"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Not content with creating yet another pointless strike on the victoria
line about bugger all, this dyed in the wool ****** now seems to have
political ambitions over and above herding a bunch of thick militants
on to picket lines. Perhaps he sees the chaos he causes on LUL as a
stepping stone to the chaos he could cause in a parliament somewhe

http://no2eu.com/bobsblog.html

Is it about ego? Socialism is a hatred of human potential and a love of
waste. Getting Londoners to spend as much of their life creating nothing
as possible is Crow's pleasure, regardless of any ego issues.



Socialism is about just the opposite, it is about appreciating and
respecting the work of the people and doing what can be done to reduce the
burden and increase their lot. It is about eliminating the waste caused by
capitalism (four shops next to each other selling the same things in
capitalism, plus billions of wasted hours dealing with administration, money
and so on) and making things as efficient as possible spreading the burden
and the product. In the USSR etc this was not socialism, it was capitalism
under the control of a dictator. The workers have every right to defend
themselves through strike action and their rights were hard won and many
died for those rights. The right to ensure that they aren't bullied, that
discipline is proportional, that work places are safe and that they get a
fair share for the fruits of their labours. In the late seventies some
unions went beyond their mandate and called strikes without a positive
ballot. This was unceptable but now they have been left without enough
strength and with the possibility of workers being sacked for going on
strike, with staff not allowed to be in a union and with businesses creaming
off billions that should be in the hands of the working people or the
treasury. Onyx and Veola etc can only deliver services for less because
they cut corners and pay less, the same goes for First, Metronet (small
wonder they went under they way they did things though), Stagecoach and all
the rest do the same, cut corners, cut staff, cut services and cut pay,
saving taxpayers a few quid and pocketing huge amounts for themselves. Those
workers though end up paying less tax and it ends up costing the public
sector more.
Occasionally Crowe manages to P even me off but this was a minor inident
(the doors didn't fully open at any point and it was a fraction of a second
that they opened partially, the driver had no sign telling him which side to
open the doors and due to recent works was stopped further along the
platform than normal, he did a quick check proportional to the incident, he
looked along the train as far as the 6/7th carraige from where he could tell
that there were no problems, and why would there be and he proceeded as
normal afterwards ensuring the servicedidn't suffer too much) and the
response whould have been proportional. Drivers who go past a signal at
danger SPAD get a note on their record, get shown a video and get talked to.
A SPAD is far, far worse than this (remember it was in a tunnel and the wall
is close to the side of the train in this case) and yet the driver was
fired.
The union has every right to do what they can to protect other staff from
management and to restore his position/ secure for him full compensation.

Richard

On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:14:04 +0100
"bradders" wrote:
burden and increase their lot. It is about eliminating the waste caused by
capitalism (four shops next to each other selling the same things in
capitalism, plus billions of wasted hours dealing with administration, money

Of course what you conveniently forget like most socialists is that if there
wasn't a market for 4 different shops next to each other then most of them
would not make any money and go out of business. The fact that they don't in
your hypothetical example means that people quite like the choice - choice
for people not being something else not top of the list when it comes to
socialism. I guess your ideal would be 1 shop for everyone , like it or lump
it, perhaps with a catchy name such as GUM.

If you don't have competition you have no reason for people to pull their
finger out and work hard. They can just coast along because there'll always
be customers/clients as they have nowhere else to go.

wonder they went under they way they did things though), Stagecoach and all
the rest do the same, cut corners, cut staff, cut services and cut pay,

Unlike the angelic downtrodden "working man" who would never go on strike for
more money and less hours when they have a reasonable deal already, oh no...

The union has every right to do what they can to protect other staff from
management and to restore his position/ secure for him full compensation.

And the management has every right to deal with bloody minded workers who
seem to find turning up and doing the job they're paid to do on a
consistent basis a bit of a pain in the arse.

B2003

On May 28, 4:14*pm, "bradders" wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
Is it about ego? Socialism is a hatred of human potential and a love of
waste. Getting Londoners to spend as much of their life creating nothing
as possible is Crow's pleasure, regardless of any ego issues.

Socialism is about just the opposite, it is about appreciating and
respecting the work of the people and doing what can be done to reduce the
burden and increase their lot. *It is about eliminating the waste caused by
capitalism (four shops next to each other selling the same things in
capitalism, plus billions of wasted hours dealing with administration, money
and so on) and making things as efficient as possible spreading the burden
and the product.

I'm quite impressed that someone managed to come up with a definition
of socialism that was *even more* inaccurate than John R's definition.

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

bradders wrote:
John Rowland

Socialism is a hatred of human potential and a love
of waste.

Socialism is about just the opposite, it is about appreciating and
respecting the work of the people and doing what can be done to
reduce the burden and increase their lot. It is about eliminating
the waste caused by capitalism (four shops next to each other selling
the same things in capitalism, plus billions of wasted hours dealing
with administration, money and so on) and making things as efficient
as possible spreading the burden and the product.

No, that's what it says on the tin. My definition is what's in the tin.