When did BBC become so anti-Union?

Thats the point. Its also what happens when you push people to their limit after years of austerity.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)

> Mass strike action on Wednesday will cause "Significant disruption", Downing Street has said.

> Workers from seven unions will be on strike on 1 February.

> The prime minister's official spokesman said: "We know that there will be significant disruption, given the scale of the strike action that is taking place tomorrow, and that will be very difficult for the public trying to go about their daily lives."We are upfront that this will disrupt people's lives and that's why we think negotiations rather than picket lines are the right approach.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: strike^#1 Union^#2 Work^#3 take^#4 action^#5

What about this do you feel suggests the BBC has a view on the situation?

A more neutral view would posit that daily life is already disrupted, thus forcing a protest. Repeating the PM's statement is a useless assessment when the PM is useless.

Both the title and the tone of the article present an anti-union bias, even if that tone is subtle.

For those quick to compare this to the negated US strike from last year, Biden at least met railroaders halfway and they can still pull the rug out if they want. And in an ironic twist, America's conservatives were fully prepared for a total strike meltdown just to make Biden look bad, and now have such power (if only tenuously) to block a strike ban. America's threatened rail strike was also contained to freight, as American passenger RR workers lack the scheduling problems that prompted the (threatened) strike.

We already see Sunak's long-term strategy here anyway: as public services close more will be shifted to online-only. The article mentions this vis-a-vis education and healthcare but this will be forced more generally as transport closes. This will also permit outright firings and service closures which is his only real response to the strikes, as he has not postulated any way to resolve them otherwise and lacks the votes to do so.

Reporting what the government says about something is "pro" them? Lol.

You missed the union leaders' quotes in the article? Or did you just not bother reading it?

Yes - the quote comes from the government. Reporting what they've said isn't exactly anti union, is it? Lol.

Edit: downvote away, chaps, what a weird take on impartial reporting

Conservatives from both the House and Senate near unanimously voted to prevent the strike and force the deal through to the workers.

[deleted]

State media protects the state no matter how independent they claim to be

...He said, his voice dripping with sarcasm

should have PAID THEM BETTER you tory cheap bastards

but then, they don't want a public service as it is

The BBC isn't state media.

[deleted]

That contract that Biden negotiated and eventually forced on the railroad workers really wasn't that good. Go on r/railroading and they'll explain more. The "sick leave" that the workers got was a joke and was not what the union asked for. If Biden was really pro-union or pro railroad workers, he would've let them strike.

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

Parliament controls their funding, they're not directly controlled but when the government controls the purse you're never truly independent.