So in this video, I am having a look at the communication style of RMT trade union
leader, Mick Lynch, and how to deal with stupid questions with plain speaking.
So this week, the rail maritime and transport workers union, the RMT went on
strike across the country, which meant there were no trains running throughout
the whole of the UK, for a few days during the week affecting pretty much everyone.
Uh, this video isn't about whether you are in favor of the
strikes or against the strikes.
People are kind of evenly divided.
This video is about the way in which I thought the leader of the RMT
make Lynch dealt very effectively with some pretty poor questioning by
journalists, uh, in different kind of video interviews that he did.
Uh, so let's take a couple, a look at a couple of them and I'll tell you why.
I thought he was this week's communicator of the.
You know, for a lot of our viewers, you are the face of the stress, the disruption
that they're gonna face next week, whether that is, you know, children trying to
go to exams, whether it's adults trying to get to work or hospital appointments,
whether it's people, hundreds of thousands of people trying to get to
Glasbury, what would you say to them?
So this is a fairly decent question.
It's an opening question.
The kind of question that I think journalists should be asking.
So let's have a look at how he responds.
Well, we don't wanna be the cause of the disruption in people's lives.
We want the settlement to this dispute, but we are facing
a crisis for our members.
We're faced with thousands of job cuts.
Despite what grant chap says, there's been no, uh, guarantee that these
redundancies won't be compulsory.
We've seen, uh, four or 5,000 jobs already go.
From the railway they've told our maintenance staff, uh, on rail or network
rail that their 3000 jobs will go.
They're cut.
Gonna cut back on the safety regime.
They've told us that every single booking office in Britain will close.
They've told us that they're gonna extend the working week from
35 hours to 40 or possibly 44.
And for new entrance, that will mean lower wages.
So a fairly straightforward answer to a straightforward question,
a nothing controversial, nothing particularly inspiring either.
He certainly wouldn't be winning communicator over the week.
If this was all there is, but it's not for me.
It's actually how he responds when he is pressed further by the journalists.
Sometimes fairly, sometimes not.
And when he then shows his ability to just speak plainly, but still
set out what his position is so that everybody can understand.
You think this is a class struggle class war?
Well, it's a class aspect to everything in the economy.
There are lower paid people and there are wealthy people in this society.
And what's wrong in this society is that there is an imbalance between
the people that do the work to keep this country going, who create
the wealth of our civilization.
And don't get a fair share of that wealth because it's going
to people who are vastly wealthy.
So that's a good answer, primarily because he does what is called framing, which
is he takes the context in which the questioner tries to frame the question in
this case, she was talking about, there is a class element to this struggle.
And he frames it in the way that works best for him.
And he says, yeah, well, there's a class element to society at large.
And he then goes on to talk about his struggle in the context of wider society,
the struggle between rich and poor.
And he's trying to appeal to all workers in the country who will kind
of recognize that struggle rather than just the struggles of the R MT
union, which may mean that people feel a little bit disconnected.
So it's a very effective way.
Or framing your answer in a way that best suits you.
And what I think is why he is such an effective communicator,
is that when he is pressed by journalists, he answers very strongly.
Uh, let's see, as he goes on.
What else are we to do?
Are we to plead?
Are we to beg?
We want to bargain for our futures.
We want to negotiate.
And if we're not bargaining, you have to beg.
And I don't want any working class people in this country to have to beg
the employers for a decent living.
You see there again, he's taken it wider.
He doesn't want any working people in the country to have to beg for a living.
And he uses a really effective, simple, but effective contrast of the difference
between begging for what you want.
And bargaining for what you want.
And I think he's taking the gamble that people will recognize that nobody
should have to beg for what they want.
They should be entitled to bargain for it.
So again, it's just a very effective way of framing the question and framing
his answer in a way that best suits him.
And it's a super effective method.
Of communication that I always advise people to use.
