Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Time to make trade unions financially responsible for their actions?

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    And that'd be why it makes little difference to nearly all incidents.

    Though I'd like to see you prove that all other countries use two drivers.



    :confused:

    Can you explain to me, please, how paying a moronic monkey £3 an hour more will suddenly make him a talented and courteous driver, instead of the abusive monosyllabic cretin that he is now?

    Lets get back to the real point here- the greedy striking scum are holding the people of this city to ransom simply to line their own back pockets. Why is this acceptable simply because Stagecoach dare to make a profit? If Stagecoach made a loss would it be acceptable? If the council ran the buses would it be acceptable? If not, why not?

    The operator of the service is irrelevant- the issue is whether strikers should be liable to the public that they fuck over up the arse repeatedly in the cause of selfishness.

    Do you think that the Stagecoach drivers are right to strike for an increase on a 16% pay deal?
    Do you think that it is right that the poorest people in the city were abandoned at the bus stop with no warning?
    Do you think that it is right that the poorest people should take a huge hit on their finances so that someone else can earn more? Would you expect the drivers to take a hit if I went on strike?

    My answer to all those is a resounding no- and the drivers should be made to pay. Their "solidarity" stretches no further than their wallet- everyone else in this city can go fuck themselves. And we had to.


    surely you agree that making a profit off a poor quality service that is neither on time or decent quality is immoral

    in this country, the problem is that companies are too interested in short term gain than long term profit
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Could be he studied World War Two (when people were literally dying to protect those rights)



    http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1939_1945.php

    The 4606 members of the merchant navy who died that year probably fully supported the dockers action to protect their rights.

    Oh and they refused to load ships before D-day. Ah, yes fighting for the right for proper pay whilst over the other side of the channel people fought and died for a lot more than that.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/98/a1324298.shtml



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/04/ndeedes04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/04/ixhome.html


    I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. I could easily post some stuff up about companies and bosses profiting from the 2nd World War. What would that prove?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. I could easily post some stuff up about companies and bosses profiting from the 2nd World War. What would that prove?

    That unions, like companies, look after the interests of their members (shareholders) rather than care about about rights for wider society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    All of the rights we have today were not given willingly - they were fought for.

    And I immediately think of Oliver Twist saying "Please Sir, can I have some more ?"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Bollocks, most companies do far and away more than they legally have too. There are exceptions, that's true.
    Yes, in the transport industry practically all of them are those exceptions.


    http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=260052003

    Yes, because the average worker can quite happily tuck into an £800 meal. The top dogs in the unions are probably nearer to the bosses than you'd like to admit.
    Well, quite. Bosses will be bosses. And workers will be workers. Joe Bloggs in the street will have a lot closer interests, goals and worries to a striking bus driver than will ever have to the bosses of that bus company, even if the strike is temporarily disrupting his routine.

    Whereas I can perfectly understand Kermit's anger in this particular case, it is as wrong for an ordinary working person to attack the concept and existence of unions as it would be for a turkey to promote the virtues of traditional Christmas dinners.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    surely you agree that making a profit off a poor quality service that is neither on time or decent quality is immoral

    If it is due to the negligence of the company (such as not having enough drivers) then yeah.

    But in Newcastle it is because the drivers are too busy having a tab at the end of the route to get the bus down the road on time. That's not Stagecoach's fault, as there is nothing they could do- if the driver was sacked for it the TGWU would have a fit.

    I don't like Stagecoach at all at would happily see the company go back under PTE control, but that isn't the point. The point is making greedy strikers pay for the damage they do.

    Unless you're trying to say that the unions never went on strike over pay when everything was publicly-owned?
    in this country, the problem is that companies are too interested in short term gain than long term profit

    I don't think that's necessarily true- as I say, the vast majority of the buses in Newcastle run by Stagecoach are brand new lo-liners which costs upwards of £100,000 each.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Could be he studied World War Two (when people were literally dying to protect those rights)

    :confused::confused:

    Were they ?

