Union boss refuses to rule out disruption to 999 calls as BT staff back strikes Tags:United Kingdom 4 comments CWU. Strike by all means. But support for the 999 service must be maintained. The first death caused by that action, will cost you public support, and allow the Government a reason to break it. I’m a union man. Have been since 18. Now 54 . Always supported emergency cover. Foolish to do anything else. Isn’t there a “minimum service” clause, for essential public services or something? Heard the term batted around last week. Probably just playing hardball. They wouldn’t do this. I think any disruption to 999 calls would loose the union any support Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment.
CWU. Strike by all means. But support for the 999 service must be maintained. The first death caused by that action, will cost you public support, and allow the Government a reason to break it. I’m a union man. Have been since 18. Now 54 . Always supported emergency cover. Foolish to do anything else.
Isn’t there a “minimum service” clause, for essential public services or something? Heard the term batted around last week.
4 comments
CWU. Strike by all means. But support for the 999 service must be maintained.
The first death caused by that action, will cost you public support, and allow the Government a reason to break it.
I’m a union man. Have been since 18. Now 54 . Always supported emergency cover. Foolish to do anything else.
Isn’t there a “minimum service” clause, for essential public services or something? Heard the term batted around last week.
Probably just playing hardball. They wouldn’t do this.
I think any disruption to 999 calls would loose the union any support