On 20 Nov, 14:45, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)





MIG wrote:
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.

He might not be funded by them , but he's in control of a bunch of militant
workers who provide a service to them. When was the last you couldn't get at
your money because bank workers went on strike? And there are quite a number
of banks to choose from if you don't like Lloyds. Is there another tube
service thats RMT dickhead free the public can use?

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.

So ban private companies at the same time as banning unions.

Why? Companies generate wealth, unions just generate trouble and have had
their day and should be dispensed with. They sole purpose seems to be to
extort employers.

Only in the sense that the sole purpose of private companies is to
exploit slave labour.

I think you'll find that it's workers who generate wealth.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:33:59 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
Why? Companies generate wealth, unions just generate trouble and have had
their day and should be dispensed with. They sole purpose seems to be to
extort employers.

Only in the sense that the sole purpose of private companies is to
exploit slave labour.

I think you'll find that it's workers who generate wealth.

Whats this, Marxism For Dummies? What a load of BS. You might want to go and
educate yourself on what real slave labour is like, and not farcially try and
compare it with jobs that people choose to do and get paid money for so doing.

And without private companies and the entreprenuers who start them we'd end up
with a bankrupt, dead end society going nowhere just like the soviet union
ended up as.

B2003

In article , wrote:


And without private companies and the entreprenuers who start them we'd end
up
with a bankrupt, dead end society going nowhere just like the soviet union
ended up as.

If you're so wedded to freedom and capitalism why are you proposing to
take away the freedom of people to withdraw their labour?

E.

On 20 Nov, 15:53, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:33:59 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
Why? Companies generate wealth, unions just generate trouble and have had
their day and should be dispensed with. They sole purpose seems to be to
extort employers.

Only in the sense that the sole purpose of private companies is to
exploit slave labour.

I think you'll find that it's workers who generate wealth.

Whats this, Marxism For Dummies? What a load of BS. You might want to go and
educate yourself on what real slave labour is like, and not farcially try and
compare it with jobs that people choose to do and get paid money for so doing.

And without private companies and the entreprenuers who start them we'd end up
with a bankrupt, dead end society going nowhere just like the soviet union
ended up as.

B2003

At least read what I actually said. I did not in any way claim that
any paid jobs in the railways constitute slave labour. I was making a
"sole purpose" statement which was equivalently extreme to yours.

As it happens, slave labour is the ultimate aim of private companies
if their power is not balanced by the labour having some kind of
representation. In this country it is balanced to some extent, so we
don't have slave labour outside of the industries that exploit
"illegals".