Trade Unions - For or Against?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Trade Unions - For or Against?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11796
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1245179 - Posted: 12 Jun 2012, 23:51:25 UTC

This really shows what "modern" unions are after....

Convenient with the Olympics a short time away

On this one, the union is in the wrong. After the upgrading of signalling & other modernisations, Hammersmith (Rail wise) is ideal in that it eases the pressure on Earl's Court & is only 3 stops away....

...so cannot see why the union is confrontational as it seems that all criteria has been met by the management.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32348
Credit: 14,277,830
RAC: 7,084
United Kingdom
Message 1245286 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 9:59:31 UTC

Oh gosh, gulp, sigh, agreed.

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,585
RAC: 406
United Kingdom
Message 1245538 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 20:48:13 UTC
Last modified: 13 Jun 2012, 21:01:39 UTC

What gets me about this bus driver bonus malarkey is, that normally the
buses drive around London quite empty of passengers. During the Olympics
these buses are likely now to run around London quite full. For this, the
bus drivers wont a bonus...why, are these bus drivers having to carry the
extra passenger loads upon their own backs!!!!
Has TFL thought about the delays that will hold these buses up from running
to time. How many of the Olympics destined passengers are going to have the
Oyster swipe cards? How many of these Olympics destined passengers are going
to know the fares price to pay on the bus? These two points could seriously
delay the progress of the bus if this buses driver has to deal with many
individual passenger fare inquiries and then take the fare money too.

I don't suppose the British Olympics committee is too fussed either way
regarding whether the bus drivers go on strike or not. For they have sold
7/8th of the games tickets so far and wont have to give a penny back to
the purchaser if they can't get to the Olympics because the buses were on strike.

And remember, it will be illegal to take any food with you into the Olympics.
All food must be purchased on site. A totalitarian Olympics committee in full
operation, "We will take what ever measures necessary to force this Olympics not
to become a financial disaster". "You will buy our supplied foods and drinks
at our highly inflated prices and if it looks like we are not making enough
money then we will be charging you for the Olympics air that your breathing".
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11796
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1245547 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 20:58:28 UTC - in response to Message 1245538.

& don't forget that the BOC has their own "VIP Lane".

Again, it's a shame that this is a kid-friendly forum, as I've got numerous explanations of "VIP".
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,585
RAC: 406
United Kingdom
Message 1245552 - Posted: 13 Jun 2012, 21:15:02 UTC - in response to Message 1245547.
Last modified: 13 Jun 2012, 21:17:36 UTC

& don't forget that the BOC has their own "VIP Lane".

Again, it's a shame that this is a kid-friendly forum, as I've got numerous explanations of "VIP".

These Olympics are an enforcement upon people against their will. It's occasions
like this that expose just what the elitist in high office truly think
about us mere mortals below...,."your there to be used".
And guess who else works on this philosophy?.... You've got it, "The union Barons"
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32348
Credit: 14,277,830
RAC: 7,084
United Kingdom
Message 1245775 - Posted: 14 Jun 2012, 7:09:03 UTC

These Olympics are an enforcement upon people against their will.


That is a bit of a broad brush statement there. Some people are not in favour of the Olympics, but I think you will find that the majority of people are. Pernaaly I'm not into sports, I haven't applied for any tickets, and in any case I would get a better view on the TV. OK its not the same as the atmosphere of actually being there, but I have volunteered to marshall the Torch and cycling races when they come through my town, so I am playing my part in it.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32348
Credit: 14,277,830
RAC: 7,084
United Kingdom
Message 1245824 - Posted: 14 Jun 2012, 11:22:01 UTC
Last modified: 14 Jun 2012, 11:25:39 UTC

I think that being chosen to host the Olympics is quite a feather in one's hat.


The IOC do vet Countries applications quite strongly, and there have been many accusations of behind the scenes politics and buggins turn. But yes it is an honour to host the Olympics, we last did it in 1948. I can just vaguely remember it, as that year we bought our first house as distinct from renting, and that rather overshadowed things for our family.

And, whether some are not in favour of it or not, it does pump a ton of money into their regional economy.

Not sure about that. It may yet cost this country more to host them than any income derived from it. But you have to offset that against better road and rail links and the Docklands regeneration, which wouldn't have happened otherwise.

What is an an unquantifiable is people tempted to visit the UK for the first time, who just might become frequent repeat visitors in the future. You are always going to get the professional miseries who say it's a waste of money, bah humbug etc. Well sod 'em!! the majority of the UK are happy about it. And if you factor out tabloid newspapers desperate to maintain circulation, and avoid redundancies, it's all basically good.

It's going to cost a lot more than initially envisaged, of course it is, it was always going to, we all knew that from day 1. And you can bet that there is a Government contingency fund somewhere that will deal with that. OK the Taxpayer one way or another will end up footing the bill, but I still think overall it is worth it.

