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.



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.

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:54 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Seriously though , people like Bob Crowe are just as much of a
cancer on society as those idiot bankers. I wouldn't loose any
sleep if he was arrested and charged with misconduct in a public
office.

Who on earth is this villainous Bob "Crowe" (sic)? Could you be
confusing him with Bob Crow of the RMT, who holds no public office?
And how do you "loose" sleep anyway? [Presumably this is the
opposite of "tight" sleep, enjoyed before waking up with a hangover?]

Oooh , typos. Wow, a couple of killer repost there mate, tell us your
secret why don't you!

"Riposte" :-)

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

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.

B2003

wrote in message
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?

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably elect
someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're in
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in other
ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes

True, but in those cases they can legally be sacked.

ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

That too, though the stupidity of a TOC that didn't stipulate sunday working
via a rota system in the job contract but relied on workers good will beggars
belief.

B2003

"Huge" wrote in message

On 2009-11-20, Recliner wrote:

(rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).

Perhaps you, like the management of the aforementioned TOCs, are
confused as to the meaning of the word "voluntary"? You may even be
as stupid as them.

I didn't say they were doing anything illegal, just thoroughly messing
up the customers. Clearly it's an orchestrated act.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably elect
someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're in
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in other
ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).


What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:24:15 +0000
Bruce wrote:
What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

A good suggestion I heard was that there must be something like a 75%
turnout on a strike ballot vote before any strike can legally go ahead.

B2003

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps
its members would remain just as militant even if the union were
headed by someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would
presumably elect someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in
effect, they're in control, not the union leader. Even if the union
didn't exist, they may still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or
disrupt the railway in other ways (rather like the TOCs whose
drivers suddenly won't work on Sundays).


What is needed here, and across much of the public service sector, is
a combination of a no-strike deal and compulsory pendulum arbitration
of pay claims. But it will never happen under Labour, because Labour
doesn't want to upset its Union paymasters.

Yes, but I wonder if the Tories will be brave enough to do it either? I
suppose the more of a winter of discontent we have between now and the
election, the easier it will be for Cameron to stand up to them. But,
like Maggie vs Scargill, he'll need to be well-prepared.

And we'll also need better management in those public sector
organisations -- pendulum arbitration works well in businesses like
Japanese car factories, but may be harder in the poorly managed public
sector.

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.