    I still have no idea why any of those people died.
    NQA wrote:
    The 4606 members of the merchant navy who died that year probably fully supported the dockers action to protect their rights.

    The author admits to guessing.
    NQA wrote:
    Ah, yes fighting for the right for proper pay whilst over the other side of the channel people fought and died for a lot more than that.

    Remind me what did they ("over the other side of the channel") die for ?
    NQA wrote:
    Oh and they refused to load ships before D-day.

    Ever thought that if that refusal had taken place a lot earlier there may have been fewer deaths.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    :confused::confused:

    Were they ?

    I still have no idea why any of those people died.

    I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, but there's plenty of books out there.



    The author admits to guessing.

    Well until I get the ability to talk to the dead I pretty much have too.

    Remind me what did they ("over the other side of the channel") die for ?

    Once you read a book you may find out

    Ever thought that if that refusal had taken place a lot earlier there may have been fewer deaths

    Even by your twisted logic failure of the British to invade Europe resulting in a) either the continued domination by Hitler or b) domination of Western Europe (as well as Eastern) wouldn't have brought about less deaths.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, but there's plenty of books out there.






    Well until I get the ability to talk to the dead I pretty much have too.




    Once you read a book you may find out




    Even by your twisted logic failure of the British to invade Europe resulting in a) either the continued domination by Hitler or b) domination of Western Europe (as well as Eastern) wouldn't have brought about less deaths.

    Who needs books when Johnny Got His Gun (as seen at the beginning of the Metallica`s One video).

    Tell me, NQA,are you prepared to give your only begotten son for ..................

    (wait for it.........................)

    (drum roll...........................)

    (21 gun salute......................)



    "DEMOCRACY"


    :yuck: :yuck:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Who needs books when Johnny Got His Gun (as seen at the beginning of the Metallica`s One video).

    Tell me, NQA,are you prepared to give your only begotten son for ..................

    (wait for it.........................)

    (drum roll...........................)

    (21 gun salute......................)



    "DEMOCRACY"


    :yuck: :yuck:

    Are you prepared to give your only begotten son to live in slavery and fear? Are you prepared to live in a society where you have no freedom to talk bollocks on the internet? Because the only reason you can so so is that somebody's son lies in the corner of a foreign field.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the early Trade Unions were important because they did actually fight for their rights.

    However, since the end of WW2, governments effectively had to give them more power, and more power to the people. Europe had to be rebuilt, this meant that industries/Unions needed to be handed as much power/finance as possible.

    Thatcher destroyed the industries and de-regulated the market, now we're at square one again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We don't have freedom or democracy and the Government is a big violent dictator. But on the other hand, we get to choose our "slavemasters" and they, for the most part, don't try and kill us.

    I guess its all relative isn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    That unions, like companies, look after the interests of their members (shareholders) rather than care about about rights for wider society.

    Of course. But when wider society is comprised mostly of union members...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    we get to choose our "slavemasters"

    Do we?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Remind me what did they ("over the other side of the channel") die for ?

    Put it this way, with views like yours you should be grateful.

    If you think that you are indoctrinated now, you can at least make many of your comments without the fear of a knock on the door...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Put it this way, with views like yours you should be grateful.

    If you think that you are indoctrinated now, you can at least make many of your comments without the fear of a knock on the door...

    :confused::confused:

    You seem to be implying that my "views" and "comments" are deserving of "a knock on the door".

    Perhaps I have misunderstood the posting :chin:

    Could you help me out as to what you mean ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    We don't have freedom or democracy and the Government is a big violent dictator. But on the other hand, we get to choose our "slavemasters" and they, for the most part, don't try and kill us.

    I guess its all relative isn't it?

    Relative indeed. The Site`s very own Einstein ;)

    A fair summary but one I have trouble accepting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Are you prepared to give your only begotten son to live in slavery and fear?

