"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
The only reason that we have unions at all is because of crap
managers. If
the people running a business treated the workforce as well as they
wish to
be treated themselves there wouldn't be a need for unions.

Well thats the clincher isn't it. What is "as well as they wish to be
treated"?
We'd all like to just sit at home and be mailed cheques every month but
lifes
not like that


Are you accusing managers of doing that?

Personally, I think there will always be a need for unions. I remember when
M&S "didn't need" unions because they were such a good employer. Now look
at them closing stores and laying off workers.

"JB" wrote in message
...

Personally, I think there will always be a need for
unions. I remember when M&S "didn't need" unions
because they were such a good employer. Now
look at them closing stores and laying off workers.

I suppose you think that if the coal miners had only had a union all the
mines would still be open.

Nothing that unions in this country do increases the number of employed
people in this country. Everything that unions do in this country decreases
the number of employed people in this country.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In message , John Rowland
writes

I suppose you think that if the coal miners had only had a union all
the mines would still be open.

Nothing that unions in this country do increases the number of employed
people in this country. Everything that unions do in this country
decreases the number of employed people in this country.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.
--
Clive.

I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.
--
Clive.

Yes, and had that double-manning (which was insisted on by unions not for
safety reasons but to keep jobs for their members) been discontinued, it is
arguable that the Beeching axe would have fallen less heavily since the sheer
uneconomic nature of the over-manned railways led to the closure of many lines
that might otherwise have remained open. If those lines had remained open, the
railways and passengers would have benefited ultimately, but this isn't
something about which the union leaders at the time could then (as now) give a
fig.

Marc.

In message , Mait001
writes

Yes, and had that double-manning (which was insisted on by unions not
for safety reasons but to keep jobs for their members) been
discontinued, it is arguable that the Beeching axe would have fallen
less heavily since the sheer uneconomic nature of the over-manned
railways led to the closure of many lines that might otherwise have
remained open. If those lines had remained open, the railways and
passengers would have benefited ultimately, but this isn't something
about which the union leaders at the time could then (as now) give a fig.

Marc.
What rubbish. During the Beeching era a lot of trains were steam and
as the diesels of the day were very unreliable, the trains were
frequently drawn by steam engines, further most freight trains were
loose coupled so a guard was essential. Tell me, when a train derails
now, who looks after the train? Who walks forward to lay detinatora to
protect the opposite direction, and who walks back to protect the
derailed train? Oh I forgot, trains don't derail now, do they.
--
Clive.

"Clive Coleman" wrote in message
...
now, who looks after the train? Who walks forward to lay detinatora to
protect the opposite direction, and who walks back to protect the
derailed train? Oh I forgot, trains don't derail now, do they.

The driver? Only member of staff on FGWL trains

--
Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do
with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff.
Posted in his lunch hour too.

Mait001 wrote:
I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept
firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the
B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.
--
Clive.

Yes, and had that double-manning (which was insisted on by unions not
for safety reasons but to keep jobs for their members) been
discontinued, it is arguable that the Beeching axe would have fallen
less heavily since the sheer uneconomic nature of the over-manned
railways led to the closure of many lines that might otherwise have
remained open. If those lines had remained open, the railways and
passengers would have benefited ultimately, but this isn't something
about which the union leaders at the time could then (as now) give a
fig.


So going back in time you presumably think the Government were wrong for
insisting that train drivers should work a mere eight hours per day with a
minimum of twelve hours between shifts?

Clive Coleman wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 16 Dec 2004:

I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.

What I can't understand is why we feel the need to under-staff our
trains for reasons of economy, when in the USA they seem able to employ
not only one guard (or "conductor", as I understand they are called
there) per train, but seemingly one per carriage! No question of fare
evasion there - your ticket is checked every trip, and a chitty put into
a slot in the luggage-rack above your head, so the staff person knows
they've done it. The trains were a lot nicer than ours, too - roomy,
comfortable, and, above all, CLEAN, even the loos - and there was
drinking-water if you wanted it, which I always do.

How come "the land of the free" is so much more comfortable with high
levels of service than we are (don't get me started on how many
different staff members they seem to need to serve you in the cheapest
of restaurants!)?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 12 December 2004

"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Clive Coleman wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 16 Dec 2004:

I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.

What I can't understand is why we feel the need to under-staff our
trains for reasons of economy, when in the USA they seem able to employ
not only one guard (or "conductor", as I understand they are called
there) per train, but seemingly one per carriage! No question of fare
evasion there - your ticket is checked every trip, and a chitty put into
a slot in the luggage-rack above your head, so the staff person knows
they've done it. The trains were a lot nicer than ours, too - roomy,
comfortable, and, above all, CLEAN, even the loos - and there was
drinking-water if you wanted it, which I always do.

How come "the land of the free" is so much more comfortable with high
levels of service than we are (don't get me started on how many
different staff members they seem to need to serve you in the cheapest
of restaurants!)?

Perhaps because in the UK everyone simply wants to rip everyone else off and
the concept of providing a good service is confused with being some sort of
lower class being?

In message , Brimstone
writes

Perhaps because in the UK everyone simply wants to rip everyone else
off and the concept of providing a good service is confused with being
some sort of lower class being?
So you could be a Driver, Fireman and Guard, carry out all their duties
and with safety eh? O.K. I except that you're totally ignorant of
procedures and safety, so just why are you showing your ignorance unless
you're just a troll?
--
Clive.