I note the article doesn't say on what basis Network Rail is seeking an injunction against the strike.

i have no doubt that management will think of some nefarious reason …

Some more details on the Guardian website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/3 ... -rmt-legal

Looks like NR are hoping for something along the same lines as the judgement that scuppered Unites first ballot in the BA strikes.
Though unless a load of redundancies have already been announced (and people selected or volunteered) I doubt the same argument would hold (people already being made redundant can't vote, presumably because they are biased).

I [LIFTED] hate left wing unions. Bloody strike mongers.

They may be biased but they still have a right to vote. Unless the company is seriously downsizing they really should not make up a huge percentage of the total staff. It can also work in the companies favour. If people think that there will be a significant vote in favour because of those already lined up for redundancies then that can skew the result the other way.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just point out that that was the basis upon which BA managed to prevent the planned strikes over Christmas.



There are right wing unions?

So, whatever your employer decides to do to you, your pay/salary, pension, contract or other benefits is fine by you? You must either be self employed or have a very good relationship with your boss.
It's not like the workers, via their unions, have refused to negotiate. Quite the opposite in fact.
Sometimes strike action is all that is left to make your point otherwise you might as well bend over and take it.

The problem is that many companies treat their staff like serfs, and it might even be that strike action is now more because of incompetent management, than work shy workers. The BA staff have been willing to negotiate even accepting pay cuts. Though management have gone too far in trying to break the workforce.

The BA management know they could get qualified people to do the same job for less...

The unions were aware of that an accepted lower pay.

Looks like Network Rail got what it wanted - clikey

No, but some unions, usually those that used to represent state owned companies, seem to think they're not doing their job unless they're trying to strike. More modern unions don't have their heads buried in the 70's sand.

Some have never even held a strike. Though the problem is that you get unions in a position of power and they abuse it. The Signallers are the ones with the power in the rail industry and they are being linked to the maintenance people. If the government wanted to have a stimulus program they should have paid Network Rail to accelerate the rail repairs. This would have meant no redundancies and would have avoided a strike. Now Network Rail are actually cutting the maintenance and I have to support the RMT on the safety issue, though not if they link it to pay.