    I wouldn`t consider any begotten son as mine to dispose of.
    NQA wrote:
    Are you prepared to live in a society where you have no freedom to talk bollocks on the internet? Because the only reason you can so so is that somebody's son lies in the corner of a foreign field.

    That`s a strong claim and one I would, at least, question.You may have the evidence to convince me of it`s validity ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Of course. But when wider society is comprised mostly of union members...

    That's not even beginning to be correct, is it?

    Union membership isn't very high, because for most people the unions are irrelevant.

    Unless you care to show that most people are union members?

    Oh, and last time I checked, we did have elections.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You misunderstood me. But I really can't be arsed to explain. Something to do with workers having more interests in common with each other than with bosses. You work it out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You misunderstood me. But I really can't be arsed to explain. Something to do with workers having more interests in common with each other than with bosses. You work it out.

    Except that's not true is it. Kermit's interests and the bosses (both wanting buses to run) dovetail quite nicely.

    And nowdays its quite hard to work out who are the bosses and who are the workers, especially as many people own shares or invest in things like ISAs etc, and at the same time are employed by others.

    I think it'd be fairer to say most people have lots of interests and sometimes these interests are in common with others and sometimes they're not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    when unions negoiate a pay rise that includes non-union workers, you dont see the non-unionised staff complaining do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Except that's not true is it. Kermit's interests and the bosses (both wanting buses to run) dovetail quite nicely.

    Interests on a wider scale
    NQA wrote:
    And nowdays its quite hard to work out who are the bosses and who are the workers, especially as many people own shares or invest in things like ISAs etc, and at the same time are employed by others.

    I think it'd be fairer to say most people have lots of interests and sometimes these interests are in common with others and sometimes they're not.

    Oh, yeah, the classless society. What a crock.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    when unions negoiate a pay rise that includes non-union workers, you dont see the non-unionised staff complaining do you?

    That's only happens if they're in the same organisation.

    Take me for example, my union is trying to get civil servants a better pay rise - what that means is that to pay for that pay rise you either pay more taxes or money taken away from some other bit of the public sector to pay me more. Now that's in my interests, and those of my colleagues whether they're in a union or otherwise, but is it in the rest of the public's interest?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Oh, yeah, the classless society. What a crock.

    Any chance you might bother to expand? Or am I supposed to decipher your enigmatic replies?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tbh I can't be arsed

    you work it out bright lad
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    tbh I can't be arsed

    you work it out bright lad

    Er, how about this for a guess... your anarchist pals have told you that the workers and bosses are in conflict, but you haven't got round to the second lesson which tells you why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I think union militancy is counter-productive. Unfortunately for Britain, militant unionism back in the 60s made a lot of companys uncompetetive. The result: Now everything is made in China and Britain's manufacturing industry is a pale shadow of its former self.

    The union members may have got themselves a pay rise in the short term, but in the long term, if someone, somewhere is prepared to do the same job for less money, the union members will be putting themselves out of work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Er, how about this for a guess... your anarchist pals have told you that the workers and bosses are in conflict, but you haven't got round to the second lesson which tells you why?

    Yes, that's exactly right. You sussed me. :rolleyes:

    Christ, you are dumb sometimes. I can't believe you're seriously claiming that investing in an ISA makes someone a "boss". :crazyeyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Christ, you are dumb sometimes. I can't believe you're seriously claiming that investing in an ISA makes someone a "boss". :crazyeyes:

    I'm not.
    or invest in things like ISAs etc, and at the same time are employed by others.

    The 'employed by others' bit of the quote would probably make that clear I thought.

    However my argument isn't about a classless society (whatever that means), but that both 'bosses' and 'workers' often share more common interests. For example a 'worker' and a 'boss' in Newcastle have shared interest in decent transport in Newcastle. A 'worker' outisde Newcastle doesn't have that same interest and there 'common interests' are not the same.

    In that case location is a bigger defining factor in their interests and who they have them in common with than class.

    The idea that all workers have 'common' interests on a wider scale is a bit daft imho.
Sign In or Register to comment.