| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
Had to get the tube this morning. Oh joy. Noticed on the piccadilly line
southbound at holborn that a nice new matrix display had appeared. Almost completely obscured for most of the length of the platform by a nice new video projector. That arrangement takes a special type of ****wit to sort out. Got a westbound central terminating at white city, next train behind was 12 minutes away. Train gets to white city, the westbound waiting in the other platform waits until our trains stops, we get out and it then closes its doors in our face and ****s off. So thanks to whoever was the drooling retard in the cab for that thoughtful quick exit. B2003 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
wrote in message ...
Got a westbound central terminating at white city, next train behind was 12 minutes away. Train gets to white city, the westbound waiting in the other platform waits until our trains stops, we get out and it then closes its doors in our face and ****s off. So thanks to whoever was the drooling retard in the cab for that thoughtful quick exit. That's a regular occurrence at Kennington. They do it on purpose. ****ing arseholes. Ian |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
Your post contradicts the subject line.
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT
James Farrar wrote: Your post contradicts the subject line. Care to explain? B2003 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:29:52 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote: I suspect people are referring to the lack of an apostrophe in your message title. Picking up on minor points of grammar - the last resort of the terminally stupid who have nothing else to say. Still it was nice to have you back moaning about LUL. Sensible views about bendy buses came as an enormous shock. Normal service is now resumed. B2003 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
In article , () wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500 wrote: In article , () wrote: On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT James Farrar wrote: Your post contradicts the subject line. Care to explain? Oh dear! So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the driver not bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on the part of the staff then? Hmm , interesting. It's the way you tell 'em! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Aug 4, 8:31�pm, wrote:
In article , () wrote: On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500 wrote: In article , () wrote: On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT James Farrar wrote: Your post contradicts the subject line. Care to explain? Oh dear! So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the driver not bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on the part of the staff then? Hmm , interesting. It's the way you tell 'em! -- Colin Rosenstiel- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point being made by Boltar about L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally flawed. But, more to the point, about bloody-minded staff: a few weeks ago, a particularly bolshie specimen was in charge of a Westbound, late-night District Line train. All along the route, from Temple to Earl's Court, the train had been advertised as an Ealing Broadway train. At Earl's Court, the driver announced "This train is now calling at all stations to Parson's Green" - as the doors were closing! He must have got a particularly big hard-on when he saw literally hundreds of passengers getting out at West Brompton, in a particularly heavy rain shower. Marc. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 4 Aug, 23:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point being made by Boltar about *L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally flawed. You think Bob Crow is a LUL employee? *I think you'll find he's a full time union employee and LUL has little choice put to deal with his union in collective bargaining. The other point here is that he is simply the figurehead - it is the union exec who take the decisions re settlements etc. There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. Have you noticed what he's done to the weather lately? |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Aug 5, 7:23�am, MIG wrote:
On 4 Aug, 23:03, Paul Corfield wrote: On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point being made by Boltar about �L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally flawed. You think Bob Crow is a LUL employee? �I think you'll find he's a full time union employee and LUL has little choice put to deal with his union in collective bargaining. The other point here is that he is simply the figurehead - it is the union exec who take the decisions re settlements etc. There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. �Have you noticed what he's done to the weather lately? I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy is more than enough for me. Obviously, the late Peter Sellers had imagined him, several decades in advance, when he played the union leader in "I'm Alright Jack". But there is a difference - that character had at least an appearance of learning and intelligence, characteristics so patently lacking in Crowe. "Gratuitous" suggests "uncalled for". I beg to differ. Indeed, Crowe is a rare example of someone being a parody of himself. Marc. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:12:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy is more than enough for me. Obviously, the late Peter Sellers had imagined him, several decades in advance, when he played the union leader in "I'm Alright Jack". But there is a difference - that character had at least an appearance of learning and intelligence, characteristics so patently lacking in Crowe. "Gratuitous" suggests "uncalled for". I beg to differ. Indeed, Crowe is a rare example of someone being a parody of himself. This "Bob Crowe" character sounds appalling. Is he any relation to Bob Crow*, the leader of the RMT union? *When ranting on about an individual's "appearance of learning and intelligence", or lack of it, wouldn't it look better is you used whatever learning and intelligence you have yourself and spelt the person's name correctly? |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
