On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.


Perhaps you didn't notice, but most of the UK banks have been
nationalised and now belong to us, the taxpayers. Do keep up.


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


It's about putting your faith in the rule of law, rather than mob rule
by some particularly disgusting specimens of the lowest form of human
life, a.k.a. leaders of unions such as the RMT.



..

On 5 Aug, 18:29, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

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.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but most of the UK banks have been
nationalised and now belong to us, the taxpayers. *Do keep up.

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

It's about putting your faith in the rule of law, rather than mob rule
by some particularly disgusting specimens of the lowest form of human
life, a.k.a. leaders of unions such as the RMT.

Unions campaign for laws to be a certain way. Why would they bother
if they didn't put faith in the law?

Laws can be changed. We have (legal) employment rights because unions
have campaigned for them. They can be taken away again when employers
campaign for strikes to be banned, health and safety, maternity leave,
holiday pay and sick pay to be abolished etc.

Or is acting within legislation that one has campaigned for "mob
rule"? So is any kind of lobbying in that case.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Unions campaign for laws to be a certain way. Why would they bother
if they didn't put faith in the law?

Laws can be changed. We have (legal) employment rights because unions
have campaigned for them. They can be taken away again when employers
campaign for strikes to be banned, health and safety, maternity leave,
holiday pay and sick pay to be abolished etc.


Rubbish. The most significant changes to Employment Law have come
from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with
them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time
Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it
originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all
from British unions.

Indeed, the British unions have connived with management in various
companies and workplaces to deny workers the benefit of this new
legislation, often for nothing in return other than the right to work
what are elsewhere considered dangerously excessive hours.

Over the years I have conducted many negotiations on behalf of my
employers with union leaders and their attitude has usually been all
about what's in it for them. And by "them", I don't mean the workers.

I have also been a member of a union and found it to be a waste of
time and money. I obtained far better deals by direct, personal
negotiation with top management.

There was a time when the unions had a major contribution to make to
many aspects of workplace welfare and social justice, peaking in the
1930s. Alas, those days have long gone and the unions are now just
parasites on the backs of the workers.

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:02:17 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The most significant changes to Employment Law have come
from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with
them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time
Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it
originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all
from British unions.

I hink that's just a reflection of changing times. The unions
certainly had a significant impact before the mid-20th Century.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:05:35 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:02:17 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

The most significant changes to Employment Law have come
from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with
them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time
Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it
originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all
from British unions.

I hink that's just a reflection of changing times. The unions
certainly had a significant impact before the mid-20th Century.


I said exactly that in the post to which you replied, but you chose
not to quote it!

You're welcome. ;-)

Recliner wrote:

Privatisation was meant to weaken the railway unions, and maybe it has
in parts, but train drivers still strike. However, at least we no longer
have nationwide rail strikes.

Arguably privatisation - or at least fragmentation - has actually made
drivers stronger, as they can play off the employers to get a good deal.
Driver training is time consuming and expensive, so at least in the
recent past poaching someone else's drivers through better pay or
conditions was worth doing.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

John B wrote:
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)

I'm not sure of the terminology used in this kind of thing, but is the
school creating wealth, or creating the ability to create wealth?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:22:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

I hink that's just a reflection of changing times. The unions
certainly had a significant impact before the mid-20th Century.

I said exactly that in the post to which you replied, but you chose
not to quote it!

Not quite. But if you are clarifying your former comment, effectively
adding a "currently" into the first para, then fair enough.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

MIG wrote:
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,

Jobs for life in banking? Not seen a newspaper lately, I guess?

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.

What are the wrong and right sort of chaps in your book?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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.

OTOH, there are things like unions being able to provide better legal
support than an individual might otherwise be able to get in an
'emergency'. This seems to be particular reason for joining unions in
the rail industry, including amongst people who don't buy into the
politics. It makes it harder for a company to respond to an accident by
saying "we think Fred was at fault, no need to investigate further,
nothing to see here, move on now."

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK