Back to the 1970s?
 

Back to the 1970s: Britain braced for spring of discontent with civil servants, British Gas and rail staff ALL set to strike

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0j4mKgyBL


Teachers threaten to unleash wave of strikes days after the General Election

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0j4mapZkg



whats going on why are people so unhappy with their lot ?

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

Remind me who politically was in power when this happened in the 70s? I was born in 73 and wasn't paying much attention at the time you see. Just trying to apply Occam's Razor to the equation.

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

Teachers are fed up with having no status,with no real input into the system,everything imposed from outside and from people who wouldn't last five minutes in front of the average 14-15 year old classes.I won't be striking as I'm not a member of a union..very hard as a temporary worker to get a chance to join a union.

I'm not a civil servant but my husband became one two years ago..He reckons as a an uptight Tory that they have a point and he can see why, but he won't strike himself.

As for the others I can't say.I suppose it all comes down to that old adage 'walk a mile in my shoes'.:shrug:

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I think one factor in this is that the unions smell an opportunity with a weak government possibly willing to do deals that they might not be so accepting of after the election.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

It's obvious, it's this awful, sleazy, self serving 'Tory' government we've had to endure for the last 13 years.... :rolleyes:

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

Love the article,

Union bosses commanding workers across the economy are masterminding strikes from today

Obviously the papers aren't in favour of strikes because of their own dubious past but this really is just nuts, Union bosses commanding workers are masterminding strikes, ffs that's almost laughable, Unions don't command anyone they are commanded by their members and it shows the contempt the Mail feels for these workers to try and portray them as mindless autons ready to strike at a moments notice on the whim of some Union bigwig.

Heaven forbid they actually report the news of why so many workers feel the need to resort to the ultimate sanction of removal of Labour, oh no far better for it to be some sort of conspiracy, who knows if they can get enough people to swallow it they might just get Unions outlawed.


Yes then we'll be a mile away from you and we'll have your shoes.... :)

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

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.

Although I suspect you meant automaton, as in a mechanically animated but ultimately useless Victorian curiosity, rather than auton, as in a killing machine made out of living plastic with a penchant for invading Earth and being thwarted by a certain Time Lord. :D

http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/f/fb/Auton.jpg

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

You're stuck in a Daily Mail time warp if you think that's how things operate in the real world. Everything is driven by the members. There is actually very little benefit to a Trade Union leadership if a section of the members strike.

Trade Union leaders are elected so their potency is provided through a ballot of the membership.

The recommendation to strike would only come after there has been a breakdown in lengthy negotiations, the workplace or bargaining unit has been balloted (at their behest) and all available information has been reviewed.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I've been self-employed for many years so never been part of a union but, whilst I support the union concept and can understand the feelings of those who do strike on genuine grounds, I find the intimidation of those who choose not to do so entirely unacceptable. I believe the unions would get a far better press if their leaders clamped down on that sort of thing and accepted that just as it's their right to strike, other people have to right not to.

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

They don't call it with out reason and do you really think the measures you mention would result in 80-90% votes in favour of strike action as happened with the Royal Mail and BA.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Do you also agree then that if the people who are on strike win better pay and conditions for themselves that the people who did not strike should not recieve the better pay and conditions.

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

Try telling that to British Gas - they're facing a strike over nebulous and non-specific complaints about 'macho management' that are straight out of the Big Book of Nasty Strikes, 1979 edition.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

No I don't because that's impractical. In life some people work harder and do a lot more than others but don't get any more for it that the guy/gal sitting next to them. It's not fair but I tend to view it like that and I don't think anything excuses aggressive intimidation of those who disagree.

Of course the corollary to your scenario is should those who've gone on strike leading to, say, worse pay/conditions or job losses be the only ones who pay the price for that whilst those who didn't strike keep their jobs and conditions?

Re: Back to the 1970s:?
 