If you control the frame of the discussion, you will
control who comes out on top.
Uh, let's see how things work with other journalists who are not quite as fair
in their questioning as Sophie region.
My opinion was in this particular interview.
Uh, you've been accused severally in the last few weeks of being a Marxist.
It happened again last night, uh, about ator MP said you were a Marxist with
no interest in anything other than trying to tear down the government.
Now, are you, or are you not a Marxist?
Because if you are a Marxist, then you are into revolution and
into bringing down capitalism.
So are you, or aren't you.
So Richard Madeley is not the greatest journalist in the world.
He was obviously trying a gotcha question that he assumed would put M Lynch
on the back foot, and then maybe the interview would continue from there.
Uh, but Mick is not having any of it as we'll see.
Richard, you do come up with the most remarkable twiddle sometimes
say I, well, I say you were remark.
I'm saying that you are being accused of being a Marxist and
that's what that's called reporting.
Yeah, I'm not I'm no, I'm, I'm not a Marxist.
I'm an elected official of the RT.
I'm a working class bloke leading a, a trade union dispute about
jobs, pay and conditions of service.
So it's got nothing to do with Marxism.
It's all.
This dispute, it's an industrial dispute.
Yes.
And that's what, it's all.
So twiddle is another word for nonsense.
In case you can figure that out.
And that is really the way you should deal with a question.
That's a little bit ridiculous.
If you were a plain speaking guy, you just laugh it off and kind of highlight
its ridiculousness by rejecting the framework that he tried to present
and then just setting him straight.
No, I'm a straight, straightforward trait union guy representing my union.
So, this is what I mean by why I think he's actually such
an effective communicator.
It's when he's being pressed, especially when the pressing is not
particularly forensic, he's very effective at kind of batting it off.
Uh, so let's go on.
People with cancer are going to die and they wouldn't have done if they'd
been able to get their treatment today and later in the week and on Saturday.
So for me, this is lazy journalism because it's kind of saying that
because you've gone on strike, there may be people who won't get the
train when they otherwise would.
Some of those people may be cancer patients.
And some of those people may have had operations scheduled
and therefore, if they don't have the operation, they may die.
It's just such a stretch.
I get why he's doing it, but it's not really a fair question,
but it's a dangerous one.
So let's see how make deals with it.
Well, I don't accept that.
And I don't accept that railway workers are the cause of the problems in the
oncology departments of hospitals.
My, my own wife is an NHS nurse.
I've got many friends and family that work in the, in the NHS.
And of course the NHS is crying out for proper funding.
Most of the problems in the NHS of caused by rampant, privatization and profiteering
by, uh, private sector providers that are currently consuming the NHS that's.
Now we don't have to have this dispute.
Yeah.
This dispute.
This dispute is caused by government policy.
And if we can get a settlement for that, we can move the people around.
They can get to their appointments, get to the workplace and
enjoy their leisure activity.
And on that point, want the settlement as keenly as anyone else.
And on that point, you, you mentioned the government road workers are
not killing cancer patients.
So again, he rejects the framework that the interviewer tried to place on him by
saying the problems of the health service are nothing to do with rail workers.
It's because of under investment by the go.
I personally happen to agree with that.
The point is though, he's not allowing them to pigeonhole it or
put him in a, in a position in which his argument then has problems.
He expressly rejects it and ends with the categorical statement.
Well, workers are not killing cancer patients, which is
exactly the right answer.
So very effective communication just by plain speaking to deal with what in my
view are just not very good questions.
So let's look at how he deals with another interviewer this time.
It's Kay Burley again, on sky news, who I actually have a lot of time for.
I think she's super effective, especially when questioning government officials,
but I was really not impressed with how she dealt with this interview.
The government is saying that they are going to bring in agency workers.
My question to you is I'm guessing that your, some of your members
will still stay on the picket lines.
What will they do if agency workers try to cross those picket lines?
Well, we will picket them.
