While many moons ago unions obviously served a valuable purpose to prevent
exploitation of workers against t'mill owners etc etc , these days their
sole purpose , in london transport at least , seems to be to extract
unreasonable settlements via what is blackmail in all but name. We have
a bus strike in east london at the moment because the already best paid
drivers in the capital seem to think they deserve even more money for doing
a job a trained chimp could manage and true to form in the run up to xmas
Bob Crowe is rattling his sabre again with the usual whining about how hard
up his poor 40K a year members are and threatening another tube strike.

Isn't about time these unions were banned and workers in these sectors just
got on with doing the job they signed a legally binding contract to do
instead of behaving like immature stroppy teenagers with a chip on their
shoulder?

B2003

On 20 Nov, 09:34, wrote:
While many moons ago unions obviously served a valuable purpose to prevent
exploitation of workers against t'mill owners etc etc , these days their
sole purpose , in london transport at least , seems to be to extract
unreasonable settlements via what is blackmail in all but name. We have
a bus strike in east london at the moment because the already best paid
drivers in the capital seem to think they deserve even more money for doing
a job a trained chimp could manage and true to form in the run up to xmas
Bob Crowe is rattling his sabre again with the usual whining about how hard
up his poor 40K a year members are and threatening another tube strike.

Isn't about time these unions were banned and workers in these sectors just
got on with doing the job they signed a legally binding contract to do
instead of behaving like immature stroppy teenagers with a chip on their
shoulder?

B2003

As long as the CBI and various other boys' clubs are also banned, and
employment legislation is strengthened and rigidly enforced, and
bosses' pay is covered by the same agreements and cut accordingly.

If there is any flexibility within which different interests can
negotiate, then you can't ban one set of interests from organising but
not the other.

"MIG" wrote in message

On 20 Nov, 13:32, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:18:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
Yes, I think he means Bob Crow, whose funding comes entirely from
the subscriptions of members he represents and to whom he is
democratically accountable, unlike ... ooh ... the bosses of Lloyds
who are being propped up by the taxpayer and over whom the taxpayer
has no control.

Oh so old Bob is democratically accountable to the taxpayer is he?
Taxpayers have control over his actions do they?

No, because he isn't funded by the taxpayer; he is funded by the
members of the RMT, as I said. Lloyds is funded by the taxpayer.

It is now 43% owned by the taxpayer, and so taxpayers do have some
control over the management's decisions and staff bonuses. Ironically,
however, the worst decision made by the former top management was at the
instigation of the taxpayers' chief representative, one Gordon Brown.

Lloyds TSB had been a well-run bank that probably, like HSBC and
Barclays, would not have needed any taxpayer support through the crisis.
But Gordon Brown tempted his pal Sir Victor Blank to rescue the ailing
HBOS, by allowing the takeover to go through without a competition
enquiry. Blank has lost his job, but not been sued by disgruntled
shareholders, as he surely would have been had the bank been American.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/17/sir-victor-blank-lloyds

Worse still, now that Lloyds has been rescued, the EU is insisting that
it divests some of its businesses, to reduce its market share, so the
one intended objective (of increasing market share) that drove the crazy
deal will also be eroded.
http://www.topnews.in/eu-might-force...idiary-2214889
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/18/eu-approves-lloyds-bank-restructure

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:24:01 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
As long as the CBI and various other boys' clubs are also banned, and
employment legislation is strengthened and rigidly enforced, and
bosses' pay is covered by the same agreements and cut accordingly.

Why should bosses pay be covered by the same agreements? If you don't like
the job contract don't accept the job. If you want bonuses go to university,
get a degree and apply for a management role instead of whining that your
blue collar job doesn't afford you the same perks. Why the hell should it?

B2003

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:32:01 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:20 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Isn't about time these unions were banned and workers in these sectors just
got on with doing the job they signed a legally binding contract to do
instead of behaving like immature stroppy teenagers with a chip on their
shoulder?

I'm surprised you're only asking for a ban. I thought you'd be
campaigning for death by lethal injection for the TU leaders and public
floggings for anyone who goes on strike.

Couldn't do any harm.

Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a cancer on
society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any sleep if he was
arrested and charged with misconduct in a public office.

B2003

wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:32:01 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:20 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Isn't about time these unions were banned and workers in these
sectors just got on with doing the job they signed a legally
binding contract to do instead of behaving like immature stroppy
teenagers with a chip on their shoulder?

I'm surprised you're only asking for a ban. I thought you'd be
campaigning for death by lethal injection for the TU leaders and
public floggings for anyone who goes on strike.

Couldn't do any harm.

Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a cancer
on society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any sleep if he
was arrested and charged with misconduct in a public office.

Who on earth is this villainous Bob "Crowe" (sic)? Could you be
confusing him with Bob Crow of the RMT, who holds no public office? And
how do you "loose" sleep anyway? [Presumably this is the opposite of
"tight" sleep, enjoyed before waking up with a hangover?]

On 20 Nov, 13:04, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:32:01 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:20 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Isn't about time these unions were banned and workers in these
sectors just got on with doing the job they signed a legally
binding contract to do instead of behaving like immature stroppy
teenagers with a chip on their shoulder?

I'm surprised you're only asking for a ban. *I thought you'd be
campaigning for death by lethal injection for the TU leaders and
public floggings for anyone who goes on strike.

Couldn't do any harm.

Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a cancer
on society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any sleep if he
was arrested and charged with misconduct in a public office.

Who on earth is this villainous Bob "Crowe" (sic)? *Could you be
confusing him with Bob Crow of the RMT, who holds no public office? *And
how do you "loose" sleep anyway? [Presumably this is the opposite of
"tight" sleep, enjoyed before waking up with a hangover?]

Yes, I think he means Bob Crow, whose funding comes entirely from the
subscriptions of members he represents and to whom he is
democratically accountable, unlike ... ooh ... the bosses of Lloyds
who are being propped up by the taxpayer and over whom the taxpayer
has no control.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:54 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a cancer
on society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any sleep if he
was arrested and charged with misconduct in a public office.

Who on earth is this villainous Bob "Crowe" (sic)? Could you be
confusing him with Bob Crow of the RMT, who holds no public office? And
how do you "loose" sleep anyway? [Presumably this is the opposite of
"tight" sleep, enjoyed before waking up with a hangover?]

Oooh , typos. Wow, a couple of killer repost there mate, tell us your secret
why don't you!

B2003

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:18:14 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
Yes, I think he means Bob Crow, whose funding comes entirely from the
subscriptions of members he represents and to whom he is
democratically accountable, unlike ... ooh ... the bosses of Lloyds
who are being propped up by the taxpayer and over whom the taxpayer
has no control.

Oh so old Bob is democratically accountable to the taxpayer is he? Taxpayers
have control over his actions do they?

The bosses of lloyds are accountable to their shareholders FYI which is about
as democratic as far as the rest of the country is concerned as accountability
to a union membership.

B2003

wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:54 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a
cancer on society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any
sleep if he was arrested and charged with misconduct in a public
office.

Who on earth is this villainous Bob "Crowe" (sic)? Could you be
confusing him with Bob Crow of the RMT, who holds no public office?
And how do you "loose" sleep anyway? [Presumably this is the
opposite of "tight" sleep, enjoyed before waking up with a hangover?]

Oooh , typos. Wow, a couple of killer repost there mate, tell us your
secret why don't you!

I don't like Bob Crow any more than you do, but I do get fed up with the
repeated misspelling of his name, along with George Osborne (not
Osbourne).