Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

"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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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?]

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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).

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.



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.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.

B2003

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

wrote in message
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?

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably elect
someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're in
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in other
ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes

True, but in those cases they can legally be sacked.

ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

That too, though the stupidity of a TOC that didn't stipulate sunday working
via a rota system in the job contract but relied on workers good will beggars
belief.

B2003

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

"Huge" wrote in message

On 2009-11-20, Recliner wrote:

(rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

Perhaps you, like the management of the aforementioned TOCs, are
confused as to the meaning of the word "voluntary"? You may even be
as stupid as them.

I didn't say they were doing anything illegal, just thoroughly messing
up the customers. Clearly it's an orchestrated act.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably elect
someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're in
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in other
ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).


What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:15 +0000
Bruce wrote:
What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

A good suggestion I heard was that there must be something like a 75%
turnout on a strike ballot vote before any strike can legally go ahead.

B2003

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).


What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Yes, but I wonder if the Tories will be brave enough to do it either? I
suppose the more of a winter of discontent we have between now and the
election, the easier it will be for Cameron to stand up to them. But,
like Maggie vs Scargill, he'll need to be well-prepared.

And we'll also need better management in those public sector
organisations -- pendulum arbitration works well in businesses like
Japanese car factories, but may be harder in the poorly managed public
sector.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:13:41 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

That too, though the stupidity of a TOC that didn't stipulate sunday working
via a rota system in the job contract but relied on workers good will beggars
belief.


The mistake was for TOCs to treat rail staff with the respect that
professional people deserve, and pay them a salary rather than a wage.
The trouble is, as several TOCs have now found to their cost, is that
rail staff lack the basic principles that should be expected of a
profession, and both were and are an ignorant customer-hostile rabble
represented by trade unions that are led by (elected) politically
motivated thugs who will exploit every possible opportunity to cause
trouble.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

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".

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On 20 Nov, 15:29, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:15 +0000

Bruce wrote:
What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. *But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

A good suggestion I heard was that there must be something like a 75%
turnout on a strike ballot vote before any strike can legally go ahead.

B2003

As long as you need the same turnout to get into government, and the
same turnout of MPs to vote oppressive legislation through ... and so
on.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

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).

Eek! Now there's a killer combination! What are they doing together?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably
elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're
in control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they
may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in
other ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the Unions
or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2 years of
contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one of those unions
that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that reason?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Nov 20, 9:34*am, wrote:
[Thatcherite nonsense snipped]

No. And that's said as someone who's absolutely not a fan of the RMT's
tactics or leadership.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:56:52 -0600,
wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

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).

Eek! Now there's a killer combination! What are they doing together?



Lunching on a Russian oligarch's yacht, perhaps?

Oh, silly me, that was Peter Mandyperson. ;-)

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Nov 20, 5:46�pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:56:52 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

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).

Eek! Now there's a killer combination! What are they doing together?

Lunching on a Russian oligarch's yacht, perhaps?

Oh, silly me, that was Peter Mandyperson. �;-)

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!

Marc.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On 20 Nov, 16:56, wrote:
In article ,





(Bruce) wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably
elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're
in control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they
may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in
other ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. *But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the Unions
or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2 years of
contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one of those unions
that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that reason?

Are you suggesting letting facts spoil a good rant?

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!


I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

wrote in message

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the
Unions or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2
years of contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one of
those unions that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that reason?

I'm pretty sure the RMT still sponsors (ie, funds) some Labour MPs, but
not the party itself (after it was expelled in 2004). But, of course,
the RMT is not the only union on the railways, and the others remain
friendly with Labour.

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 20 Nov, 16:56, wrote:
In article ,

(Bruce) wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).

What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector,
is a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum
arbitration of pay claims. *But it will never happen under Labour,
because Labour doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Not that I would want to be characterised as an apologist for the
Unions or the Labour Party but you seem to have overlooked 12 1/2
years of contrary evidence to that proposition. Isn't the RMT one
of those unions that has stopped paying Labour for precisely that
reason?

Are you suggesting letting facts spoil a good rant?

Would I do that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Nov 21, 10:03�am, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!

I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

And to think that he was overlooked in the trawl to find a suitable
candidate for President of the E.U.!

Is it time for transport unions to be banned?
 

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:50:30 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 21, 10:03?am, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:28:19 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

I heard Crow on the local news this evening - he's again jumping on
the "elf'nsafety" banwagon, regarding track inspections on the Jubilee
Line. Clearly his overpaid members are looking for some more Christmas
shopping time in which to spend their inflated paypackets!

I think the idea is to get their pay so high that they can afford
several weeks on strike each year in support of Brother Crow's
political agenda.

And to think that he was overlooked in the trawl to find a suitable
candidate for President of the E.U.!


Funnily enough, I'd rather have him than Tony Bliar, because at least
you would know exactly where you were with him. And he's a fighter -
better to have on your side than the other.

I feel sorry for the poor Belgians, whose politically divided
Parliament took many months to find someone who would agree to become
their Prime Minister, only to lose him soon after to become President
of Europe. Perhaps the feeling is that anyone who can lead divided
Belgium has at least a chance of getting the various leaders of the
states of the EU (and the European Commissioners) to work together.

I sincerely hope that Belgium can find a replacement for Herman van
Rompuy with the passion needed to unify the country. The gap between
the two sides (Flemish and Walloons) is a political and cultural
chasm. There was a near-complete dearth of candidates for the job
last time until Mr van Rompuy stepped up.

More worrying is the appointment of Baroness Nobody to be the EU's
foreign minister, and her replacement as Trade Commissioner by an
anti-free market Frenchman.