In message , David
Boothroyd writes
In article , "Centaur"
wrote:

ASLEF Shock!
So how does one feel now that 'lefty' (although nowhere near as left as Bob
Crow I hasten to add) Mick Rix has been voted off the GS position to a
"right winger" (apparently) Shaun Brady, for the next five years from
October 19 2003.

Shaun Brady once punched Bob Crow, for which action he is going to go to
heaven.

I'm lost here. Would anybody like to post 'their' list of union
good-guys - and why they think they are?

Bob. (Amicus member)
--
Bob Adams. email to:

Ade V wrote:
In article ,
says...


Union good guy: Anyone who realises they're in a public service industry
and should be serving the public, not disrupting them.


Not so: Unions are there to serve their members.

But the members are there to serve the public.

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:
Ade V wrote:
In article ,
says...
Not so: Unions are there to serve their members.

But the members are there to serve the public.

Probably not; I execpt their members are there feed, house, and clothe
their family, and perhaps have the odd holiday.

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
James Farrar wrote:

Ade V wrote:

In article ,
says...
Not so: Unions are there to serve their members.

But the members are there to serve the public.


Probably not; I execpt their members are there feed, house, and clothe
their family, and perhaps have the odd holiday.


If they don't want to serve the public, they should be in a different job.

In article ,
James Farrar wrote:
Mike Bristow wrote:
But the members are there to serve the public.


Probably not; I execpt their members are there feed, house, and clothe
their family, and perhaps have the odd holiday.


If they don't want to serve the public, they should be in a different job.

Why? If they're doing it competantly, who cares about their
motivation?

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
James Farrar wrote:

Mike Bristow wrote:

But the members are there to serve the public.


Probably not; I execpt their members are there feed, house, and clothe
their family, and perhaps have the odd holiday.


If they don't want to serve the public, they should be in a different job.


Why? If they're doing it competantly, who cares about their
motivation?


If they're on strike, they're not serving the public at all, let alone
competently.

In message , Mike Bristow
writes
who cares about their motivation?

Because how can you give good customer service if you don't give a ****
about the job or the customer?
--
CJG

I like the remark about someone going to heaven for thumping Bon Crowe. Always
good to see our moderates in fine fettle on the topic of "violence". Rare bit
of honesty.
On being in jobs to serve the public, maybe the transport services, hospitals,
schools etc should all be staffed by volunteers rather than nasty people
expecting to be paid living wages. But the staff should also realise that when
services are cut or the government decides some staff or shifts are not needed,
this is entirely for the public good and ought to be applauded. So long as we
use the magic words like "reform" and "modernising" (and what about that golden
oldie "rationalising"?)
If money is to be paid, I'm sure senior management, suppliers and contractors
will set the lead in taking the minimum that is forced on them, and asking how
they can pay more tax. Only the other day, I was talking about the health
service, to a gentleman from Glaxo-Smith-Kline-Beecham or whatever, and he told
me it was breaking his heart that he had been forced to accept a huge payout,
which he intended donating back forthwith. I happened to mention this
to.friends from Bechtel, and they assured me that as soon as the money comes in
from their contracts in Iraq, they will plough it into improvements on the
London tube.