Cable Forum - Back to the 1970s?

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Back to the 1970s? (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33663081)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray (Post 34986904)

because you come across as being anti trade union.

Could you please point out where I have been anti-trade union? (I may not agree with some, and only some, of their actions, but it is not simply black and white, there are shades of gray in the world).

I think unions do a (on the whole) good job, it is just when entrenched attitudes threaten livelyhoods (on both sides) that I feel the need to point out where I disagree with those attitudes (again, on both sides). Just because I don't wholeheartedly agree with you, doesn't mean I am against unions.

Life isn't binary, no matter how much people would like it to be.....;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray (Post 34986855)

if it was to ballot for a strike and it was held by the union i would trust it and be bound by the result.but if any member of the management touched it with out a union member there i wouldn't trust it to be a fair ballot at all and would ask for the ballot to be retaken..

And I would equally take the opposing viewpoint.

---------- Post added at 09:39 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray (Post 34986889)

you don't know the half of it sat in your nice comfy offices at your nice little pc's.

Yes, we're getting to the knuckle of it now.

I sit, mostly, in a comfy office at a nice little PC, but I worked hard to get here.

I grew up in Thatchers Britain, with a father who was long term unemployed from when I was 14 (and who never worked again until his death a few years later) A mother that worked part time. We were raised on the benefit system that was in place at the time.

I got part time work, put myself through college and university and got myself a career, so don't give me the poor me bulls**t.

---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34986916)

You're getting very close. The leaders of trade unions, largely, are supporters of the Labrador party. If those people had the choice there would be no industrial unrest at this important time in the electoral calendar.

They don't have the choice because their paymaster is not Gord awful Brown or Totally Bliar. Their pay and position comes from the card holding trade unionist.

I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory but in election year who benefits most from industrial unrest?

If I was Tory loving business leader I can see the advantage of being more forceful on some industrial issues if I knew I was going to get the support of the right wing press - especially in election year;)

How's this for another scenario:

Unite are one of (if the biggest) contributer to Labour Party funds.

We are very close to an election.

multiply those two factors and you have government that will lean hard on BA to settle the dispute.

That is what this about.

---------- Post added at 09:45 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34986943)

legions of unelected quangos are ruling more and more of our lives.

There you have my full support, lives would be better and billions would be saved by getting rid of these groups, I hear of a new one everyweek popping up on Breakfast news to give us their report, that nobody asked for.

Re: Back to the 1970s:?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34986206)

So who calls a strike ballot? Who gives the members the information on which they will decide how to vote? Who goes so far as to recommend members to vote 'yes' in a strike ballot?

Portraying the Trades Union bosses as impotent and entirely at the command of their members is as nuts as suggesting the members are all brainless.

Like any ballot, it is up to those who vote to decide to go on strike, I always thought that was the point of a ballot. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34986283)

But non-striking workers don't ask the strikers to make sacrifices on their behalf. If someone wants to go on strike then fine, so long as they do it within the law. But they shouldn't think they automatically deserve support, gratitude or obligation from people who exercise their legal, democratic right not to go on strike.

No they don't, but they are happy to accept the benefits for the sacrifices the strikers make on their behalf. I have seen non-strikers walk past picket lines waving payslips at the striking workers and mocking them, is that acceptable as well.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34986302)

....and the press will portray the strikers as being heartless and uncaring when it is in fact those same people who continually go above and beyond the call of duty to care and tend for the poor, the vulnerable and those in greatest need.

Modern day strikes aren't caused solely by trade unionists for political ends. The vast majority of strikes are as a result of a breakdown in negotiations. The people who don't work at the front line are every bit of culpable for allowing strikes to happen than those who have to make the sacrifice of withdrawing their labour.... but that doesn't make as good reading in the right wing press.

And very often those breakdowns are specifically engineered by management to goad the unions into further action. A case in point in Walsh's announcement to withdaw benefits of strikers at British Airways. This move is a deliberate attempt to provoke the striking workforce to dig in even deeper.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34986336)

What an absurd demand. Here's a few off the top of my head - there are plenty of others, as you well know, but I have better things to do than spend all afternoon trawling the web for links.

1980 Steel Stike - 13 weeks of 'often violent scuffles' (see para. 6).

1984 Maltby picket line violence

1986 Battle of Wapping

And don't think you can neutralise the significance of the murder of David Wilkie by mentioning it first - it is an absolutely classic example of what can happen when you demand that everyone else should be on strike just because that's what you want to do. Here's a link for that tragedy, seeing as we're talking about it:

1985 Miners jailed for pit strike murder

Lots, I expect. That still doesn't grant unions the absolute right to do whatever they want, run closed shops and insist on 100% support for any industrial action they may choose to call, which seems to be what you're advocating.

I know I'm being pedantic, but he did ask:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray
Please enlighten me how many people died or were injured during the strikes of the seventies with proof please.
oh yes and i do know of the taxi driver that died during the miners strike and i don't condone it one bit.

I believe those occurred in the eighties ;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

But Chris's first question (post #20 in this thread) was

Quote:

If a few more of your union bretheren had borne that in mind, then perhaps fewer people would have been injured or killed during the worst strikes of the 1970s and 80s.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34986858)

Wow - the thread title is so right; it is like being back to the 70s.....

I was hoping to reminisce over Tank Tops, Hot Pants and Flared Trousers. To remember music from bands such as Showaddywaddy, Sweet, Queen and Mud. To talk about television shows such as The Double Decker's, Follyfoot and Magpie, imagine my disappointment. :( :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?

I know - Sweet, Suzi Quatro, Northern Soul, Disco Tex and the Sexolettes, etc etc.

We had proper music then, that you could dance to, and sing along with - you know, stuff like the Sex Pistols, Sham 69, The Dead Kennedys, X Ray Spex, etc etc...

Re: Back to the 1970s?

I got part time work, put myself through college and university and got myself a career, so don't give me the poor me bulls**t.

Aren't you the clever one then.I bet you did a lot of brown noseing to.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray (Post 34987238)

Quote:

I got part time work, put myself through college and university and got myself a career, so don't give me the poor me bulls**t.

Aren't you the clever one then.I bet you did a lot of brown noseing to.

Or as we call it, hard work - you should try it....;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34987234)

Music you can hear the words to and.................AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH I'm turning into my dad.:D:D:D

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34987246)

Music you can hear the words to and.................AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH I'm turning into my dad.:D:D:D

Aaaaahh Showaddywaddy!!!! Excellent stuff. " Sweet, Sweet, Music Dun Dun" :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?

This was on of my all time favourite shows from the seventies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNFd4...eature=related

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashgray (Post 34987238)

Aren't you the clever one then.I bet you did a lot of brown noseing to.

:rofl:

Yes, we've definitely reached the level of debate I expected to.........well done, we got there qucker than anticipated.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Why is it old-labour supporters tend to view education with distain?
My maternal grandfather always seemed proud that his eldest son left school at 14 and joined the railway workers. He also believed that all housing should be state provided and no one should own their home.
Mum was brought up to expect to leave school and get a job in the village, meet a man, marry and be looked after. Thankfully she didn't let that stop her.
Even in the 21st century we have Labour mocking people because they went to schools which constantly produce high exam results suggesting that their pupils are intelligent.
The comprehensive school system brought in to replace the tripartite system pushes everyone down to the lowest common denominator as it's easier to make a bright kid thick than it is to support a struggling pupil to reach their full potential.

Re: Back to the 1970s?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34989239)

He also believed that all housing should be state provided and no one should own their home.

Sounds more like communism than socialism to me, either way I can see the benefits.