On 5 Aug, 10:28, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:19:17 +0100

"Recliner" wrote:
Bob Crow may be odious, but he's certainly not an idiot. He's well paid,
probably popular with his members (for whom he delivers increased wages
and holidays on fine days when there's good sport on the telly) and is
possibly the best known trade unionist in Britain. I suppose he's the
communist equivalent of Michael O'Leary, who is also very successful in
what he sets out to do.

Bob Crowe isn't the only problem - the union "members" are too. Theres far
too many militant idiots who seem to think they deserve endless payrises
and unjustifiable conditions of work and constantly vote to go on strike.
Reality should be introduced into the rail industry with the idea of a job
for life firmly booted into touch. All new workers in the industry should
be hired on a rolling contract basis - no more permanent employment. And if
they cause trouble or don't want to do their jobs then the contract isn't
renewed and someone else from the 3 million unemployed in this country
takes their place.

B2003

The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment
ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life,
bonuses that disguise their true salaries and all the other benefits
of being the right sort of chap.

The wrong sort of chaps have nothing but the unions, for which they
have to pay membership fees, and which usually fail anyway, because
their leaders are bought off by the right sort of chaps.

It seems to me that the objection isn't to people looking after their
own interests, but to the concept of the wrong sort of chaps being in
a position to do so.

On 5 Aug, 09:47, wrote:
In article
,

(MIG) wrote:
There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow
lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. *Have you
noticed what he's done to the weather lately?

You obviously can't have been near too many National Express East Anglia
would-be passengers recently, then!

I meant in this group.

However, the situation has now been rectified.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment
ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life,
bonuses that disguise their true salaries and all the other benefits
of being the right sort of chap.

The wrong sort of chaps have nothing but the unions, for which they
have to pay membership fees, and which usually fail anyway, because
their leaders are bought off by the right sort of chaps.

Damn , and I forgot my violin...

It seems to me that the objection isn't to people looking after their
own interests, but to the concept of the wrong sort of chaps being in
a position to do so.

The 1970s called ,they want their rhetoric back.

I don't see any difference between high up bankers and the unions. They both
have others by the balls and expect unrealistic settlements for doing a
lousy job or less work. At least the bankers can be let go at the end of
their contracts however , golden payoff or not, and the whole bank doesn't
go on strike because of it.

B2003

On 5 Aug, 13:56, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment
ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life,
bonuses that disguise their true salaries and all the other benefits
of being the right sort of chap.

The wrong sort of chaps have nothing but the unions, for which they
have to pay membership fees, and which usually fail anyway, because
their leaders are bought off by the right sort of chaps.

Damn , and I forgot my violin...

It seems to me that the objection isn't to people looking after their
own interests, but to the concept of the wrong sort of chaps being in
a position to do so.

The 1970s called ,they want their rhetoric back.

I don't see any difference between high up bankers and the unions.

Where does one start?

Size of resources and representation in all parts of the establishment
are worth considering.

They both
have others by the balls and expect unrealistic settlements for doing a
lousy job or less work.

No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. RMT members do
actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and
create the wealth that the bankers take bets on.

At least the bankers can be let go at the end of
their contracts however , golden payoff or not, and the whole bank doesn't
go on strike because of it.

B2003

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. RMT members do
actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and
create the wealth that the bankers take bets on.

I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since
when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How
is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to
bring in money from abroad into this country by various means.

B2003

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. RMT members do
actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and
create the wealth that the bankers take bets on.


What rubbish.

Banks provide finance for businesses that employ people. providing
them with jobs and prosperity. Without banks, the economy would grind
to a halt.

The economy has certainly slowed considerably over the last few months
as the banking problems took hold. Imagine how much worse it would
have been if the banks had been allowed to fail. We would have mass
unemployment.

As for trade unions such as RMT, they are parasites who extract more
money for less work by their members, and along with other trade
unions, maintain restrictive practices that act as a stranglehold on
British commerce.

In the short term, unions appear to be serving their members, but in
the long term, the economy would be far more successful without them.
There are more than enough labour laws in place to protect the basic
rights of workers - that was what unions were established to do, but
their job was done long ago.

If the trade unions closed down tomorrow, no-one would notice much
difference, except for the out of work fat cat union leaders such as
Bob Crow. If the banks closed down tomorrow, the economy would
collapse, with mass unemployment and severe deprivation for the whole
country.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:28:19 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since
when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How
is that creating any wealth?


The output of the companies they work for does contribute to GDP,
however the overall contribution to GDP must be far less than the cost
of expensively subsidising the rail industry. So, there is a negative
contribution to the economy, because the rail industry takes out so
much more than it puts back.

On Aug 5, 3:28*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. *RMT members do
actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and
create the wealth that the bankers take bets on.

I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since
when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How
is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to
bring in money from abroad into this country by various means.

That's a ridiculous fallacy.

Imagine a private school that makes a profit, because parents are
willing to pay for its excellent educational skills: is that creating
wealth? (clue: yes)

Now imagine the government nationalises said private school.

In the short term[*] it continues to do *exactly the same thing*, but
with the money paid out of taxation rather than in cash fees. In other
words, the school is providing exactly the same service to exactly the
same people. Has it magically stopped creating wealth? (clue: no).

The idea that only private sector jobs create wealth is an absurd
right-wing fallacy, which is obviously untrue to anyone who's thought
about it for more than 0.5 seconds.
[*] I'm even accepting, for argument's sake, the right-wing view that
the corrosive hand of the State will destroy all that's good and right
in the long term.

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

On 5 Aug, 15:38, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. *RMT members do
actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and
create the wealth that the bankers take bets on.

What rubbish. *

Banks provide finance for businesses that employ people. providing
them with jobs and prosperity. *Without banks, the economy would grind
to a halt.

The economy has certainly slowed considerably over the last few months
as the banking problems took hold. *Imagine how much worse it would
have been if the banks had been allowed to fail. *We would have mass
unemployment.

As for trade unions such as RMT, they are parasites who extract more
money for less work by their members, and along with other trade
unions, maintain restrictive practices that act as a stranglehold on
British commerce. *

In the short term, unions appear to be serving their members, but in
the long term, the economy would be far more successful without them.
There are more than enough labour laws in place to protect the basic
rights of workers - that was what unions were established to do, but
their job was done long ago.

If the trade unions closed down tomorrow, no-one would notice much
difference, except for the out of work fat cat union leaders such as
Bob Crow. *If the banks closed down tomorrow, the economy would
collapse, with mass unemployment and severe deprivation for the whole
country.

I was comparing the operation of railways with stock market trading.

One is doing a job, and the other is gambling.

I should have been clearer that by "banker" I wasn't referring to the
many thousands of people who do jobs involved in the transfer of money
etc, which is a service that should probably be nationalised, along
with the railways.

I wish I had your faith in how long any kind of employment rights
would continue without unions.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since
when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. H=
ow
is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to
bring in money from abroad into this country by various means.

That's a ridiculous fallacy.

Imagine a private school that makes a profit, because parents are
willing to pay for its excellent educational skills: is that creating
wealth? (clue: yes)

Well it depends on how you define "creating wealth" really doesn't it. If for
you all it means is money going in circles - A pays B , B pays C , C pays A etc
then fine, but for me it means increasing the average money in the economy
based on a measurement against an external source (ie just printing money
won't do it because then the value of your currency drops). And the only
way that can be done is with exports or making money on financial transactions
with foreign parties and the like.

B2003