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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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
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.
And I immediately think of Oliver Twist saying "Please Sir, can I have some more ?"
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.
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?
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.
Were they ?
I still have no idea why any of those people died.
The author admits to guessing.
Remind me what did they ("over the other side of the channel") die for ?
Ever thought that if that refusal had taken place a lot earlier there may have been fewer deaths.
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:
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.
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.
I guess its all relative isn't it?
Of course. But when wider society is comprised mostly of union members...
Do we?
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...
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 ?
Relative indeed. The Site`s very own Einstein
A fair summary but one I have trouble accepting.
I wouldn`t consider any begotten son as mine to dispose of.
That`s a strong claim and one I would, at least, question.You may have the evidence to convince me of it`s validity ?
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.
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.
Interests on a wider scale
Oh, yeah, the classless society. What a crock.
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?
Any chance you might bother to expand? Or am I supposed to decipher your enigmatic replies?
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?
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.
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:
I'm not.
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.