In message , Mike Bristow
writes
In article ,
James Farrar wrote:
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?

His job is to protect the interests of his members. If victimising
Londoners is, in his view, the best thing to do to protect his members
his duty is clear.

Personally, I think it's a short term attitude that will bite him later.

Well yes, because that attitude has given such a good future to the
miners, British car workers, etc !!

I can still remember the Fiat advert having a go at British Leyland
(remember them). It was "Built by robots, not by Robo's".

Soon the anecdote will be about Public Sector public transport (remember
them) ?!

--
Edward Cowling "Must go - A Grue Is About To Eat Me !!"

On 22 Aug, 18:00, Edward Cowling London UK
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?

His job is to protect the interests of his members. If victimising
Londoners is, in his view, the best thing to do to protect his members
his duty is clear.

Personally, I think it's a short term attitude that will bite him later.

Well yes, because that attitude has given such a good future to the
miners, British car workers, etc !!

I can still remember the Fiat advert having a go at British Leyland
(remember them). It was "Built by robots, not by Robo's".

Soon the anecdote will be about Public Sector public transport (remember
them) ?!

I know this is my second plug of the week, but (partly inspired by MIG
here) I wrote a piece along those lines for one of my more serious
writing gigs the other day:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/200...like-bob-crow/

The comments are interesting - they're a good reminder that while the
skilled-well-paid-craft-union element of the RMT rankles, the union
does also stick up for the poor sods who get paid a quarter of a
driver's salary to clean up Metros and puke.

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

On Aug 23, 12:34�am, John B wrote:
On 22 Aug, 18:00, Edward Cowling London UK





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?

His job is to protect the interests of his members. �If victimising
Londoners is, in his view, the best thing to do to protect his members
his duty is clear.

Personally, I think it's a short term attitude that will bite him later.

On Aug 25, 11:40*pm, " wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:34 am, John B wrote:





On 22 Aug, 18:00, Edward Cowling London UK

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?

His job is to protect the interests of his members. If victimising
Londoners is, in his view, the best thing to do to protect his members
his duty is clear.

Personally, I think it's a short term attitude that will bite him later.

Well yes, because that attitude has given such a good future to the
miners, British car workers, etc !!

I can still remember the Fiat advert having a go at British Leyland
(remember them). It was "Built by robots, not by Robo's".

Soon the anecdote will be about Public Sector public transport (remember
them) ?!

I know this is my second plug of the week, but (partly inspired by MIG
here) I wrote a piece along those lines for one of my more serious
writing gigs the other day:http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/200...to-dislike-bob...

The comments are interesting - they're a good reminder that while the
skilled-well-paid-craft-union element of the RMT rankles, the union
does also stick up for the poor sods who get paid a quarter of a
driver's salary to clean up Metros and puke.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been away for a few days, so was unable to reply before now.

The person who replied that to criticise Bob Crow for representing his
members' "interests" is akin to criticising defence lawyers for
defending murderers is quite wrong. I am a (largely) defence lawyer
(barrister). *If my client who is accused of murder tells me that he
committed the offence but can I please get him off anyway will be met
with the simple reply: I cannot represent him on a "not guilty" plea
if he is guilty.

I never suggested that you would. You would get the best deal that
you could in the circumstances. Might plead mitigation, draw
attention to lack of evidence of premeditation etc etc. The point is
that the murderer gets representation, and it's someone's job to
provide it.

The corollary of that is, when Bob Crow's members
come to him with some ridiculous claim he should tell them where to
get off. *It is quite wrong to suggest that defence lawyers are simply
paid mouthpieces without the abilty, indeed duty, to advise their
clients accordingly.

It's equally wrong to claim that a union would support a member with a
riduculous claim. They can't afford it, for a start.

MIG wrote

On Aug 25, 11:40*pm, " wrote:

The corollary of that is, when Bob Crow's members
come to him with some ridiculous claim he should tell them where to
get off. *It is quite wrong to suggest that defence lawyers are
simply
paid mouthpieces without the abilty, indeed duty, to advise their
clients accordingly.

It's equally wrong to claim that a union would support a member with
a
riduculous claim. They can't afford it, for a start.

How many such claims are there per year and how much would fighting
cost ?

It may be be worthwhile fighting some cases even for foolish members to
discourage employers from "trying it on" and so members will think
"they supported xxxx so they will certainly support me" and continue as
members.

--
Mike D

On 26 Aug, 23:56, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
MIG wrote





On Aug 25, 11:40*pm, " wrote:
The corollary of that is, when Bob Crow's members
come to him with some ridiculous claim he should tell them where to
get off. *It is quite wrong to suggest that defence lawyers are
simply
paid mouthpieces without the abilty, indeed duty, to advise their
clients accordingly.
It's equally wrong to claim that a union would support a member with
a
riduculous claim. *They can't afford it, for a start.

How many such claims are there per year and how much would fighting
cost ?

It may be be worthwhile fighting some cases even for foolish members to
discourage employers from "trying it on" and so members will think
"they supported xxxx so they will certainly support me" and continue as
members.

If I were a lay rep (which I have been) I might give some of my own
time for a member on the lines of being present at a meeting with
management where (without necessarily agreeing with the claim) I would
say "The member believes that x is the case and is unhappy about it.
I think that it would be a good idea for you to help the member not to
feel unhappy about this any more, and I suggest doing y by z date to
show goodwill ... (or whatever)"

Having someone to represent one's interests and note what has been
agreed can make all the difference, when the alternative might be to
grumble about it privately and then do something silly out of
frustration.

But I doubt if I'd recommend the union spending subscription funds on
sending in a lawyer or paid official.