Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:29 pm  

Mintball wrote:

So, what are you saying here ...?

What did they strike over? You do know, don't you, that not every strike is over pay? And since you appear so derisory, can we assume that you have never ever taken the benefits of things won by trades unions? We could start with the eight-hour day – presumably you quite happily work more than that and believe everyone else should too? I'm 32, this is waaay before my time when like i said previously the unions had noble intentions

So that was what they struck over, was it? And even if that was the case, do you really, really think that Bob effing Diamond is seriously worth millions every year? No i don't, what's your point?

That was nice of you. At least we know you'd turn down any benefit won by a trades union.
If i don't like my job and i think i'm worth more in both wages and respect i'll look for a job that fits those needs rather than moan about how shitty my job is and how i don't get enough money blah blah, have i benefited from union negotiations on my pay, yes i have but i was happy with them originally, if i wasn't i wouldn't have worked for them and looked elsewhere.

So, nothing whatsoever at all like the bosses ...
2 wrongs don't make a right, instead of fighting for better more unsustainable conditions, fight for lower wages for the fat cats at the top or a fairer distribution of company wealth(yes i sound mildly contradictory on this).

Offer to give up some of your pay then. obviously your family won't suffer.
Why do i need to? For some moral crusade? i can afford at least another 7-8 years on the pay i'm on without a payrise quite comfortably, if it doesn't go up soon i'm not worried.

Wjat is the going rate for a road sweeper, a bin man, a nurse, a teacher, a copper, a lollipop lady, a dinnerlady, a social worker etc etc etc etc etc?
What do Lollipop ladies do, work in the road and hold a stick should that be decent pay? If it's minimum wage it should be and if it isn't it proves my point and if they are striking for more why do they think they deserve it? Binmen get a good wedge, more than nurses, a copper is on around 30k, i'd say they are worth more, teachers are subjective but aren't they striking over pensions not wages, one thing i don't understand with certain professions is that they were jobs they wanted since childhood, they wanted to pass their knowledge if they wanted to teach or doctors wanted to save lives, they didn't grow up thinking i want to be a doctor because of the good pension plan, now all of a sudden that's the most important issue?

Well indeed. It should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell that you can run up ladders, fight fires and carry people around at, say, 65, shouldn't it?
So that's the only job in the service is it?

They are. You're not. See above.
Answered this question already see above

Nasty, selfish, pig ignorant bullshit. Seriously. Give up reading the gutter press and try to activate your brain.
Ok i'll let you in on my last position in my current job, my position was to report colleagues and all their misdemeanors, and the unions job was to try and get them off, even though the people i had reported were doing things detrimental to the company, we had many repeat offenders and the union defended them knowing that the people they were defending were lazy feckless and workshy, they also convinced their members to go on a futile strike and actually lost them money in bonuses even though all managerial positions had their money frozen for 2 years they actually striked for more money?

Boy oh boy – what a fabulously sweeping comment. Perhaps you'd like to come out with me and actually meet and talk to some nurses and teaching assistants and PCSOs and cleaners and porters and tell them all this.

Well of course. Hospital cleaners who have had their wages cut for years – and have been promised more of the same – and are having their pensions attacked too, should just bend over and be kicked. After all, what do they contribute to society? Their wages are just an act of charity. They;re workshy scum really, just begging off the state ... etc etc etc.
Minty with her emotive ballcocks twisting an argument i didn't even put out, i've not said they are work shy or scum.

If you don't like the job you're in train for something else, i did.

As opposed, of course, to a man who is primarily paid by the taxpayer to mess around in flash cars ...

And frankly this is just a seriously dumb comment. We're not talking about communism. We're talking about real people who do real jobs. You, apparently, consider them overpaid and worthless. Thank god you do something really productive in society, eh?

And I look forward to your announcement that you will give up all the benefits that you have now that have been won for you by unions. Because you wouldn't be a hypocrite, now would you?

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:59 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Trades unions members, in general, have higher pay and better conditions.

Do they? Got anything to back that claim up?

Mintball wrote:

in the last 30 years, the wages of the majority have fallen

This sounds suspiciously like the claim about the cost of living rising against wages which you previously failed to offer any evidence for. Where does this claim come from?

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:10 am  

Mintball wrote:

Trades unions members, in general, have higher pay and better conditions.

Do they???

I'm a member of Unison (although probably not for much longer) and before that NALGO, and every dispute over the last 20 odd years that affected me that these unions were involved in, their members, after losing X days pay, ended up being told by these unions to go back to work for the deal that was originally offered.

Needless to say I didn't join in the strike last week because:
1) History tells us that Unison will eventually roll over and accept what the government want to do.
2) Our Unison shop steward failed to support us when the control room I worked in was threatened with closure, and he actually went in to the press and said it was a good idea. The only reason we still have jobs is because we fought for them ourselves.
3) I can't afford to lose a days pay.

