that 130 could be used for over here to deal with those queues?
My wife wants to get petrol for our garden machinery but she is afraid to attempt to put fuel into jerry cans as folks down here are getting abusive towards anyone filling containers with fuel. Madness and hopefully the trade unions will be put in their place.
proper Use of Military Personnel... Courtney Mil has summed it up Admiral ably
My wife wants to get petrol for our garden machinery but she is afraid to attempt to put fuel into jerry cans as folks down here are getting abusive towards anyone filling containers with fuel. Madness and hopefully the trade unions will be put in their place.
proper Use of Military Personnel... Courtney Mil has summed it up Admiral ably
"hopefully the trade unions will be put in their place."
What?!
An odd comment seeing as the Union has not even announced a date for any possible strike action, has to give at least 7 days notice of withdrawal of labour, and has agreed to attend talks at ACAS before instigating any further action.
I think you will find that the queues at the pumps are entirely due to some rather slack "speaking before engaging brain"nonsense from a certain David Cameron and Francis Maude.
Not exactly been a good few weeks for this mob has it. Inexperience and being hugely out of touch starting to tell.
What?!
An odd comment seeing as the Union has not even announced a date for any possible strike action, has to give at least 7 days notice of withdrawal of labour, and has agreed to attend talks at ACAS before instigating any further action.
I think you will find that the queues at the pumps are entirely due to some rather slack "speaking before engaging brain"nonsense from a certain David Cameron and Francis Maude.
Not exactly been a good few weeks for this mob has it. Inexperience and being hugely out of touch starting to tell.
Given that there is now no possibility of a tanker strike over Easter, is there any chance of normality being restored at the petrol pumps?
I have a car that needs a "routine" fill up as it is running low, but would rather not spent an hour or more to accomplish what is normally a 5 minute task if I can avoid it!!
I have a car that needs a "routine" fill up as it is running low, but would rather not spent an hour or more to accomplish what is normally a 5 minute task if I can avoid it!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne,
I understand what you are saying and I agree our ministers have not handled this situation in anything like a professional or competent manner, but please do not for one millisecond try to suggest that this trade union is not trying to apply industrial pressure to get their way.. How does their pay compare to that of our soldiers who drive trucks on roads that may have concealed IED's?
The ministers have behaved badly but what about all those leemings queuing for a few gallons or litres of fuel when as you righhtly say there is NOT going to be a strike anytime soon
I understand what you are saying and I agree our ministers have not handled this situation in anything like a professional or competent manner, but please do not for one millisecond try to suggest that this trade union is not trying to apply industrial pressure to get their way.. How does their pay compare to that of our soldiers who drive trucks on roads that may have concealed IED's?
The ministers have behaved badly but what about all those leemings queuing for a few gallons or litres of fuel when as you righhtly say there is NOT going to be a strike anytime soon
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting a bit fed up with this, every threat of industrial action, provided the law is followed, is an example of democracy in action - you may not liike it, but the way to change it is to pass new laws etc...
Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.
'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?
Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.
Dave
Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.
'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?
Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.
Dave
The government has now given temporary authority for tanker drivers here to work beyond their usual hours to replenish stocks! So you threaten a strike do nothing and get overtime
To go back to the OP's question for a moment. Simple. Yes it is a good use of the military. It is part of the contract. What used to be called 'Aid to the civil power' is one of the reasons for having armed forces. ...
If you don't think the armed forces are there for the national interest, then you may need to review your terms of service.
If you don't think the armed forces are there for the national interest, then you may need to review your terms of service.
I guess what I am suggesting is that whilst the military are professionals and will do what we are told by our Lords and Masters, it does grate more than a little to find out military roles being whittled away by years of underfunding, downsizing and capitalising on various 'peace dividends', only to become the Government's Handy Man. In some ways, it almost feels like we have re-instated the old General Duties trade and enrolled the entire military into it. And as UK plc sells off more of its critical infrastructure and enabling functions, I can only see the military being used more and more as the private enterprises that bought said infrastructure / functions find their wish to make a profit clashing with the Government's need to keep the country running.
