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

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).

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?

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"

;-)

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.

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) ?!

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.

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.

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.

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.