Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On 5 Aug, 23:04, Arthur Figgis wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 5 Aug, 10:28, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:19:17 +0100

"Recliner" wrote:
Bob Crow may be odious, but he's certainly not an idiot. He's well paid,
probably popular with his members (for whom he delivers increased wages
and holidays on fine days when there's good sport on the telly) and is
possibly the best known trade unionist in Britain. I suppose he's the
communist equivalent of Michael O'Leary, who is also very successful in
what he sets out to do.
Bob Crowe isn't the only problem - the union "members" are too. Theres far
too many militant idiots who seem to think they deserve endless payrises
and unjustifiable conditions of work and constantly vote to go on strike.
Reality should be introduced into the rail industry with the idea of a job
for life firmly booted into touch. All new workers in the industry should
be hired on a rolling contract basis - no more permanent employment. And if
they cause trouble or don't want to do their jobs then the contract isn't
renewed and someone else from the 3 million unemployed in this country
takes their place.

B2003

The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment
ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life,

Jobs for life in banking? Not seen a newspaper lately, I guess?

bonuses that disguise their true salaries and all the other benefits
of being the right sort of chap.

The wrong sort of chaps have nothing but the unions, for which they
have to pay membership fees, and which usually fail anyway, because
their leaders are bought off by the right sort of chaps.

It seems to me that the objection isn't to people looking after their
own interests, but to the concept of the wrong sort of chaps being in
a position to do so.

What are the wrong and right sort of chaps in your book?

I've never been interested in making such judgements, but I am aware
that they are made.

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:53:33 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

Recliner wrote:

Privatisation was meant to weaken the railway unions, and maybe it has
in parts, but train drivers still strike. However, at least we no longer
have nationwide rail strikes.

Arguably privatisation - or at least fragmentation - has actually made
drivers stronger, as they can play off the employers to get a good deal.
Driver training is time consuming and expensive, so at least in the
recent past poaching someone else's drivers through better pay or
conditions was worth doing.


Absolutely.

Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:58:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:22:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

I hink that's just a reflection of changing times. The unions
certainly had a significant impact before the mid-20th Century.

I said exactly that in the post to which you replied, but you chose
not to quote it!

Not quite. But if you are clarifying your former comment, effectively
adding a "currently" into the first para, then fair enough.


I said:

"There was a time when the unions had a major contribution to make to
many aspects of workplace welfare and social justice, peaking in the
1930s. Alas, those days have long gone and the unions are now just
parasites on the backs of the workers."

You're welcome. Again. ;-)

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:22:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

I've never been interested in making such judgements


Yet you have made several judgments about bankers,
or rather several grave *mis*judgments.

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:02:36 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

In most walks of life people are generally paid pro rata with the amount
of knowledge required to do the job properly, not by how difficult the
job is on a day to day basis. Bus drivers have a ****ty job compared to train
drivers but I suspect their knowledge of the vehicle is limited to driving
it whereas AFAIK train drivers are expected to be able to do minor servicing
and troubleshooting if theres a problem on a much more complex vehicle.

B2003

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On 6 Aug, 11:06, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:22:31 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

I've never been interested in making such judgements

Yet you have made several judgments about bankers,
or rather several grave *mis*judgments.

This bit of discussion relates to Boltar's objection to one lot of
people selfishly looking after their own interests through unions,
while ignoring the fact that the whole establishment is geared up to
supporting another lot of people's selfish interests.

I inferred that his objection must be based on who the people are,
rather than objecting to the supporting of selfish interests in
general.

I don't share the view that the same behaviour should be OK for some
but not others based on who they are, as opposed to the job/role that
they have.

That being the case, it's of no particular interest to me to make the
distinction between which type of person should and who shouldn't be
supported in their selfish interests. That is the judgement that I am
not interested in making.

I am intersted in the job/role that they have. I think that operating
the railways is important, and therefore the interests of those doing
it have some relative weighting in my mind.

It's creating fake wealth through bloating house prices by being
prepared to lend money that can never be paid back that is parasitic
in my view. I don't give as much importance to the interests of the
people who have that role. Nevertheless, the establishment does, so
they are probably going to do all right.

That's my opinion, and I hope that I've explained it better now. You
may disagree

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 03:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
I inferred that his objection must be based on who the people are,
rather than objecting to the supporting of selfish interests in
general.

You inferred wrong. What the bankers did was wrong but most of them have
paid with their jobs and it was managements own stupidity, lack of
regulation of their employees and probably collusion that created the mess.

However holding "customers" and companies to ransom which is what the
unions are doing is a whole different ball game to plain incompetance. Its
a deliberate and willful attempt by employees to screw a company and its
customers as opposed to a side effect of their actions while at work.

BIG difference.

B2003

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:18:34 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:02:36 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

In most walks of life people are generally paid pro rata with the amount
of knowledge required to do the job properly, not by how difficult the
job is on a day to day basis. Bus drivers have a ****ty job compared to train
drivers but I suspect their knowledge of the vehicle is limited to driving
it whereas AFAIK train drivers are expected to be able to do minor servicing
and troubleshooting if theres a problem on a much more complex vehicle.


Complete rubbish.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job; they have to steer the
vehicle, take account of other traffic and also take fares. The train
driver has a very soft job; he only has to obey signals and the
timetable. The signals take care of all other traffic, leaving very
little decision making in the hands of the driver.

As for the "knowledge" required, there have been several train drivers
posting here over the years who are clearly of well below average
intelligence. They might be safe on a train, but I wouldn't trust
them to drive a bus, or any other road vehicle safely.

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:07:04 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Complete rubbish.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job; they have to steer the

I think you'll find thats what I implied.

As for the "knowledge" required, there have been several train drivers
posting here over the years who are clearly of well below average
intelligence. They might be safe on a train, but I wouldn't trust
them to drive a bus, or any other road vehicle safely.

I don't trust most bus drivers to drive a bus frankly.

B2003

Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
 

MIG wrote:
On 5 Aug, 23:04, Arthur Figgis wrote:
MIG wrote:

bonuses that disguise their true salaries and all the other benefits
of being the right sort of chap.
The wrong sort of chaps have nothing but the unions, for which they
have to pay membership fees, and which usually fail anyway, because
their leaders are bought off by the right sort of chaps.
It seems to me that the objection isn't to people looking after their
own interests, but to the concept of the wrong sort of chaps being in
a position to do so.
What are the wrong and right sort of chaps in your book?

I've never been interested in making such judgements, but I am aware
that they are made.

But by whom, and on what basis do they make their decisions?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK