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.

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