Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
wrote in message
I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy is more than enough for me. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Aug 5, 10:28*am, 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. And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having months of 'no trains at all' is...? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote: And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having months of 'no trains at all' is...? Don't know. I guess it depends how much fuss the unions would make about non unionised contractors slowly replacing their members through natural wastage when they retire or leave. There might even be some union members who'd be happy to switch to contracting - as in other areas of work - the contract rates were significantly higher than the permi rates. And once you get to a certain percentage of contract staff you've got the unions over a barrel. B2003 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
wrote in message
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT) John B wrote: And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having months of 'no trains at all' is...? Don't know. I guess it depends how much fuss the unions would make about non unionised contractors slowly replacing their members through natural wastage when they retire or leave. There might even be some union members who'd be happy to switch to contracting - as in other areas of work - the contract rates were significantly higher than the permi rates. And once you get to a certain percentage of contract staff you've got the unions over a barrel. You usually need to do something more dramatic than that. Reagan dealt with striking air traffic controllers by sacking them all, but US aviation was disrupted for quite a while before they could be fully replaced (air force controllers could only provide a partial, short-term substitute). Murdoch defeated the Fleet Street printing unions, but he had to build a complete new production plant in Wapping, and still had battles with the unions for years. Thatcher dealt with the mining unions by shutting down the pits. I can't see how the railways could do anything like that these days. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
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. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
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, 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote: The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life, 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. Damn , and I forgot my violin... 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. The 1970s called ,they want their rhetoric back. I don't see any difference between high up bankers and the unions. They both have others by the balls and expect unrealistic settlements for doing a lousy job or less work. At least the bankers can be let go at the end of their contracts however , golden payoff or not, and the whole bank doesn't go on strike because of it. B2003 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 5 Aug, 13:56, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT) MIG wrote: The bankers and company directors have the entire establishment ensuring that they continue to receive huge pay rises, jobs for life, 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. Damn , and I forgot my violin... 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. The 1970s called ,they want their rhetoric back. I don't see any difference between high up bankers and the unions. Where does one start? Size of resources and representation in all parts of the establishment are worth considering. They both have others by the balls and expect unrealistic settlements for doing a lousy job or less work. No; bankers just take bets on other people's work. RMT members do actually do a job (even if you don't like the way they do it) and create the wealth that the bankers take bets on. At least the bankers can be let go at the end of their contracts however , golden payoff or not, and the whole bank doesn't go on strike because of it. B2003 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dumb question from America | London Transport | |||
Dumb traffic lights | London Transport | |||
The return of the LUL litter bin! | London Transport | |||
Wanted - LUL Type Whistles | London Transport | |||
The return of the LUL litter bin! | London Transport |