In message . com,
Boltar writes

France, germany, italy etc sitll have viable large scale car
manufacturers, train builders etc. Hmm , wonder why that is. Could it
be the workers actually got on with doing their job instead of farting
about on a picket line? I'm old enough to remember the strikes at
Leyland and it was just

so sad to see those cretins warming their hands over the oil drums
digging not only their own career graves and that of their children,
but the whole british car industry. The same could be said for various
other blue collar
industries
in britain too.
I remember the British A.P.T. and the refusal of the government to fund
it after it exceeded £40m, hence now the Fiat designed Pendolino. How
about sacking the government for selling our birthright and giving it to
other countries. Oh, and remove their generous pensions that we pay
for as well.
--
Clive.

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
The only reason that we have unions at all is because of crap
managers. If
the people running a business treated the workforce as well as they
wish to
be treated themselves there wouldn't be a need for unions.

Well thats the clincher isn't it. What is "as well as they wish to be
treated"?
We'd all like to just sit at home and be mailed cheques every month but
lifes
not like that


Are you accusing managers of doing that?

Personally, I think there will always be a need for unions. I remember when
M&S "didn't need" unions because they were such a good employer. Now look
at them closing stores and laying off workers.

In message , Mrs Redboots
writes
even those who didn't deserve it - so the good workers didn't get as
much money as he would have liked them to!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
So the bosses favourites get higher wages, that is a good reason to
strike.
--
Clive.

"Boltar" wrote in message
ups.com...
So you think it's okay for employees to deny workers their rights?

Thats their story. I believe it about as much as I believe that Santa
will be
landing on my roof next week. So far every union complaint in the last
few
years has turned out to be BS.



Even the ones where the employment tribunals agreed with the unions?

"JB" wrote in message
...

Personally, I think there will always be a need for
unions. I remember when M&S "didn't need" unions
because they were such a good employer. Now
look at them closing stores and laying off workers.

I suppose you think that if the coal miners had only had a union all the
mines would still be open.

Nothing that unions in this country do increases the number of employed
people in this country. Everything that unions do in this country decreases
the number of employed people in this country.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On 16 Dec 2004 02:06:19 -0800, "Boltar"
wrote:


France, germany, italy etc sitll have viable large scale car
manufacturers,
train builders etc. Hmm , wonder why that is. Could it be the workers
actually got on with doing their job instead of farting about on a
picket
line? I'm old enough to remember the strikes at Leyland and it was just

so sad to see those cretins warming their hands over the oil drums
digging
not only their own career graves and that of their children, but the
whole british
car industry. The same could be said for various other blue collar
industries
in britain too.

B2003

You've obviously not been to Italy recently. Fiat is closing down a
plant in Sicily and they've just had *another* general strike. The
part of Italy I go to has a big Breda rail factory as well which seems
to be perpetually under threat...
--

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
Please reply to the group
Replies to this address will bounce!
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

Clive Coleman wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 16 Dec 2004:

In message , Mrs
Redboots writes
even those who didn't deserve it - so the good workers didn't get as
much money as he would have liked them to!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
So the bosses favourites get higher wages, that is a good reason to
strike.

Do feel free to explain why bosses ought not to like, and reward, good
workers?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 12 December 2004

In message , John Rowland
writes

I suppose you think that if the coal miners had only had a union all
the mines would still be open.

Nothing that unions in this country do increases the number of employed
people in this country. Everything that unions do in this country
decreases the number of employed people in this country.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.
--
Clive.

I can't agree with you there, it was only the unions which kept firemen
and guards on trains in the sixties for safety reasons when the B.R.B.
Wanted single manning for economy, bugger the safety.
--
Clive.

Yes, and had that double-manning (which was insisted on by unions not for
safety reasons but to keep jobs for their members) been discontinued, it is
arguable that the Beeching axe would have fallen less heavily since the sheer
uneconomic nature of the over-manned railways led to the closure of many lines
that might otherwise have remained open. If those lines had remained open, the
railways and passengers would have benefited ultimately, but this isn't
something about which the union leaders at the time could then (as now) give a
fig.

Marc.

In message , Mait001
writes

Yes, and had that double-manning (which was insisted on by unions not
for safety reasons but to keep jobs for their members) been
discontinued, it is arguable that the Beeching axe would have fallen
less heavily since the sheer uneconomic nature of the over-manned
railways led to the closure of many lines that might otherwise have
remained open. If those lines had remained open, the railways and
passengers would have benefited ultimately, but this isn't something
about which the union leaders at the time could then (as now) give a fig.

Marc.
What rubbish. During the Beeching era a lot of trains were steam and
as the diesels of the day were very unreliable, the trains were
frequently drawn by steam engines, further most freight trains were
loose coupled so a guard was essential. Tell me, when a train derails
now, who looks after the train? Who walks forward to lay detinatora to
protect the opposite direction, and who walks back to protect the
derailed train? Oh I forgot, trains don't derail now, do they.
--
Clive.