What do you think we'll do we run a picket line and we'll ask them not to go to work.
Do you not know how a picket line works?
Well, we do anyway.
I very much know how a picket line works.
I'm much older than I look Mr.
Lynch.
Uh, what will, what will picketing involve?
Well, you can see what picket it involves.
And I can't believe this line of questioning picket in is standing outside
the workplace to try and encourage people who want to go to work, not to go to.
what else do you think it involves and what if they want?
Well, I just wondered what else it might involve because I very well remember,
uh, the picket lines for the 1980s.
Where are you going with your Mr.
Lynch?
I'm asking you what your members would do, Mr.
Lynch, which, which picket lines are you talking about?
Uh, the Miners' strike.
Miners' strike.
Yeah.
What does it look like?
The minus, right.
Well, are you talking about MIS Lynch?
I'm just asking.
I'm just to clarify.
She's off into.
Uh, no.
Mr.
I'm sorry, if you feel the need to ridicule me, but I'm just asking
you what you expect your members to.
No, but your questions, agency workers into the nonsense.
I'm asking it as effective.
They're not, we can.
And what does that involve?
There is, that's what it involves.
So your work stop.
Okay.
So going on the picket line basically means you as a worker,
decide to go on strike and you stand outside your workplace.
So that if there's anybody else that is tempted to go in, you basically
say to them, Hey, we're on strike.
Please.
Don't go in.
That's pretty much it.
Now in the UK, there has been a history of violence.
The minor strikes in the 1980s, which is what she was referring
to that kind of in people's minds mean that they worry about violence
being the way in which that is done.
And that's obviously what Kate Burley was trying to guide him into.
but it was such a silly question because he was standing in front of a picket line.
And so when she put that question to him, he was able to just turn
around and say, well, there you go.
That's what picketing means.
It means a few guys standing there saying, Hey, we're on strike.
So for me, it was a silly question to ask when behind him, you could
literally see what he meant by going on strike and picketing.
And he was very effective in using his environment.
Using the image of his own fellow workers standing on the picket line and
just saying your question's ridiculous.
If you're trying to go me into saying that we are gonna be
violent, it's a ridiculous question.
Cuz you can literally see what it actually means.
It's a few guys standing on the line saying we are on strike.
So for me, poor questioning, trying to frame him in such a way that
would be to his disadvantage and he very effectively rejected it.
And again, that for me.
It was really good communication.
Uh, let's watch one more method in which the journalists tried to get at
him in kind of a counterintuitive way.
And let's see how he dealt with it this week.
In just a few days, you have been described as a huge political voice,
perhaps bigger than some of the political voices that we do have in this country.
Uh, have you considered a career in politics?
Could this be the next move for you after these, after you
sorted what's going on at the R.
Well, my job is to represent my members and get 'em a deal in this dispute.
And I'm focused on that.
And I'm aware that the press in this country controlled by very rich people
will be looking to tarnish my reputation and other people involved in this dispute.
That's what they're all about.
That's why they follow me around.
There's a cameraman here with me now that's been following me for a week.
There's reporters from various outlets that follow me.
They look in my bins, they knock on my neighbor's doors.
So I'm very aware that pride comes before or fall.
What we've gotta do is get on with the job of negotiating an agreement.
And again, he rejects the framing this time, try to set him up by puffing him up
to say, oh, you're such a great leader.
Maybe you should go into wider politics.
And he rejects it, reminding them that pride comes before or fall.
I E.
I'm just fighting for what I believe in.
I'm not trying to go any wider than that.
He resists the setup and it's very effective.
So that is another example why Mick Lynch was my communicator of the week.
Uh, let me know what you think.
Uh, if you want more help with communication skills, you know,
you can just reach out to me.
Scroll down wherever you are on this page.
And there is a link on how to handle questions effectively.
You can download the playbook, the playbook, and I'm sure it
will help, uh, see you next time.