Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

On 13/08/2016 09:19, Robin9 wrote:
d;157495 Wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:01:03 +0100
Recliner wrote:-
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:18:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:-
firms whose staff end up earning less than the minimum wage. But hey,
its an
app so what do the Kool Kids care if they guy delivering their organic
soya
salad earns a pittance, he's just a grunt right?-

http://tinyurl.com/h8vevqc
ate-against-new-contract-

Can't blame them. 3.75 per delivery is royally taking the ****. All
those
striking RMT ****s should have a good look at that to understand what
poor pay
and conditions really means.

--
Spud

Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.


Depends on your view of exploited - on average they had less job
mobility, took home less money (on average), had lower spending power
and lived shorter, more unhealthy lives, but hey - they didn't let
their bosses exploit them!

"Robin9" wrote

poor pay and conditions really means.

Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.

Union bashers should never overlook the central truth
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Really ?

What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in this
country" ?


I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their own
fault ?

Blame the victim indeed.

--
Robin9

It depends also on whether one thinks rationally!

First of all, job mobility is a luxury for people who are not
suffering extreme poverty. I'm quite sure that none of the
large number of people in this country currently working in
exploitation circumstances finds job mobility within their grasp.
If it were, they wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited!

In general, take home pay is a red herring because of inflation
and because advances in technology have made some products
far cheaper than they were decades ago. However the ratio
between take home pay and the cost of a roof over one's head
is far, far worse today than it was during the '60s and '70s.
Those unlucky people struggling in today's housing market are
unlikely to feel that cheaper television sets are adequate
compensation.

The people who worked in the dark days of trade union power
are the retired people who are living longer than any previous
generation. It is unlikely that people working today in exploitation
conditions will live as long.

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

During this period we had strong trade unions, some of which
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.

In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.

Robin9 wrote:

Michael R N Dolbear;157505 Wrote:
"Robin9" wrote
-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Really ?

What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in
this
country" ?


I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their
own
fault ?

Blame the victim indeed.

--
Robin9

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.

In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.

I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. There was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy has been
better managed.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...growth-economy

In any case, regardless of the government, there has been a long term move
of low value manufacturing from high wage countries like ours to Asia, and
perhaps Africa in the future.

Inequality has risen since 1980, reaching a peak under Gordon Brown's
government. It fell under Cameron and Osborne, but is still too high.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how...uality-changed

In message , at 10:49:15 on Sun, 14
Aug 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job.

All of that a result of the after effects of the war.

No-one leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

The sink-jobs then were on the railways; only later did it shift to
refuse collectors.
--
Roland Perry

[quote='Recliner[_3_];157509']Robin9 wrote:

Michael R N Dolbear;157505 Wrote:
"Robin9" wrote
-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Really ?

What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in
this
country" ?


I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their
own
fault ?

Blame the victim indeed.

--
Robin9

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.

In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.

I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. There was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy has been
better managed.
QUOTE]

Certainly we had boom and bust in those years - we
called it stop/go then - but we didn't have zero hours
contracts and we didn't have a large sub-section of the
economy based entirely on the employer being able to
exploit vulnerable people who have no alternative work
opportunities.

This has nothing to do with a rosy view of the past. It has
everything to do with looking at the facts and thinking
rationally about them. You say it was a miserable period.
Paraphrasing a speech Edward Heath made to the Tory
Conference when he was Leader of the Opposition: it was
not a miserable period for the millions of people who bought
their own home; it wasn't a miserable period for people who
had grown up in slums but who now had a modern council flat.
It wasn't a miserable period for people who had central heating,
television sets, washing machines, refrigerators and holidays
abroad, all of which their parents had never had.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:14:37 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;157509']Robin9 wrote:-

Michael R N Dolbear;157505 Wrote: -
"Robin9" wrote
-
poor pay and conditions really means.-
-
Perhaps they do know what low pay and poor working-
conditions are! They want to make sure they're not inflicted
on them.
-
Union bashers should never overlook the central truth-
that when we had strong unions in this country, working
people did not have to let themselves be exploited.

