"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...
In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!


According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

Paul S

On Aug 19, 10:55*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in . ..

In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!

According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

It's very unfair of you to use facts like this to spoil everyone's
game of coming up with non-sequiturs for the gratuitous abuse of Bob
Crow.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:55*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in . ..

In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!

According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

It's very unfair of you to use facts like this to spoil everyone's
game of coming up with non-sequiturs for the gratuitous abuse of Bob
Crow.

Abuse of Crow is never gratuitous.

On Aug 20, 9:16*am, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:55*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in . ..

In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!

According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

It's very unfair of you to use facts like this to spoil everyone's
game of coming up with non-sequiturs for the gratuitous abuse of Bob
Crow.

Abuse of Crow is never gratuitous.-

He is a rare example of a union leader who actually does his job
instead of chasing a knighthood.

Obviously, a lot of people wish that union leaders wouldn't ever do
their job, and have political reasons for disagreeing with their aims.

But their inability to come up with reasoned arguments when faced with
a union leader who actually supports his members, and constant resort
to random personal abuse, is not very impressive.

I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.

On Aug 20, 9:25�am, MIG wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:16�am, James Farrar wrote:





On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:55�pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in . ..

In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!

According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

It's very unfair of you to use facts like this to spoil everyone's
game of coming up with non-sequiturs for the gratuitous abuse of Bob
Crow.

Abuse of Crow is never gratuitous.-

He is a rare example of a union leader who actually does his job
instead of chasing a knighthood.

Obviously, a lot of people wish that union leaders wouldn't ever do
their job, and have political reasons for disagreeing with their aims.

But their inability to come up with reasoned arguments when faced with
a union leader who actually supports his members, and constant resort
to random personal abuse, is not very impressive.

I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll give you a reason: some people get paid more for doing the same
job that others do. It's not a vast conspiracy by the "bosses". It's
called life. Maybe it's unfair: that's also called life. Every time
Crow's members feel they want a bit more money, or to work a bit less,
or get some other incentive or whatever is NO excuse for Crow to
support their unworthy cause by causing panic amongst the travelling
public by threatening strikes every time they feel like flexing their
muscles. Where in Crow's job description does it say he must support
each and every strike threat however moronic the claims may be? If
they don't like their pay, conditions etc., the answer is simple: get
another job. If there are no other jobs, that's sad but it's also
called life.

Marc.

On Aug 20, 9:33*am, " wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:25 am, MIG wrote:





On Aug 20, 9:16 am, James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:55 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in . ..

In message
, Boltar
writes
.. with a Bob Crowe here and a dodgy ballot there , hey ho hey ho etc
etc

Mr Bobbys performance related bonus must be due soon. Obviously the
strike quota hasn't been met this year so something needs to be done!

He does seem like a drunk on a Saturday night strutting up the street with
his medallion swinging and shouting "who you looking at" at the passers
by. Just out to cause trouble !!

According to the BBC he's got them a better off which he's recommending be
accepted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7571141.stm

It's very unfair of you to use facts like this to spoil everyone's
game of coming up with non-sequiturs for the gratuitous abuse of Bob
Crow.

Abuse of Crow is never gratuitous.-

He is a rare example of a union leader who actually does his job
instead of chasing a knighthood.

Obviously, a lot of people wish that union leaders wouldn't ever do
their job, and have political reasons for disagreeing with their aims.

But their inability to come up with reasoned arguments when faced with
a union leader who actually supports his members, and constant resort
to random personal abuse, is not very impressive.

I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll give you a reason: some people get paid more for doing the same
job that others do. It's not a vast conspiracy by the "bosses". It's
called life. Maybe it's unfair: that's also called life. *Every time
Crow's members feel they want a bit more money, or to work a bit less,
or get some other incentive or whatever is NO excuse for Crow to
support their unworthy cause by *causing panic amongst the travelling
public by threatening strikes every time they feel like flexing their
muscles. Where in Crow's job description does it say he must support
each and every strike threat however moronic the claims may be? * If
they don't like their pay, conditions etc., the answer is simple: get
another job. If there are no other jobs, that's sad but it's also
called life.

