Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:32 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

An ex Union rep at the place i work, very very good at getting people off the rap, very good at implementing stuff HE wanted to see in the garage but time after time people complained that they'd go to him with problems and he just wasn't interested or HE didn't want to see it. People wanted a common rota, he opposed it because it didn't suit him, people then wanted a fixed time rota, again he put a stop to it. He was exceptional at putting through stuff he wanted but couldn't care less about the majority of the workers which in the end made him very unpopular, he has now left for a fairly high up position in Unite and i won't be divulging his name.

Again, the most altruistic people are in it for one thing, self.

Unions, in the modern world, are just barriers to progress.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:33 am  

dr_feelgood wrote:

Garage's latest idea is to cut MP's salaries by 75%, thus returning us to the good old days when you had to be rich to be an MP. What an !

Strange that it wouldn't affect him and his mates, isn't it?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:35 am  

I'm a little concerned that Ajw71 may have missed this, as the thread has developed, so here's a convenient reminder of the latest direct question that he/she was asked and has, as yet, not had the opportunity to answer.

I'm a little concerned that Ajw71 may have missed this, as the thread has developed, so here's a convenient reminder of the latest direct question that he/she was asked and has, as yet, not had the opportunity to answer.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:37 am  

Standee wrote:

Unions, in the modern world, are just barriers to progress.

You're right of course.
Individual or collective workers should have no representation in the modern world.
We'll leave business to look after each and every one of them.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:39 am  

WIZEB wrote:

You're right of course.
Individual or collective workers should have no representation in the modern world.
We'll leave business to look after each and every one of them.

You misunderstand me (or maybe I am not good at explaining myself) the traditional roles of Unions is vital, but recent behaviour has done done little to promote the common cause.

Why does Bob Crowe earn in excess of £100k a year, and yet remain in social housing?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:44 am  

Standee wrote:

You misunderstand me (or maybe I am not good at explaining myself) the traditional roles of Unions is vital, but recent behaviour has done done little to promote the common cause.

Why does Bob Crowe earn in excess of £100k a year, and yet remain in social housing?

Personally, I dislike Crow. However, he remains in his job – elected and re-elected – because he does what his members want him to do.

It really shows the paucity of an argument if the major complaint against him is that he hasn't moved to somewhere that the Daily Mail approves of (which of course it never would). It's a Daily Mail complaint, this – along with complaining about Dave Prentis because he and his family don't live in a council house. Indeed, it was quite hilarious a year or so ago, when that rag decided, on it's website, to recycle (as though it were 'news') pictures from Google that had Dave washing his car.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:45 am  

Standee wrote:

Why does Bob Crowe earn in excess of £100k a year, and yet remain in social housing?

We've been here before, haven't we?
Why was Dame Shirley Porter allowed to flog off social housing in Westminster cheap to her friends?
She was a Conservative criminal.
Crow is a law abiding citizen as far as I'm aware.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:29 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Crow is a law abiding citizen as far as I'm aware.

Doesn't make the law right, or just.

He's a scum bag, like Scargill and Kinnock, want to see everyone else fail rather than anyone progress.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:58 am  

Standee wrote:

He's a scum bag, like Scargill and Kinnock, want to see everyone else fail rather than anyone progress.

You're coming across as rather sad, bitter and twisted.

He wants to see working poeple do well, well enough to be able to live without needing state handouts to pay for rent and basic subsistence.

Why aren't you having a go at the landlords who are charging rents that need taxpayer subsidy or the employers who refuse to pay wages that would avoid similar action?

Could it be that you are a landlord by any chance?