Please their 'restructuring' has already demanded that their working week be extended and now there is talk of massive job cuts, why don't they address those specific complaints before moaning about non specific ones.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

People seem to forget what the trade unions did for the working man in the past ie: safer working conditions,paid holidays,shorter working week,help in compensation for accidents at work etc etc.
I've noticed over the years since thatchers day the power of the trade unions getting weaker and along with it the rights of the ordinary working man,ie:having to work longer hours,having to work bank holidays,more people having to work for minimum wage because there work place won't allow trade unions who will fight for a better wage,men on the dole having to watch foreigners in britain doing the jobs they can do.
I lived and worked in the 70's and i'll tell you this i'd sooner live and work in the britain of the 70's than brown or camerons britain of the 2010's.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

The unions have done a great deal for working people since their creation. In some cases they've also handled things very badly and done a grave dis-service to those very same people. Lets not forget also that those who suffer from strikes tend to be entirely innocent - the worst suffering normally being the poor, the vulnerable and those in greatest need. I find that hard to swallow.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Have you ever stood on a picket line watching the non strikers going into work knowing that after all the strikers sacrifices the non strikers will benefit from the actions of the strikers.
maybe if you had you would then realise why feelings run high towards strike breakers.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I thought I'd made that point clear already. Having lived through the miners' strikes I can fully understand that feelings run high but that does not excuse aggressive intimidation or violence. How would you feel about a large group of workers vehemently opposed to any such action resorting to that sort of behaviour with a group of strikers?

My feelings run high over all sorts of issues but that doesn't entitle me to aggressively bully/intimidate others whose views differ from mine.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Maybe not but if the strikers get a wage rise you can bet your life the people who didn't go on strike will want there pay to rise to.
Sorry but i've no time for strike breakers.perhaps its because i am a trade union supporter who as stood on the picket line and proudly supported the miners when they were on strike.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

That's your prerogative. But you can only hold that view because you (incorrectly) believe that everyone else is somehow obliged to follow you out to the picket line. They aren't. They have democratic rights the same as you do.

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?
 

....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.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

yes but you have the attitude of a boss,i have the attitude of a common working man,i was brought up to believe in the power of the unions.
it is the strike breakers that undermine the power of the unions what are the strikers supposed to do stand on the picket line and beg the strike breakers not to go into to work.
I'm sorry but its a rough old world old world out there and sometimes you have to fight and get rough and in my opinion if you strike break you are the lowest of the low and are fair game.
As i said your a boss i'm a worker you wouldn't understand.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

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.
also would you also tell me how many people died at work before the trade unions.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

You've made a bit of an assumption there matey and not a little patronising. I've never been a 'boss', my father was a manual labourer all his working life and couldn't read/write until he was in his 40's. I work solely for myself and have never employed anyone but before that I was employed just like you. My wife was also a member of Unison for several years until she gave up her job to be with the children. We're hardly anti-union types and if I were an employee on strike I'd wave my banner as high as I could but certainly wouldn't intimidate anyone.

Anyway, presumably then by saying it's a rough world etc. you condone what some police did when dealing so aggressively with some of the striking miners and you wouldn't object if a group of strike breakers decided to get tough with a picket line stopping them exercising their right to go to work? You can't have it both ways i.e strikers can be as aggressive as they like in support of their opinions but nobody else is allowed to do likewise.

I notice you have no comment about the other entirely innocent people who suffer dreadfully as a result of strikes but then you seem only to care about one group of people and one set of rights.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

It's not black and white. If you work side by side with somebody who, for whatever reason, is opposed to striking on a particular issue, then you can only try to persuade them otherwise. If you can't persuade them of the value of a collective action then you can only agree to disagree. The intimidation and bullying that happened frequently in the past should stay firmly in the past.

There's a lot of people have had some bad experiences of Trade unions in the past and being stuck in a closed shop mentality doesn't do anything to improve that image.

Unfortunately there is also a large section of management in our country who pride themselves in being "union bashers". They are more to blame for poor industrial relations than any modern trade unionist.

There's a bit historical baggage that this country has to carry in industrial relations. I wish we could change our mindset and realise that good industrial relations between management and staff are mutually beneficial.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

:tu: Life's full of shades of grey - not confined to black and white. We all have the right to disagree but that should be restricted to argument, not enforced through intimidation and violence.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Firstly my apologies osem i saw that you were self employed and i wrongly assumed that you were a boss.
As for your statement that you would not intimidate anyone,try standing on a picket line with your family not knowing where there next meals were coming from,with bills to pay etc etc and then tell me you wouldn't intimidate a strike breaker.
the bosses love strike breakers because they undermine the strikers.
No i don't condone what the police did to striking miners they are there to uphold the law not break it,but what happened happened.also if i was stood on a picket line and the strike breakers wanted to cut up rough so be it let battle commence.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Typical trade unionist, a selfish bully.

A bully to all those that disagree with your point of view - we live in a democracy, if I don't agree with your reasons for strike action why should I support you? why should lose money for you? Why, because I can see the need to be flexible in an ever more globalised economy should I be bullied by those who refuse to change.

Selfish because you think of no one but yourself, you don't care who you affect. Unite don't care that they are ruining family holidays of hard working people.

Yes, I agree that unions did a lot in the days of the dark satanic mills but those days are long gone, we have legislation for H&S, working Hours, working conditions, discrimination etc.
You can argue we would have thses laws if wasn't for unions and you may be right, but nowadays unions only exist to serve those that refuse to change. Maybe it'll take something like BA to under and put all their Unite members out of work for them to realise that times have changed.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Apology accepted ;)

I have never resorted to violence or aggression to get what I need and those cabin crew on strike right now or the tube drivers who are likely to be doing likewise shortly are hardly in the position of not knowing where their next meal is coming from. If everyone starts believing that their rights supercede those of others and that enforcing them through violence is OK we're on a very slippery road.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

So come on then chris other than the taxi driver how many have died as a result of the strikes of the 70's and 80's,all you have shown me are violent scuffles.
what about the miners and print workers that were beaten black and blue by thatchers thugs (the police).what about the
strikers that were trampled by police horses or were bitten by police dogs i suppose the strikers hit the coppers truncheons and riot shields with there heads accidently did they.And i suppose the coppers never tormented the strikers with there wage packets either.
oh no the newspapers that you read don't show that sort of thing do they after all the police and the strike breakers are the innocent aren't they.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

What has any of the above got to do with the statement "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."? Does the actions of strike-breakers or rogue police render that statement untrue? Of course not.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

you forgot the usual pierre you forgot to call me a racist or a facist or a bnp supporter or a bigot you can call me what you like

Sticks and Stones etc etc.

I have news for you pierre the days of the dark satanic mills are on the way back,you've only got to look at the newspaper telling you about the working conditions in the food factories to see this,you've only got to look at tv progs like the ones about the immigrants with 5.am to 5 pm working days.this would never have been allowed in the 70's the potato factory would have had to have worked shifts 6am til 2pm and 2 pm til 10pm.
now they employ immigrants and make them work 12 hour days or they get the sack.
yes sir happy days are here again,if your a boss.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Try telling this to the UAF supporters.

To be honest with you these cabin crew are wasting there time,you cant win a dispute with part time strikes and you can't win a strike when you have a government that are prepared to do anything to break the strike (miners strike).
and you will never win a strike with spineless people who strikebreak because they undermine the strikers every time.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

show me your evidence that apart from the taxi driver.who was killed as you infer during the strikes of the 70's and 80's.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I hope some of your other 2000+ posts are better informed than this one. :erm:
There is a whole thread dedicated to the BA strike. Enlighten yourself by reading that thread.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I'd happily tell them that. Resorting to the sort of unacceptable tactics used by the EDL (or anyone else for that matter) isn't the way to win round the silent majority and can be extremely counter-productive. Aggression and violence are not acceptable. We live in a democracy and we all have the option to 'fight' to change the law peacefully via the ballot box.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Ballots can be fixed,just ask the people of Afghanistan or zimbabwe.

I'd also argue about us living in a democracy,we don't we live in a dictatorship.ok we can change our leader every 4 or 5 years but its still a dictatorship.try telling the one eyed scottish idiot or his minions there wrong,i bet you don't get anywhere.
Try asking for a referendum on anything.we only got rid of the poll tax because of the riots.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

yup not much democracy coming out of no 10 .

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Are you insinuating that the ballot is systematically fixed in this country?Because this is what actually makes us a democracy.

In fact it's the lack of free and fair elections that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that.

It's also lack of free speech and the lack of any platform to mount an opposition that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that.

Now I think that the only detrimental aspect of our present situation is that our choices of political party are so sparse.The two party race is defunct as far as I'm concerned...:rolleyes:

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

a) If ballots can be fixed, as you state, that doesn't augur well for any votes on strike action, does it? ;)

b) I think you will find it was the mass default (up to 3 million at one time) that brought about the abolition, not the riots - but I suppose if you want to rewrite history, that is your prerogative (along with Militant and the SWP).:D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

"It's also lack of free speech and the lack of any platform to mount an opposition that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that."

thats funny how they always try to stifle the free speech of nick griffin and the bnp most of the time,you only had to watch his appearance on question time to see this.
And what about nick clegg of the lib dems everytime he stands up to say anything at pmq's he gets shouted down by the bully boy mps of labour and the tory's.
Free speech,you make me laugh.try going to speakers corner and start talking about gays and homosexuals and how you don't like them,try denying the holocaust.you'll soon find yourself arrested.free speech,no such thing.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:00 ----------

you carry on living in wonderland matey,it was the riots that made thatcher give up on the poll tax,it wasn't the defaulters because the defaulters were made to pay.i should know i was one of them.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Would you care to explain the logic of that statement?

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Actually I thought that was a bad move.Just as I think it's a bad idea to try and ban them.Better they are seen to be as ineffectual as any other political party.

Free speech has never about castigating certain sections of the community...that's just nasty racist incitement to violence and hatred.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

you think your clever work it out for yourself.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

in my book its called free speech.who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me what i can say or can't say.
you say we live in a land of free speech i say we don't.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I'm clever enough to see that you're talking a pile of old cobblers. Just because they eventually got their money back off you, it does not follow that it was not the 3 million defaulters who eventually brought about the end of the Poll Tax.

The administrative cost of chasing people through the courts to pay the tax was vast, and unlike the riots, defaulting was far easier for larger numbers of protesters to maintain over the long term.

But if you're clever enough to know different, how about you post a convincing argument that it was the riots that ended the tax? By convincing argument, I mean something more substantial than you simply saying that was the way it was and expecting people to just accept it.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

The administrative cost of chasing people through the courts to pay the tax was vast, and unlike the riots, defaulting was far easier for larger numbers of protesters to maintain over the long term.

The administrative costs were added on to the poll tax debt that had to be payed back,believe me the government didn't lose money because of the defaulters.
Have you never heard of bailifs collecting debts then,or employers being made to pay peoples poll tax or council tax directly out of there wages.
it was the riots believe me.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Well that's what democracy means.The majority have decided that being abusive to gays,people of differing races,religious persuasions is not going to be countenanced and those that say such things just can't.

It's not the fact that you feel we don't live in a democracy it's the fact that you don't have to right to live in your own dictatorship where you can incite hatred of others that don't meet with your approval.

Now having got your measure I've nothing more to discuss with you.

Good evening.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

sorry maggie but i don't wish to incite hatred in anyone,yes there are people i don't like certainly but i don't hate anyone for the colour of there skin or there sexual persuasion.i may not like them but i certainly don't hate them.why most of the doctors i've seen in my life are coloured,i even helped a young coloured girl from the gambia with her studies at university and i found her charming.A lot more friendly and polite than a lot of english people i know.And as for homosexuals i've met a few in my time and i've never had a problem with them.i don't like the idea of what they do,infact i think its disgusting but i don't hate them as you seem to think.

what i object to is people like you saying that we live in a land of free speech when in reality we don't and we only live in a democracy for a few seconds at the ballot box after that we live in a dictatorship for the next 4 or 5 years.
soon it will either be a brown mandleson (god help us) dictatorship or a cameron (meet the new boss same as the old boss) dictatorship.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

I don't know what your clapping at,you don't even know me.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I was applauding, and supporting, Maggie's sentiments, my Militant chummy.

Strange how you can say these things in this land of non-free speech......

Under your assumptions, the thought-police should have visited you by now.

I used to live next door (in West Berlin) to a real dictatorship (East Germany) - you really don't know what you are talking about (or do you believe that East Germany was a "workers paradise"?

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Then why decry the fact that you aren't allowed to say what you want about those groups...I think you are just trying to back track here.

Plus you are just repeating what you said earlier about democracy and I'm bored by that topic already.We have moved on from there.Have something new to say and I might stay around for a debate.;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

You're not allowed to comment on or criticize certain groups. If people do, they get accused of inciting hatred. If you're only allowed to praise certain groups, people end up with a ridiculously distorted and false view of that group.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

There's a huge difference between "comment on" and "be inflammatory and provocative about" - unfortunately, some people can't tell the difference.....:(

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I reckon I dislike our current 'government' more intensely than most but you're not seriously comparing the electoral system here with that in Afghanistan or Zimbabwe are you? It's odd that you praise the integrity and supremacy of strike ballots yet claim our other elections are all somehow invalid... :confused:

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Indeed, I can say a friend's daughter who I let live with me rent free for nearly a year was a dirty jew.
She's jewish, never used shampoo, left food to rot in the fridge, and never cleaned her room :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Are you sure she wasn't just a normal teenager?.... :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

All i said was that ballots can be rigged,i offered afghanistan and zimbabwe for example.nowhere did i compere the electoral system of these countries with the electoral system of this country.

please show me where i've praised the integrity and supremacy of strike ballots.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Except when you responded to Osem's post..

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Oh sorry, I must have got that all wrong, I just detected that theme to your argument..... So you're saying that strike ballots might not actually reflect the reality of what the majority of workers want? :confused: Well if that's the case why aren't you a tad more forgiving of all those whose views on taking strike action differ from yours? Their view might actually be the majority view after all.....

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

oh yes they can,and you people say we live in a land of free speech.
so why can't people comment even if it is inflammatory and provocative.if you stop them saying it just because some people don't like it your censoring them aren't you.so please tell me how you can stop people saying things and then say we live in a land of free speech.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

She was 24.

Because we're British! And with that comes responsibility, manners and decency. Values which make this nation Great.
As has been stated many times in the past, the right to speach does not mean you have the right to shout fire in a crowded cinema and cause panic.
I can swing my fists as much as I like, but that right stops at the end of your nose.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Well some 'teenagers' take a long time to grow up.... :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

In her case, another 72 years might not do it.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Why should i be more forgiving of strike breakers as i've already stated they undermine the power of the unions.i'm entitled to my opinion just like your entitled to yours.
And with regards to your point about the ballot box and if it can be trusted or not,i suppose it depends who's holding the ballot and who touches the box.
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..

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

please show me where i compared the electoral sytem of this country to the electoral system of zimbabwe and afganistan in my reply to osems post..

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Osem stated " We live in a democracy and we all have the option to 'fight' to change the law peacefully via the ballot box."

You immediately replied with "Ballots can be fixed,just ask the people of Afghanistan or zimbabwe"

Which seemed to me to be qualifying his statement about ballot boxes in this country, implying that the same thing could happen here as happened in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe (thus comparing).

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

The unions seem to be doing a good enough job of that themselves.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

And they're doing a pretty good job of tarring Labour with the same brush, just before an election - talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

you said it brother i was a union member in the 70's and i'm still a union man just like in the song by the strawbs.
and its still them or us as far as i'm concerned.
i see what the greedy bosses are allowed to get away with today and i wish there were more unions to stand up for the low paid today.
why should the minimum wage have different amounts depending on age.a loaf of bread costs the same if your 16 or 26.you people go on about equality where's the equality in the minimum wage.
i see my son having to work 50 to 60 hours for a pittance theres no union to look after him,and do you know why because his greedy boss won't have the union in where he works.because the unions wouldn't stand for the way he treats them.
and if my son and his co workers complain there told to p*ss off up the road,i can always get an immigrant in to do your job.
you don't know the half of it sat in your nice comfy offices at your nice little pc's.
and i get sick and tired of hearing the same old mantra the brits don't want work,some of them do but not for a pittance.

anyway rant over.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

You do realise that "Part of the Union" was originally an anti-union song, don't you?

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

i never implied or compared anything at all about our electoral system.i was implying that strike ballot boxes could be rigged,because i've seen it done in a factory where i once worked.and osem and i were having a conversation about strikes.

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

only if you look at the lyrics sarcastically.which i suppose you would.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Ironically, actually......

And since I come from Govan, which was the home to shipbuilding and very strong unions, why would I think that?

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

because you come across as being anti trade union.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I agree with that, one vote every 5 years does not a democracy make, it's everything that goes with it that makes a democracy and like it or not those things are being eroded, the right to protest has pretty much been curtailed, the judiciary is hardly independent anymore and the legions of unelected quangos are ruling more and more of our lives.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Yes you're fully entitled to your opinion and I'm fully entitled to point out the hypocrisy and double standards enshrined in that opinion and unlike your militant union mates, I'm not going to threaten or intimidate you because of it!

---------- Post added at 08:55 ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 ----------

It seems that everyone who disagrees with you about intimidation and aggression on picket lines and the rights of those who disagree with their unions on specific issues is anti-union. Perhaps we're not anti-union at all, maybe, just maybe, we'd prefer our unions NOT to behave like thugs...

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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?
 

And I would equally take the opposing viewpoint.

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

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 ----------

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 ----------

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:?
 

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

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

I believe those occurred in the eighties ;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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?
 

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

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

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?
 

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

: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?
 

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

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Well, secondary action may no longer be legal, but it seems Unite is determined to get as close to it as possible:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8593516.stm


So, almost 2 million people working in private companies totally unconnected with BA, its staff and the dispute between them, are going to have their pockets dipped by Woodley and his thugs to help pay for their fight with the airline. How wonderfully fair and democratic.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Well we all know that some people only advocate democracy, fairness and and tolerance when it suits them....

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

:no::no: Your continued existence in the Daily Mail time warp is showing through again Chris. I'll throw a few more facts your way for you to ignore at your leisure ;)

Maybe you know of a different definition of secondary action but my vague understanding suggests that such action would involve trade unionists taking action against employers other than BA. That clearly isn't the case.

No member is having their pockets dipped. No member will be paying any more union dues than they are now. The additional funding is coming from branch administration funds.

Each individual member has the option, as is the case with the political fund, not to pay a branch fund

The decision was taken by the democratically elected executive council, not Woodley. If the council are the thugs you refer then I find that pretty insulting to those 2 million members who democratically elected them.

What is wonderfully democratic is that a trade union is legitimately using resources to fight a Bullying management team intent on doing a bit of trade union busting.

It's a opinion I've expressed often in the BA thread (where I think your post belongs - but I'm not a mod ;)). I'd like to point out that I'm not one of the leading industrial academics who expressed their concerns in this letter to the Gaurdian :D:D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...cademics-walsh

Some hefty names there for you to ignore who don't have a political agenda.;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Breaking news on the BBC website - High Court injunction granted against RMT, stopping the rail strike (well, the signallers' one) next week.

Link

It would appear the basis for the injunction was this

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Oh dear, Bob Crow will be glowing red with rage at this. Who knows maybe it will anger him so much he'll bugger off to North Korea where he can surround himself with fellow communists.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Amusingly, didn't a poster on this thread state http://www.paradoxplaza.com/DarkHori.../homer_doh.png

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Yes....hmmm...now who was that again???..... :D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I'd turn ash gray if I posted that. ;)

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Who says union leaders are totally out of touch? This one gets it almost spot on.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Of course some of us have been saying that for years..... :D

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

:D