And it's a rare occassion, but I do actually find myself agreeing with pr00ne on the Government's recent performance. Shame there is no ability to re-course them for poor performance.
Last edited by Melchett01; 30th Mar 2012 at 17:26.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said.
I have no argument at all with the idea of military drivers keeping petrol flowing to the emergency services, but I do object to the use of the military simply to break strikes. Using the military for car parking is just a complete p*** take, especially when they're already stretched to cover ill concieved foreign adventures. Of the two situations I think using the military as general dogsbodies offends me most.
Dave
I have no argument at all with the idea of military drivers keeping petrol flowing to the emergency services, but I do object to the use of the military simply to break strikes. Using the military for car parking is just a complete p*** take, especially when they're already stretched to cover ill concieved foreign adventures. Of the two situations I think using the military as general dogsbodies offends me most.
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
16 Posts
I'm getting a bit fed up with this, every threat of industrial action, provided the law is followed, is an example of democracy in action - you may not liike it, but the way to change it is to pass new laws etc...
Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.
'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?
Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.
Dave
Our current government have responded to every bit of discontent by demonising those daring to exercise their democratic rights - I for one spent a good few years in blue, and like to think that I contributed towards maintaining this country's existence as one of the more stable democracies.
'They' have already had a fight with the public service workers, now it's the tanker drivers, and the military covenant is pretty well not worth the paper it's not written on - how high a percentage of the population does Cameron have to fight with before it begins to look like he's a significant part of the problem?
Yes, a tanker strike and petrol shortage would be a big problem for me and mine, so I'd liike DC and his minions to STF up with the sound bytes and try negotiating without running off at the mouth on TV about it....which surely is doing little to improve relations across the table.
Dave
Thanks for the responses, all. I stand by my statement. As servants of the country, we all signed up to be used by the Government for purposes that they see fit. And that includes helping out in national emergencies.
Defending our borders, airspace, sea lanes and overseas interests are the missions that we can all focus on very easily (unless you're George Galloway). But we also signed up to dealing with domestic emergencies: floods, natural disasters, civil unrest and action that would interfere with the normal conduct of our essential services and the country's activities.
Firemen go on strike, the Government (who run the country and decide what the Forces do) are fully justified in sending in the troops to save lives. The tanker drivers threaten a strike that could immobilize the country, do the same.
If you are serving at a time when the Government needs you to keep the country functioning, just get on with it. There is a world of difference between this and using the Forces as cheap labour to park cars for the Olympics.
It's a legitimate role, not to be confused with political expediency.
Defending our borders, airspace, sea lanes and overseas interests are the missions that we can all focus on very easily (unless you're George Galloway). But we also signed up to dealing with domestic emergencies: floods, natural disasters, civil unrest and action that would interfere with the normal conduct of our essential services and the country's activities.
Firemen go on strike, the Government (who run the country and decide what the Forces do) are fully justified in sending in the troops to save lives. The tanker drivers threaten a strike that could immobilize the country, do the same.
If you are serving at a time when the Government needs you to keep the country functioning, just get on with it. There is a world of difference between this and using the Forces as cheap labour to park cars for the Olympics.
It's a legitimate role, not to be confused with political expediency.
It's a legitimate role, not to be confused with political expediency.
Whilst political expediency might solve the immediate problem, all it is doing is curing the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. And eventually, even the most obtuse of us in uniform will realise that rather than being pawns for use in the protection of the country, we are potentially becoming pawns for use in the protection of political reputations. Whilst any individual serving will put his life on the line to defend colleagues and mates (and maybe even Queen and Country), I don't know many that joined up to act as a guarantor of the reputations and presentational issues of politicians who are seemingly incapable of reading the mood of those who put them in power or even exercising a little common sense.
Edited to add: Having just posted this, I then happened to stumble across an interesting commentary by Charles Moore in the Telegraph. Mr Moore and I appear to be in agreement on the current adminstration's ability to read the public mood, but interestingly, a comment from Conservative MPs to their local associations seems to suggest more than a degree of political expediency in the current situation:
But now that I have heard the Conservatives’ private explanation, which is being handed down to constituency associations by MPs, I begin to feel angry.
The private message is as follows. “This is our Thatcher moment. In order to defeat the coming miners’ strike, she stockpiled coal. When the strike came, she weathered it, and the Labour Party, tarred by the strike, was humiliated. In order to defeat the coming fuel drivers’ strike, we want supplies of petrol stockpiled. Then, if the strike comes, we will weather it, and Labour, in hock to the Unite union, will be blamed.”
The private message is as follows. “This is our Thatcher moment. In order to defeat the coming miners’ strike, she stockpiled coal. When the strike came, she weathered it, and the Labour Party, tarred by the strike, was humiliated. In order to defeat the coming fuel drivers’ strike, we want supplies of petrol stockpiled. Then, if the strike comes, we will weather it, and Labour, in hock to the Unite union, will be blamed.”
Last edited by Melchett01; 30th Mar 2012 at 21:38.
Providing a supply of fuel to keep emergency/essential services running will neither disuade union memebrs from striking nor allow the Government to make us all think that life will be going on as usual. The tanker drivers are well aware that a few Service drivers cannot take their place or seriously diminish the effect of their industrial action. No one is stupid enough to think that any government could play the card that says, 'you go on strike and we'll just bring in the trrops so that your action is completely ineffective.'
That is not what's happenning here.
That is not what's happenning here.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am all for trade unions looking after the welfare of their members and making sure they are not exploited but have we all read the comments of Tankertrash
These are not employees on a minimum wage, or workers that are being exploited. They earn far more than other truck drivers that also carry high risk, high value cargo but we all need fuel and they can very quickly bring this country to a standstill.
Do we genuinely know the real reasons for this threat to consider industrial action? I have read that it is a case of those that are not earning as much as the highest paid drivers want an equal salary. Is this correct?
I dislike with a vengeance these closed shop attitudes by trade unions so perhaps I am bias but I know exactly where Tanker trash is coming from regarding his son.
When I left the Royal Navy I was told I had a wait of three or four months before I could commence training for my new career. Rather than twiddle my thumbs for that brief period I managed to get a job with a large haulage company based in Plymouth. During the interview I asked if being in a trade union was mandatory... 'No this is NOT a closed shop company and the decision is entirely yours!' After having a successful interview I went into the rest room and was immediately approached by the union shop steward who explained how much union dues would be and wanted to know why I had not signed up to join his trade union? It was then explained how failure to join would mean I would NOT be allowed to park my vehicle in the company yard as it 'might' get damaged. I would NEVER get any overtime and numerous other issues that made it clear it was a case of pay up or get out..... I hasten to add this was NOT the UNITE trade union, but it was the largest trade union in the country for transport and working class people. This type of strong arm tactic leaves a bad taste and all that person had to do was explain the benefits the union had to offer and then I may have voluntarily paid out the minimal amount of money that was required
Yes tanker drivers carry petrol or diesel but so what? They are trained to do this work and how would that compare with trucks that carry other dangerous loads or high value cargoes that expose the drivers to injury or being hijacked? (I wonder how much a cargo of fuel is now worth and will we soon be reading about these lorries being hijacked?)
I hope this issue gets resolved but fear that if the government does give in to these unknown demands, will we then see the train drivers walk out? By all means let trade unions protect the rights of their members but where does that line end? Look at our shipping industry, the Liverpool docks which was a huge thriving industry, the car industry and countless others that have been allegedly killed off... Open cast coal mines where coal is on the surface but it is cheaper to import coal from Canada rather then recover our own black gold!! Hopefully some of our military might get the required experience and who knows the 'rules' regarding recruitment might be relaxed.
Not so easy. My son, a REME corporal vehicle mechanic is shortly coming out of the army. He has fuel tankers on his licence, as well as just about every other vehicle you can think of, and he looked into this job. Sounds like it's one of those worlds where unless your father and grandfather were tanker drivers, or you have some other influential "in", you can forget it. Closed world, and newcomers are not welcome.
Do we genuinely know the real reasons for this threat to consider industrial action? I have read that it is a case of those that are not earning as much as the highest paid drivers want an equal salary. Is this correct?
I dislike with a vengeance these closed shop attitudes by trade unions so perhaps I am bias but I know exactly where Tanker trash is coming from regarding his son.
When I left the Royal Navy I was told I had a wait of three or four months before I could commence training for my new career. Rather than twiddle my thumbs for that brief period I managed to get a job with a large haulage company based in Plymouth. During the interview I asked if being in a trade union was mandatory... 'No this is NOT a closed shop company and the decision is entirely yours!' After having a successful interview I went into the rest room and was immediately approached by the union shop steward who explained how much union dues would be and wanted to know why I had not signed up to join his trade union? It was then explained how failure to join would mean I would NOT be allowed to park my vehicle in the company yard as it 'might' get damaged. I would NEVER get any overtime and numerous other issues that made it clear it was a case of pay up or get out..... I hasten to add this was NOT the UNITE trade union, but it was the largest trade union in the country for transport and working class people. This type of strong arm tactic leaves a bad taste and all that person had to do was explain the benefits the union had to offer and then I may have voluntarily paid out the minimal amount of money that was required
Yes tanker drivers carry petrol or diesel but so what? They are trained to do this work and how would that compare with trucks that carry other dangerous loads or high value cargoes that expose the drivers to injury or being hijacked? (I wonder how much a cargo of fuel is now worth and will we soon be reading about these lorries being hijacked?)
I hope this issue gets resolved but fear that if the government does give in to these unknown demands, will we then see the train drivers walk out? By all means let trade unions protect the rights of their members but where does that line end? Look at our shipping industry, the Liverpool docks which was a huge thriving industry, the car industry and countless others that have been allegedly killed off... Open cast coal mines where coal is on the surface but it is cheaper to import coal from Canada rather then recover our own black gold!! Hopefully some of our military might get the required experience and who knows the 'rules' regarding recruitment might be relaxed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
according to UNITE the dispute is about the refusal to agree that there should be national standards on H&S for drivers, and a national forum established to oversee the industry to ensure standards are maintained.
The link below is to a page with a 4 page PDF described as a Q&A on the subject, which outlines Unite's taker on the matter, which should go some way to answer your question.
( Enough is Enough - tanker drivers campaign )
Personally I am inclined to believe Unite on this rather than the PM, as a teacher (these days) I am more than aware of the amount of barefaced lying that went on when my career was being used as a dartboard.
The drivers appear to be complaining that the private sector has become too concerned with short term contracts at the expense of ensuring a sustainable oil supply system, and I don't find it overly hard to imagine there might be an element of truth in that.
Dave
according to UNITE the dispute is about the refusal to agree that there should be national standards on H&S for drivers, and a national forum established to oversee the industry to ensure standards are maintained.
The link below is to a page with a 4 page PDF described as a Q&A on the subject, which outlines Unite's taker on the matter, which should go some way to answer your question.
( Enough is Enough - tanker drivers campaign )
Personally I am inclined to believe Unite on this rather than the PM, as a teacher (these days) I am more than aware of the amount of barefaced lying that went on when my career was being used as a dartboard.
The drivers appear to be complaining that the private sector has become too concerned with short term contracts at the expense of ensuring a sustainable oil supply system, and I don't find it overly hard to imagine there might be an element of truth in that.
Dave
