On 20 Nov, 14:45, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)





MIG wrote:
On 20 Nov, 13:32, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:18:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
Yes, I think he means Bob Crow, whose funding comes entirely from the
subscriptions of members he represents and to whom he is
democratically accountable, unlike ... ooh ... the bosses of Lloyds
who are being propped up by the taxpayer and over whom the taxpayer
has no control.

Oh so old Bob is democratically accountable to the taxpayer is he? Taxpayers
have control over his actions do they?

No, because he isn't funded by the taxpayer; he is funded by the
members of the RMT, as I said. *Lloyds is funded by the taxpayer.

He might not be funded by them , but he's in control of a bunch of militant
workers who provide a service to them. When was the last you couldn't get at
your money because bank workers went on strike? And there are quite a number
of banks to choose from if you don't like Lloyds. Is there another tube
service thats RMT dickhead free the public can use?

The bosses of lloyds are accountable to their shareholders FYI which is about
as democratic as far as the rest of the country is concerned as
accountability
to a union membership.

So ban private companies at the same time as banning unions.

Why? Companies generate wealth, unions just generate trouble and have had
their day and should be dispensed with. They sole purpose seems to be to
extort employers.

Only in the sense that the sole purpose of private companies is to
exploit slave labour.

I think you'll find that it's workers who generate wealth.