|
|
#46
21.08.2008, 19:52
|
|
|
|
|
On 20 Aug, 12:07, MIG <googles> 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 piss 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 bastards had it coming. B2003 |
|
|
|
#47
21.08.2008, 23:39
|
|
|
|
|
On Aug 21, 7:52 pm, Boltar <boltar2> wrote:
> On 20 Aug, 12:07, MIG <googles> 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 piss > 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. Funny that when Ford wanted to cut its workforce in Europe a few years ago, it sacked the ones in Dagenham rather than the ones in Germany. This wasn't because of efficiency, because the Dagenham workers were more efficient. It was because the unions were weaker in the UK and there was less legal protection. When they want to sack workers, they don't care how good they are, they just care how easy they are to sack, and the weaker the unions are, the more the multinational companies will wreck communities wherever they feel like it. Big business isn't interested in "the country", it has far wider interests, and governments are only interested in sucking up to big business (and many ministers see their role as a long job interview). |
|
#48
22.08.2008, 08:57
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:25:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG
<googlespam> 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? |
|
#49
22.08.2008, 16:03
|
|
|
|
|
In message <bassa4hi9hlhs7einvftjj2pq4ktgest83>, James Farrar
<james.s.farrar> writes >On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:25:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG ><googlespam> 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? You can get paranoid about it all. The other morning I got turfed off the Victoria Line because of... 1. Points trouble at Euston or 2. Trouble in the Seven Sisters area. Probably the driver had fancied a sickie. Then I was on the Northern Line to Warren Street and it got held up for a defective train. Arrrgh. You almost expect a voice to say. "And it's no good trying to walk because Bob Crow has dug pits with bungie sticks in along the whole Euston Road" ;-) |
|
#50
22.08.2008, 16:22
|
|
|
|
|
In article <bassa4hi9hlhs7einvftjj2pq4ktgest83>,
James Farrar <james.s.farrar> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:25:14 -0700 (PDT), MIG ><googlespam> 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. |
|
#51
22.08.2008, 18:00
|
|
|
|
|
In message <slrngatmeh.voq.mike>, Mike Bristow
<mike> writes >In article <bassa4hi9hlhs7einvftjj2pq4ktgest83>, > James Farrar <james.s.farrar> wrote: > >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) ?! |
|
#52
23.08.2008, 00:34
|
|
|
|
|
On 22 Aug, 18:00, Edward Cowling London UK
<edw> wrote: >> > > 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. |
|
#53
25.08.2008, 23:40
|
|
|
|
|
On Aug 23, 12:34�am, John B <s> wrote:
[..] > 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. 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. Marc. |
|
#54
26.08.2008, 18:17
|
|
|
|
|
On Aug 25, 11:40 pm, "Mait...@aol.com" <Mait> wrote:
[..] > > 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. |
|
#55
26.08.2008, 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
MIG <googlespam> wrote
> On Aug 25, 11:40 pm, "Mait...@aol.com" <Mait> 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. |
|
|
|
|
| Similar Threads | |
| LU strike and possible knock-on effects on NR / LO services [was:Tube strike] On Jun 5, 11:28 pm, Paul Corfield <aoo> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:47:05 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T <mizte> > wrote: > > >On Jun 5, 8:31 pm, Paul Weaver <paulweaver>... |
|
| DB Strike On another thread we were talking about DB ticketing recently and I was pleased to get some of the Euro 29 tickets on convenient trains.Or was I? I dropped myself into what... |
|
| Might get NPB strike ;/ Hi, Earlier this week I won an item from the USA and I paid straight away via PayPal. It was a watch which is meant to be a present for my friend who lives in Canada. So I... |
|
| strike 29/6 Not much discussion in this forum about next weeks strike considering it will be the first such major event in ten years. What are the chances of it being called off? Should... |
|
| RM Strike Hi, The postal workers here (Oxfordshire) have decided to go on strike (since last wed or something). I foolishly posted stuff on the Wed and thurs. They've not turned... |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41. | Privacy Policy
|
Hey ho, hey ho, its off to strike we go...