Threat of Emergency Powers to be Invoked against Striking Tanker Drivers

Who's saying the strike's illegal? nt

 

They're welcome to try.

</p>

And the rest of us are entitled to take other measures.</p>

 

RE: Good

I am not damning anyone for striking,its their right to strike, let them lose 4 days pay. But why should the couintry suffer is my point which seems to be getting lost in all this.</p>

Not sure on the &quot;People from Barnsly damning strikes&quot; relates to, are you stereotyping everyone from the area as union led militants?</p>

As for the miners strike, the government did introduce other measures, they stockpiled coal months before, and then bought in cheap coal from oversees, that was their plan B</p>

i will say it again, if they want to exercise their right to strike, let them, but dont affect the rest of the country, as i for one am not interested in their dispute over salaries. To be honest, i think &pound;39k is a decent salary and for that reason alone they will not get any support or sympathy from me, unlike many other professions, nurses probably top the list of deserving a notable pay rise.</p>

</p>

 

RE: Good

</p>

Theproblem is you're thinking about it rather than automatically taking the stance you consider best suits your political pose. That's why you're not understanding.</p>

 

Nigh on £800 plus a week £21 an hour no wonder they are on strike

They want to try living on the nurses wages or the 'grafters' that are getting less than £10 an hour. (doh) (doh)

 

RE: Good

And they've got power assisted steering now days and sat-nav

 

RE: Emergency powers to prevent the country being brought to a standstill

Just to respond to your pay comments.......

Unite says that Shell tanker drivers today earn a basic wage of just under £32,000 per year for a 48-hour working week. In 1992, a typical tanker driver directly employed by Shell earned approximately £32,000 per year for a 37-hour week. Shell's board members typically received a 16 percent increase in their pay packets last year."

If this is accurate then they have seen an erosion of pay even if inflation has remained at 0% over the last 16 years, which we are all painfully aware it has not.

What's really bizarre is that Shell earns £12bn profit in one year, put only 5% of their money into funding renewables, give their board members a 16% pay rise, and are responsible along with the government, for the high petrol prices. Yet the real 'villains of the peace', the ones who are holding the country to ransom are the petrol tanker drivers.

Divide and rule, divide and rule - thus it is, was, and always has been.

 

RE: And the soldiers are allowed, under law, to drive the tankers. nt

LOL touche - unfortunately however there is a logical conclusion to your argument, which is not very inspiring.

 

Yes, there is.

</p>

We don't have to suffer because a bunch of greedy, overpaid tanker drivers want to bully even more money out of us.</p>

 

RE: Yes, there is.

We don't have to suffer because extremely wellpaid Shell shareholders and board directors want to increase their profits and personal paypackets - but we do. I'm sure, since Shell are not investing anything over 5% of that money into renewables, that they can afford to pay the tanker drivers a payrise that it would appear they haven't had in 16 years.

Maybe you'd support shareholders taking a cut on their dividend and give the tanker drivers their first pay rise in 16 years?

 

Just to clarify Acky

Are you arguing that because Shell pay's its board of director's a lot then it should go to all of it's contractors and offer them more money than agreed?

 

RE: Just to clarify Acky

Shell's Director, board and shareholders effectively decide what to pay themselves as they run the company. They fill their own pockets with the pay increases from the rise in oil prices and then turn round to the tanker drivers, who by all accounts haven't had a payrise in 16 years, and tell them to bugger off.

Hardly fair.

 

shell don't employ the tanker driver's

Are you saying that shell should subsidise the transport company despite having a contract in place that they havent broken?

Oh and they HAVE had pay increases in 16 years, they just havent increased ABOVE inflation. So they are no worse off now than they were 16 years ago in real terms.

£40k+ per year by next january is what they have turned down. over 40 THOUSAND pound, for driving a lorry.

 

Emergency powers are great.

I like to fly out of plummeting lifts.

 

RE: shell don't employ the tanker driver's

Yes, if that's what it takes. I can never understand why some people, especially Barnsley people!, are so keen on defending multi-billion pound plc's profits and shareholder payouts whilst kicking people further down the ladder.

'ABOVE inflation' being the key words.

It's not as if they are loading and unloading fruit & veg, they are driving lorries filled with highly inflammable material that has to be filled and emptied in controlled, secure conditions.

 

Was the fuel safe in 1992? I thought it used to be flammable then too.

 

According to a spokesperson on Radio 5 this morning

The drivers have seen their pay increase by 27% since 1992, and it's not as though they aren't being offered anything this time is it? They've been offered 7% this year and 6% next.

A quote from a Union spokesman on the same programme said they haven't seen their pay increase "in real terms", which means they've had inflation matching rises in that time.

 

shareholders effectively decide what to pay themselves

Strange that, I've got shares in a company and I don't get to decide what dividend is paid to me!

 

Why do you always try to do that?

</p>

That's ok because this is worse. Two wrongs make a right.</p>

They're overpaid already and trying to bully more out of us. What does the directors' salaries have to do with it? You're talking **** man.</p>

 

We're talking about the tanker drivers. Try to focus.

</p>

</p>