Everyone has a "right" to be representated and get the best deal that
they can. That's why there are defence lawyers for murderers. It's
been established over many centuries that this sort of system works
out better for everyone.

Tubelines workers are not necessarily as bad as murderers (or maybe
they are, to read some of the discussion), but they still have
representation.

Attacking their representatives for doing their job is like accusing
defence lawyers of murder (which some people do).

On Aug 20, 9:25 am, MIG wrote:
I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.

British union leaders traditionally behaved like Crow. Understandably,
companies sought to replace their workforce with machines, foreigners
employed abroad, and foreigners employed here. As a result of that,
although plenty of British-designed goods are still manufactured, many
by British companies and quite a few in the UK, manufacturing
employment is at its lowest since the Industrial Revolution.

German union leaders traditionally behaved like the guys you accuse of
'chasing a knighthood', working co-operatively with companies to
maximise efficiency and share the benefits. As a result, Germany still
has a great deal of highly skilled domestic manufacturing industry
employing a great many people.

Fast forward to now.

If I were in charge of long-term strategic transport planning in
London, the fact that the unions are entirely uncooperative despite
transport workers' high wages and good job conditions would lead me to
eliminate as many highly-skilled manual jobs as possible from the
network, using as much automation as possible.

It would also encourage me to ensure that any network expansion plans
were handled separately from LU, relying on private-sector employers
who're slightly less under the thumb (both inherently, and because if
each line is run by a separate private sector organisation then only
that company's staff can go on strike over a particular dispute).

While it would take a long time for these changes to work through (the
peak of striking in UK industry was 1973 I think, with the trough in
2005), the end result would be to render Crow's men completely
obsolete, destroying a set of well-paid working class jobs that - if
he weren't such an obstreferous tool - both sides of the dispute would
sooner they continued to exist.

I'm not in charge of long-term strategic transport planning in London.
However, the people who are have decided to eliminate as many highly-
skilled manual jobs as possible from the network, using as much
automation as possible, and have ensured that all network expansion
plans (since 1987, with the exception of JLE and T5) are handled
separately from LU relying on discrete private sector organisations.

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

On Aug 20, 10:57*am, John B wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:25 am, MIG wrote:

I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.

British union leaders traditionally behaved like Crow. Understandably,
companies sought to replace their workforce with machines, foreigners
employed abroad, and foreigners employed here. As a result of that,
although plenty of British-designed goods are still manufactured, many
by British companies and quite a few in the UK, manufacturing
employment is at its lowest since the Industrial Revolution.

Thanks (for making an argument).

We obviously see it a bit differently. From your point of view, the
decline (or destruction) of British industry is due to outdated and
unreasonable demands of the unions that forced helpless companies to
look elsewhere.

From my point of view, British industry continues to be deliberately
destroyed by governments (from Thatcher onwards most spectacularly) to
remove any bargaining power from those resisting the unbridled greed
of multinational companies.

On the face of it, neither of us can easily prove our case (and there
might be various amounts of truth in both), but the evidence might be
found by looking at where the wealth and power really is.

On 20 Aug, 12:07, MIG wrote:
From my point of view, British industry continues to be deliberately
destroyed by governments (from Thatcher onwards most spectacularly) to
remove any bargaining power from those resisting the unbridled greed
of multinational companies.

Really? I think you'll find governments in the past have bailed out a
lot of british industry including British leyland despite the unions
being bloody minded sods with constant strikes, work to rule and ****
poor quality of product. I'll be generous and assume Red Robbo thought
he was doing his workers a favour. In the end though all he did was
cause our main car manufaturer to have a 30 year slide into oblivion.

Also ask yourself why Thatcher so hated the coal miners. Was it their
holding the country to ransom in the 70s? I remember the power cuts
because of them. The *******s had it coming.

B2003

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:25:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

He is a rare example of a union leader who actually does his job
instead of chasing a knighthood.

His job is to pointlessly victimise millions of Londoners?