Does it really make a difference?

A couple of years back, my dad told me his experience as a member of the workers union.

"You see, during the 70s the union had a voice and a voice which was heard as every worker believed that the union stood up for them."

He did lead a few strikes protesting low minimum wages, and it actually worked ( I think), cos almost every worker was on strike and the ones who still did go to work, ie the traitors were frowned upon.

This caused a lot of inconvenience to the private sector and indirectly the government was affected by it too.

The government's remedy? Seize the union's powers, let it be the headless chicken, pecking away unheeded.

The reason I'm reminiscing is that, yesterday I was caught waiting at Upper Holloway Road, for about 10 minutes when a passing lady was kind enough to inform us of the one-day strike by the bus drivers.

Not all the routes were affected, but I was.

So, I ended up walking down Holloway Road towards the tube station.

The comparison I'm making here is that, during my father's time, the strike went on for days and days till their demands were met or at least some sort of compromise was reached.

But here, it's just one day, but it does leave a mark on the whole city.

It would cripple London's transport system if it went on for days.

I do commend them for obeying to the "Ethics of striking".

The question is, "Is one day enough to make a point?"

Just wish they should come up with some sort of meeting rather than going on strike.

At least the people here are more sensible by knowing when to admit their fault, rather than people back home who blame the faulty CCTV and the lady in the skirt.

Time to ponder...

Till then