If any sort of Olympic souvenir takes your fancy Mark, PM me your addy and I'll see what I can do for you.

But we really need to continue this in the Olympics thread, not here in the Union thread :-)))

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8749
Credit: 25,599,144
RAC: 7,571
United Kingdom
Message 1245848 - Posted: 14 Jun 2012, 12:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 1245783.

These Olympics are an enforcement upon people against their will.


That is a bit of a broad brush statement there. Some people are not in favour of the Olympics, but I think you will find that the majority of people are. Pernaaly I'm not into sports, I haven't applied for any tickets, and in any case I would get a better view on the TV. OK its not the same as the atmosphere of actually being there, but I have volunteered to marshall the Torch and cycling races when they come through my town, so I am playing my part in it.

I think that being chosen to host the Olympics is quite a feather in one's hat.
And, whether some are not in favor of it or not, it does pump a ton of money into their regional economy.

Not sure Montreal would agree. 1976 Summer Olympics Legacy

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32348
Credit: 14,277,830
RAC: 7,084
United Kingdom
Message 1289815 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 19:38:31 UTC

At my request the Moderators have kindly agreed to unlock this thread. It went a bit askew before with the Olympics stuff, but now back on track to Trade Unions.

Union Funding

Mr McCluskey told the newspaper union members were "furious" with Labour's "crazy" decision to back a pay freeze in the public sector and he threatened to withdraw constituency funding for MPs who were not in line with the union's position.

"We should only be supporting those constituencies where their vision of the type of future that we want is in line with ours," he said.

So that others outside of the UK have a bit of background here, as has been said elsewhere, UK political parties can only spend so much of their own funds on electioneering. They rely upon benefactors and sponsors to supply the many millions that elections cost to run. In the case of the Tory party that is traditionally from middle and upper class land owners, also called the County set.

Labour on the other hand has always been bankrolled by the trade unions on the understanding that they get a say in employment legislation and other matters that directly affect them. The Lib Dems usually survive by local fundraising from their constituency parties, although there are a couple of generous donors.

So what are we to make of Mr McCluskey's statement? You let us run the country else we are not paying up front?

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11796
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1289823 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 19:58:31 UTC - in response to Message 1289815.

I hope not. If this festers long enough, I can foresee another "Winter of Discontent" & those "Union Muppets" will then see even tighter legal restrictions which will not benefit their members, in fact, it could be the cause of reducing union membership even further.

They already realised this from the past by merging - carry on the way they're headed & merging won't help them at all.
____________

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1289838 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 20:30:16 UTC

Tell that one to the Unions, where financial responsibility and business survivability is a low priority ...
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32348
Credit: 14,277,830
RAC: 7,084
United Kingdom
Message 1289839 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 20:32:06 UTC

Well it may even be a bit more serious than that. Labour funding

A year ago over 90% of Labour party funding came from the Unions. If they are now threatening to withdraw that money, as they seem to be in certain cases, where will the funding come from in the future? A political party that cannot campaign cannot win. That could alter the political landscape in the UK.

The rank and file of the Labour party favoured the elder brother David Milliband as leader, but the Unions wouldn't support him because he wanted to stand up to them. They used their block vote for the weaker Ed Milliband who they judged would do as he was told. John Prescott was only made deputy PM because he could control the votes at the TUC Conference, so that they were favourable to the Government.

Is it right that a party that has been in government and may be again, is controlled by Union string pulling? And yes if they throw their toys out of the pram we could yet see another winter of discontent or even a general strike.


Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11796
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1289847 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 20:46:43 UTC - in response to Message 1289839.

Christ, I hope not. Don't want to go through all that crap & picket lines....didn't do it back then, but now, wouldn't hesitate...get in the way of me in a 44 tonner...

.....Ooops, sorry officer, my brakes failed!
____________

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1289848 - Posted: 30 Sep 2012, 20:48:00 UTC

A goodly number of us remember the Union/Labour Government cosying "Beer and sandwich" sessions, and the total irresponsible Union activities during the whole of the 1970s.

I am sure we do not want a repeat of that, especially as it was the first shot Labour had, and succeeded, in wrecking the UK economy. In 2008/09 they succeeded again under that dour Chancellor then rubbish Prime Minister.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9043
Credit: 36,979,785
RAC: 14,177
United States
Message 1290030 - Posted: 1 Oct 2012, 12:50:22 UTC

Are you talking about all unions or just the unions that if they go on a national strike it will cripple transportaion. Like trains, buses, taxi's and Airports, Dockyards and such?


____________

Old James

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1290040 - Posted: 1 Oct 2012, 13:43:11 UTC

All unions at the time (1970s)
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11796
Credit: 1,787,786
RAC: 1,688
Syria
Message 1290458 - Posted: 2 Oct 2012, 23:10:23 UTC

Ah to be a union head....

...definitely got to be the life of riley....

Scargill not done yet
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Trade Unions - For or Against?

Copyright © 2014 University of California