"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:53:02 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Since we elected Labour, who we knew were going to agree with the
policy,
didn't we do just that?

We didn't elect them to import failed franco/german social policy.


Um...I thought I just cleared that up; Yes, yes I did. I suspect you
didn't
vote for them at all but perhaps you were overruled by democracy?

Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


.....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that. I'm sorry, am I
missing something here?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:00:16 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.


greg
--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

"Boltar" wrote in message
m...



My personal opinion is that people like you and the bone idle tube staff
are going to have a nasty dose of reality kick you up the backside one day
when some future government calls their bluff and fires the lot of them.
The miners, dockers, electricity workers and others all thought they were
vital and hence invulnerable and look what happened to them when they
pushed
their luck too far. I do so hope I'm there to see it when it happens to
Bob Crowe or his successors and his cronies.

B2003

Unless this is an online persona, you must be an awfully bitter person.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:00:16 -0000, "JB"
wrote:


Less than half the popular vote via FPTP is not a mandate to impose
monstrosities such as the proposed constitution.


....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.



OK, so you don't like the government therefore it must be unfair. I wonder
if you thought that when Maggie was reforming the unions, fighting for
control of the country from Scargill and battling for the British rebate
from Europe. I, for one, am convinced none of these things would have been
possible under the European PR system.

Personally, I'd far rather have our system that PR with the "never fired
politicians".

Greg Hennessy wrote:

In Germany's case the reason for failure is not the social policy.


Au contraire. when it costs 45 quid/hour to employ a worker at Volkswagen,
its social policy.

Dream on or head off and work for them if you do believe that urban
legend. €15.- to €20.- gross is more like it.

That was 15 years ago,

Instead of using the new supply of cheap labour handed to it for free,
German pols unified at the wrong exchange rate and paid for them to sit at
home on their Arsch.

Instead of encouraging labour mobility, they took active measures to
prevent it.

The eastern folk still have not adapted to "free market" an its labour
requirements. That's their problem.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:56:20 +0100, Guy Perry wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

In Germany's case the reason for failure is not the social policy.


Au contraire. when it costs 45 quid/hour to employ a worker at Volkswagen,
its social policy.

Dream on or head off and work for them if you do believe that urban
legend. €15.- to €20.- gross is more like it.


http://businessweek.com/magazine/con...6156_mz037.htm

At GM-Opel's Bochum and Russelsheim plants, workers earn $41 an hour, or
33% more than auto workers in France and other European countries.

IG-Metal ensures that VW will be in the same ball park.

Employer payroll taxation will add at least 50% to the above.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...&refer=germany


"At 27.33 euros an hour on average this year, German labor costs are the
most costly in the 25-member European Union, according to the German
Federal Statistics Office Web site. Hourly labor costs are 20.15 euros in
France and 18.72 euros in the U.K. "


That's the German average and when the cost of employing someone is
factored in, its social policy.



The eastern folk still have not adapted to "free market" an its labour
requirements. That's their problem.

That's because their govt gave them the option of sitting at home idle.


greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:51:32 -0000, "JB"
wrote:

....Which is why we're getting a referendum on that.

Only by sheer fluke.



OK, so you don't like the government therefore it must be unfair.

No, I don't like government by decree courtesy of the royal prerogative.

I don't like it when a Home secretary signs up to very one sided
extradition arrangements without a debate in parliament.

I don't like handing the inland revenue, HMC&E powers to enter private
property without warrant to seize property to facilitate tax
'investigations'.

I don't like the enabling act powers of the civil contingencies bill.

etc
etc
etc


I wonder
if you thought that when Maggie was reforming the unions, fighting for
control of the country from Scargill and battling for the British rebate
from Europe. I, for one, am convinced none of these things would have been
possible under the European PR system.

Thank Insert your Deity here

Personally, I'd far rather have our system that PR with the "never fired
politicians".

Not much use with a 'constitution' which could and would bind successor
parliaments, voiding the Dicey concept of implied repeal.


greg

--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote in message ...
"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:49:27 +0000, Jason
wrote:


Roger Evans, the transport spokesman, said: "This deal is beyond
comprehension. It is an outrageous insult to every hard-working
Londoner. Yet again we're seeing the unions holding the capital to
ransom. They know the threat of strikes always pays off. The answer is
to ban strikes on the Underground.

Why is it an "insult"? It's not extra holidays - it's days off on
account of extra hours worked!

Well, I find it insulting as I don't get time off because of the extra hours
I work,

More fool you. If you can't do your job in your contracted hours,
then a) you're not upto the job, or b) the job is too much for one
person. If the former, you're lucky your employer hasn't noticed yet;
if the latter, your employer is laughing all the way to the bank,
since your readiness to be ****ed up the arse saves them employing
more/enough staff.

"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote in message ...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...


Well, I find it insulting as I don't get time off because of the
extra hours I work, and I would imagine the millions of people
working for the many companies in many industries that don't leech of
public money, and don't have a corrupt union propping them up might
feel similarly about the situation.


Do you regularly work a 37.5 hour week but only get paid for 35?


I regularly work weeks of 40+ hours, and in my contract I specifically had
to sign an opt-out of the European Law on the maximum 48 hour week, and I
get paid a fixed salary based on a notional 37.5 hour week, with no overtime
or time off over and above that.

Ah! SO you _do_ enjoy being ****ed up the arse by your employers!

And compared to some people I know I have it pretty easy.

You must know a lot of very stupid people, then.

But very few companies functioning within the constraints of real world
economics could afford their staff the joyride that LU staff seem to benefit
from.

What? You mean - Shock! Horror! - people being compensated for the
hours they work above the ones they're actually paid for, within a
formal structured system?

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote...
"Nick Cooper" wrote...
Jason wrote:


Roger Evans, the transport spokesman, said: "This deal is beyond
comprehension. It is an outrageous insult to every hard-working
Londoner. Yet again we're seeing the unions holding the capital to
ransom. They know the threat of strikes always pays off. The answer is
to ban strikes on the Underground.

Why is it an "insult"? It's not extra holidays - it's days off on
account of extra hours worked!

'Tis an insult that the deal they've come to still allows strikes.

Well, I find it insulting as I don't get time off because of the extra
hours I work,

If you're that insulted, maybe you should work somewhere else.

More fool you. If you can't do your job in your contracted hours,
then a) you're not upto the job, or b) the job is too much for one
person. If the former, you're lucky your employer hasn't noticed yet;
if the latter, your employer is laughing all the way to the bank,
since your readiness to be ****ed up the arse saves them employing
more/enough staff.

Have you considered the possibility that the workload is so much that
very few people are up to it?