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:29 am  

cod'ead wrote: I don't know last week it was the public workers striking now this week we've got a trade union agreeing to a 50% pay cut to keep the employer in business. Where will it end with all these self-centered commie bastads? Hello Sal, you still here? I think you have over played your hand here - these workers have two choices, they all take a pay cut for two weeks or a number lose their jobs - tough in the real world. The union have little choice but to go along with it - at least they will still get their dues from all members!! On Mintball's idea that being a member of a union is a benefit - in certain circumstances I would agree; if you have a poor attendance record, poor productivity record etc the union will keep you in a job longer than you should stay. On job security I would suggest you would be better off in a non unionsed culture - on money companies will pay the minimum it costs to get the quality the want - having a union presence makes no difference. The widening gap between the top and the bottom demonstrates the union's impotence in these matters. Unions pushing for unrealistic pay awards reduces an employers competitive advantage - I guarantee if you review companies with unionised and non unionised factories the unit cost of labour will be higher in unionised sites and when push comes to shoove we all know which site will go!!

cod'ead wrote: I don't know last week it was the public workers striking now this week we've got a trade union agreeing to a 50% pay cut to keep the employer in business. Where will it end with all these self-centered commie bastads? Hello Sal, you still here? I think you have over played your hand here - these workers have two choices, they all take a pay cut for two weeks or a number lose their jobs - tough in the real world. The union have little choice but to go along with it - at least they will still get their dues from all members!! On Mintball's idea that being a member of a union is a benefit - in certain circumstances I would agree; if you have a poor attendance record, poor productivity record etc the union will keep you in a job longer than you should stay. On job security I would suggest you would be better off in a non unionsed culture - on money companies will pay the minimum it costs to get the quality the want - having a union presence makes no difference. The widening gap between the top and the bottom demonstrates the union's impotence in these matters. Unions pushing for unrealistic pay awards reduces an employers competitive advantage - I guarantee if you review companies with unionised and non unionised factories the unit cost of labour will be higher in unionised sites and when push comes to shoove we all know which site will go!!

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:55 am  

Dally wrote:

They do but at what cost? Let me think what happened to the great British unionised businesses - coal mining, British Leyland, etc - oh yes, they more or less ceased to be. All those union members no longer have jobs or union membership. Short-term selfishness cost them.

Oh yes, all the fault of "the unions".
BL was on the way downhill from lousy decisions from Lord Stokes onwards.
The unions didn't help but they were not the primary cause of the demise.

The loss of virtually the entire coal-mining industry was considered by the Thatcher government to be a price worth paying to destroy the miners' unions.
That was a political decision, implemented illegally.
I despised Scargill as much as anyone did ... but let's be right about what was going on.

Without Unions, working conditions and pay would have remained at Victorian levels, or taken many, many years longer to be remedied.
Look at Germany and its highly-unionised workforce ... seems to work there doesn't it?
Let's not be stupidly short-sighted and blame the very existence of unions for our ills.

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:01 am  

cod'ead wrote: I don't know last week it was the public workers striking now this week we've got a trade union agreeing to a 50% pay cut to keep the employer in business. Where will it end with all these self-centered commie bastads? Hello Sal, you still here? Excellent. That's the sort of thing that should be happening. Obviously no one wants anyone to lose money, especially over Christmas, but as both you and I have said many times Cod'ead, if unions and management work together and understand the problem, then solutions can often be found. It's tragic that the employees are losing money of course, but far less tragic than the otherwise likely job losses.

cod'ead wrote: I don't know last week it was the public workers striking now this week we've got a trade union agreeing to a 50% pay cut to keep the employer in business. Where will it end with all these self-centered commie bastads? Hello Sal, you still here? Excellent. That's the sort of thing that should be happening. Obviously no one wants anyone to lose money, especially over Christmas, but as both you and I have said many times Cod'ead, if unions and management work together and understand the problem, then solutions can often be found. It's tragic that the employees are losing money of course, but far less tragic than the otherwise likely job losses.

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:44 am  

The company is up against it. People have considered the economic reality of the situation, a few days extra holiday unpaid is better than no job at all.

In other news I note that Hutton has now said public sector pension reforms need to go further.

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:50 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

In other news I note that Hutton has now said public sector pension reforms need to go further.

I wonder if he is prepared to lose some of his pension as an example to the rest of us?

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:53 am  

I very much doubt it.

Armed forces are next for the great pensions shafting, but they can't strike.

The reality is pretty much everyone is going to have to work longer, pay more and get less in return.

Labour knew about this 10 years ago, but did nothing about it for fear of alienating their core vote.

Re: Bloody Trades Unions ballsing it up again : Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:41 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Oh yes, all the fault of "the unions".
BL was on the way downhill from lousy decisions from Lord Stokes onwards.
The unions didn't help but they were not the primary cause of the demise.

The loss of virtually the entire coal-mining industry was considered by the Thatcher government to be a price worth paying to destroy the miners' unions.
That was a political decision, implemented illegally.
I despised Scargill as much as anyone did ... but let's be right about what was going on.

Without Unions, working conditions and pay would have remained at Victorian levels, or taken many, many years longer to be remedied.
Look at Germany and its highly-unionised workforce ... seems to work there doesn't it?
Let's not be stupidly short-sighted and blame the very existence of unions for our ills.

Yes, Thatcher destroyed the mining industry BECAUSE OF THE UNION wielding too much power. So you agree with my analysis that over-strong unions do nothing in the long-term interests of their members. The last bastion of that sort of unionism is in the the public services and guess what, their members are suffering job losses.