>>1803755>so what are their demands?the usual. pay (in line with inflation and industry), and conditions (job security).
>>1803792>they'll just ask for a 10% hike in the US union negotiationsstandard practice. shoot for the moon and if you get it, happy days, if not, you let the other party counter-offer down to what you expected.
>how reasonable and british of themit dates back to the thatcher years, when it was made illegal to hold strike action (thus losing legal protections etc) without e.g. a given % of union members voting, and of those members a given % voting for action, sticking to a timetable, putting 'vote THIS and THIS happens, vote THAT and THAT happens' on the ballot, etc.
>>1804016silly, they don't just hand over the ballot outcome and then have everyone walk out straight after. the rail unions said to their members a while ago, 'these are the terms your employers are asking you to work under soon, do we accept them or do we not accept them, go cast your votes yes or no'. they have voted to not accept them, so the union stewards are now going to go back to the employers' reps and say 'the guys say no, so if we don't agree something else instead then we're not going to work'.
and, well, an 89% 'we strike' vote, from a 71% turnout, is a pretty strong bargaining chip to have, and it's going to be hard to call their bluff. i suppose only time will tell what the outcome will be though.