Really ?

What historical years have you in mind "when we had strong unions in
this
country" ?


I take it that during those years if anyone was exploited it was their
own
fault ?

Blame the victim indeed.

--
Robin9-

Between 1945 and 1979 the UK economy grew and, because
in those days we did not have banana republic politicians like
Thatcher, Blair and Osborne, the resulting prosperity was not
reserved for a few anti-social fat cats. We also had fairly
full employment, and in London anyone could get a job. No-one
leaving school faced the prospect of not finding a job.

During this period we had strong trade unions, some of whom
frequently went on strike or "worked to rule." Then, as now,
there was enormous media hostility towards the trade union
movement.

In the three decades after World War 2, anyone with any initiative
could avoid exploitation. It might be, for people in Scotland or
Northern Ireland, that moving to London or the Home Counties
was necessary, but the opportunity to avoid rapacious, predatory
employers was available to normal working people.-

I think you have a rather rosy view of a pretty miserable period. There
was
plenty of boom and bust in that period. Since 1980, the economy has
been
better managed.
QUOTE]

Certainly we had boom and bust in those years - we
called it stop/go then - but we didn't have zero hours
contracts and we didn't have a large sub-section of the
economy based entirely on the employer being able to
exploit vulnerable people who have no alternative work
opportunities.

There are plenty of alternative work opportunities. The UK has one of
the lowest unemployment rates in Europe, if not the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unempl...on_2010M09.svg

The unemployment rate is higher than in the 1950-1970 period, but
that's partly because of the postwar recovery:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...since_1881.svg


This has nothing to do with a rosy view of the past. It has
everything to do with looking at the facts and thinking
rationally about them. You say it was a miserable period.
Paraphrasing a speech Edward Heath made to the Tory
Conference when he was Leader of the Opposition: it was
not a miserable period for the millions of people who bought
their own home; it wasn't a miserable period for people who
had grown up in slums but who now had a modern council flat.
It wasn't a miserable period for people who had central heating,
television sets, washing machines, refrigerators and holidays
abroad, all of which their parents had never had.

Are you forgetting the three-day week, power cuts, the Winter of
Discontent, British Leyland, the closure of most of the shipyards...

wrote in message
...
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

*Subject:* Sadiq Khan and TfL on taxis and minicabs
*From:* Someone Somewhere
*Date:* Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:17:12 +0100



I thought it was a bit of an exaggeration, but then I used on online
calculator (www.entitledto.co.uk), claiming I worked 20 hours a week
for 8K per annum and was single with 4 kids, living in a band C
council property in Tower Hamlets with a rent of £120 a week.

This is what it came out with:

Initial Tax Credit £14,996.10 £288.39 This figure is based on the
income you received last year. The Tax Credits figure shown below is
based on your current income amount. Tax
Credits £14,996.10 £288.39 Working tax credit and child tax
credit.
Council Tax Support £364.52 £6.99 Your full Council Tax bill of
£15.30 per week will be reduced to £8.31 per week because of your
entitlement to Council Tax Support. The amount you get can be
affected by other benefits. We have included the amounts we have
calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week). Housing
Benefit £4,835.39 £92.99 Your full rent of £120.00 per week
will be
reduced by £92.99 per week because of your entitlement to Housing
Benefit. This means you will have to pay £27.01 each week. The amount
you get can be affected by other benefits. We have included the
amounts we have calculated for Working Tax Credit (£63.91 per week).
Child Benefit £3,213.60 £61.80
Total Entitlements £23,409.61 £450.17

So, £23k - even more than was claimed!

and falling.

hence the reason why I plumped for 20K instead of the current maximum of 23K

When does child benefit beyond 2nd child stop?

It doesn't (the proposal was for Child Tax Credits to be restricted to first
2 children, but that got quashed in the Lords along with the other recent
changes)

I accept that my suggestion that someone can get 20K in benefits from
earning 8K per annum in uncommon, but it most certainly isn't the complete
fiction that you suggested it was

tim