|
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 5 Aug, 09:47, wrote:
In article , (MIG) wrote: There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. *Have you noticed what he's done to the weather lately? You obviously can't have been near too many National Express East Anglia would-be passengers recently, then! I meant in this group. However, the situation has now been rectified. |
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 |
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 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote: 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. I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to bring in money from abroad into this country by various means. B2003 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: 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. What rubbish. Banks provide finance for businesses that employ people. providing them with jobs and prosperity. Without banks, the economy would grind to a halt. The economy has certainly slowed considerably over the last few months as the banking problems took hold. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the banks had been allowed to fail. We would have mass unemployment. As for trade unions such as RMT, they are parasites who extract more money for less work by their members, and along with other trade unions, maintain restrictive practices that act as a stranglehold on British commerce. In the short term, unions appear to be serving their members, but in the long term, the economy would be far more successful without them. There are more than enough labour laws in place to protect the basic rights of workers - that was what unions were established to do, but their job was done long ago. If the trade unions closed down tomorrow, no-one would notice much difference, except for the out of work fat cat union leaders such as Bob Crow. If the banks closed down tomorrow, the economy would collapse, with mass unemployment and severe deprivation for the whole country. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
|
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Aug 5, 3:28*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT) MIG wrote: 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. I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to bring in money from abroad into this country by various means. That's a ridiculous fallacy. Imagine a private school that makes a profit, because parents are willing to pay for its excellent educational skills: is that creating wealth? (clue: yes) Now imagine the government nationalises said private school. In the short term[*] it continues to do *exactly the same thing*, but with the money paid out of taxation rather than in cash fees. In other words, the school is providing exactly the same service to exactly the same people. Has it magically stopped creating wealth? (clue: no). The idea that only private sector jobs create wealth is an absurd right-wing fallacy, which is obviously untrue to anyone who's thought about it for more than 0.5 seconds. [*] I'm even accepting, for argument's sake, the right-wing view that the corrosive hand of the State will destroy all that's good and right in the long term. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 5 Aug, 15:38, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: 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. What rubbish. * Banks provide finance for businesses that employ people. providing them with jobs and prosperity. *Without banks, the economy would grind to a halt. The economy has certainly slowed considerably over the last few months as the banking problems took hold. *Imagine how much worse it would have been if the banks had been allowed to fail. *We would have mass unemployment. As for trade unions such as RMT, they are parasites who extract more money for less work by their members, and along with other trade unions, maintain restrictive practices that act as a stranglehold on British commerce. * In the short term, unions appear to be serving their members, but in the long term, the economy would be far more successful without them. There are more than enough labour laws in place to protect the basic rights of workers - that was what unions were established to do, but their job was done long ago. If the trade unions closed down tomorrow, no-one would notice much difference, except for the out of work fat cat union leaders such as Bob Crow. *If the banks closed down tomorrow, the economy would collapse, with mass unemployment and severe deprivation for the whole country. I was comparing the operation of railways with stock market trading. One is doing a job, and the other is gambling. I should have been clearer that by "banker" I wasn't referring to the many thousands of people who do jobs involved in the transfer of money etc, which is a service that should probably be nationalised, along with the railways. I wish I had your faith in how long any kind of employment rights would continue without unions. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote: I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. H= ow is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to bring in money from abroad into this country by various means. That's a ridiculous fallacy. Imagine a private school that makes a profit, because parents are willing to pay for its excellent educational skills: is that creating wealth? (clue: yes) Well it depends on how you define "creating wealth" really doesn't it. If for you all it means is money going in circles - A pays B , B pays C , C pays A etc then fine, but for me it means increasing the average money in the economy based on a measurement against an external source (ie just printing money won't do it because then the value of your currency drops). And the only way that can be done is with exports or making money on financial transactions with foreign parties and the like. B2003 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: I should have been clearer that by "banker" I wasn't referring to the many thousands of people who do jobs involved in the transfer of money etc, which is a service that should probably be nationalised, along with the railways. Perhaps you didn't notice, but most of the UK banks have been nationalised and now belong to us, the taxpayers. Do keep up. I wish I had your faith in how long any kind of employment rights would continue without unions. It's about putting your faith in the rule of law, rather than mob rule by some particularly disgusting specimens of the lowest form of human life, a.k.a. leaders of unions such as the RMT. .. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On 5 Aug, 18:29, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:12:21 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: I should have been clearer that by "banker" I wasn't referring to the many thousands of people who do jobs involved in the transfer of money etc, which is a service that should probably be nationalised, along with the railways. Perhaps you didn't notice, but most of the UK banks have been nationalised and now belong to us, the taxpayers. *Do keep up. I wish I had your faith in how long any kind of employment rights would continue without unions. It's about putting your faith in the rule of law, rather than mob rule by some particularly disgusting specimens of the lowest form of human life, a.k.a. leaders of unions such as the RMT. Unions campaign for laws to be a certain way. Why would they bother if they didn't put faith in the law? Laws can be changed. We have (legal) employment rights because unions have campaigned for them. They can be taken away again when employers campaign for strikes to be banned, health and safety, maternity leave, holiday pay and sick pay to be abolished etc. Or is acting within legislation that one has campaigned for "mob rule"? So is any kind of lobbying in that case. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: Unions campaign for laws to be a certain way. Why would they bother if they didn't put faith in the law? Laws can be changed. We have (legal) employment rights because unions have campaigned for them. They can be taken away again when employers campaign for strikes to be banned, health and safety, maternity leave, holiday pay and sick pay to be abolished etc. Rubbish. The most significant changes to Employment Law have come from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all from British unions. Indeed, the British unions have connived with management in various companies and workplaces to deny workers the benefit of this new legislation, often for nothing in return other than the right to work what are elsewhere considered dangerously excessive hours. Over the years I have conducted many negotiations on behalf of my employers with union leaders and their attitude has usually been all about what's in it for them. And by "them", I don't mean the workers. I have also been a member of a union and found it to be a waste of time and money. I obtained far better deals by direct, personal negotiation with top management. 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. |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:02:17 +0100, Bruce
wrote: The most significant changes to Employment Law have come from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all from British unions. I hink that's just a reflection of changing times. The unions certainly had a significant impact before the mid-20th Century. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:05:35 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:02:17 +0100, Bruce wrote: The most significant changes to Employment Law have come from the EU, and British unions have had absolutely nothing to do with them. In particular, the Paid Holiday Requirement, the Working Time Regulations and various other health and safty legislation, all of it originating from outside the UK and none of it having any input at all from British unions. 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! You're welcome. ;-) |
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 |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
John B wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:28 pm, wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT) MIG wrote: 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. I'm sorry , is that some kind of joke, RMT members creating wealth? Since when? Their pay comes from a mix of taxation and money from the public. How is that creating any wealth? At least traders and bankers can do deals to bring in money from abroad into this country by various means. That's a ridiculous fallacy. Imagine a private school that makes a profit, because parents are willing to pay for its excellent educational skills: is that creating wealth? (clue: yes) I'm not sure of the terminology used in this kind of thing, but is the school creating wealth, or creating the ability to create wealth? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
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. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
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? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Theres nowt as dumb as LUL
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: 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. What rubbish. Banks provide finance for businesses that employ people. providing them with jobs and prosperity. Without banks, the economy would grind to a halt. The economy has certainly slowed considerably over the last few months as the banking problems took hold. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the banks had been allowed to fail. We would have mass unemployment. As for trade unions such as RMT, they are parasites who extract more money for less work by their members, and along with other trade unions, maintain restrictive practices that act as a stranglehold on British commerce. OTOH, there are things like unions being able to provide better legal support than an individual might otherwise be able to get in an 'emergency'. This seems to be particular reason for joining unions in the rail industry, including amongst people who don't buy into the politics. It makes it harder for a company to respond to an accident by saying "we think Fred was at fault, no need to investigate further, nothing to see here, move on now." -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk