Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   There is trouble afoot (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33669514)

yesman 13-09-2010 05:56
There is trouble afoot
 
Unions last night warned they were joining forces for a series of co-ordinated strikes that will bring Britain to a juddering halt.
By working together for maximum impact, they said the country would be crippled by strikes, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful protest against Government cuts.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0zNzzvwX7

That's all we need :rolleyes:

Things are bad enough as it is.

punky 13-09-2010 06:08
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
****. Just ****. No matter what they'll do they'll only end up hurting the honest, decent folk who just want to do their job and earn a living,or just go about their day-to-day business.

The unions are deuded when they always seem to think they always have overwhelming public support. It's clear they won't here. So it will be interestiung to see what happens.

Also I heard coordinated strikes was illegal?But I am sure it goes on. On the recent strike on the underground, one union striked before and ended just as the other one was starting.

papa smurf 13-09-2010 06:27
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
oh joy a winter of discontent -this will round off the not so perfect year just dandy :(

Sirius 13-09-2010 07:13
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesman (Post 35090332)
Unions last night warned they were joining forces for a series of co-ordinated strikes that will bring Britain to a juddering halt.
By working together for maximum impact, they said the country would be crippled by strikes, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful protest against Government cuts.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0zNzzvwX7

That's all we need :rolleyes:

Things are bad enough as it is.
So yet again the Union dinosaurs are going to bugger up this country.

Quote:
This follows Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' (RMT) leader Bob Crow calling for a campaign of "civil disobedience" in protest
Bob Crow should be put against a wall and SHOT for his actions

So not only are Unions the people who decide who the next leader of the Labour party are but they can also be the reason why this country becomes the poor man of Europe again with there strike disease. Unions are as much use as a light house in the desert.

So now i will have my life disrupted by a bunch of idiots who have no other reason to do this than dig at the government. I feel sorry for those that will lose their jobs because the union numpties start a strike that could push a company into bankruptcy

The unions are a sign of a bygone age and have no place in a modern world.

Well if the CWU try it where i work they will be told to sling there hook.

Mr_love_monkey 13-09-2010 07:40
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Bob Crow is nothing more than a thug in a suit - he had to have a special suit made to pull his arms in so his knuckles wouldn't drag on the floor when he walked.

I'm really tired of being held to ransom by these people

Chris 13-09-2010 08:29
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
A bunch of raving trots with no respect for the fact that the parties on the Government benches won the support of a very clear majority of the British people. Still, since when has democracy ever trumped naked self interest for these people.

Osem 13-09-2010 08:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
I thought that unions were there to speak for their members and not try to give the impression they somehow represent the vast majority of the population who will actually suffer greatly if these people get their way.

According to this:

http://www.strongerunions.org/2010/0...eady-as-we-go/

Union membership is 56% in the public sector and 15% in the private sector so they barely even represent the majority of the workforce in the former.

The likes of Bob Crow can dress it all up as some sort of good cause they're serving but I doubt he and his ilk will lose much sleep over anyone who loses their job or otherwise suffers as a result of union action.

Sirius 13-09-2010 09:01
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Unions are a left over that has no place in these modern times.The bosses of the unions always remind me of that great Communist saying, Whats yours is mine, But whats mine is my own so get your hands off.

Funny how they act as if they run the country, Well let me say at the moment they Don't because Labour are not in power. This time they will find out that most people in the real world just want to get on with there jobs and don't give a fig about there willy waving. The only place they might get support is in the public sector and even then i feel most will want to get on and work to feed there families.

Union bosses love strikes as it makes them look important and of course they can strut there stuff in front of the press, Self serving gits they are who don't give a fig about you and me at all.

As i said they better not try it in our office as a swift uck off normally does offend :)

Pierre 13-09-2010 09:06
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
It's up to the worker to fight back,

as you can see from the above they barely represent the majority in the public sector and are all but impotent in the private sector.

Would I cross a picket line?
Yes, I bloody well would. I've never been a member of a union and don't intend to start.

I guarantee you that whilst all his low paid members are out on strike not being paid, that Bob Crow and his ilk will still be enjoying their six figure salaries that his poorer members have contributed to.

MovedGoalPosts 13-09-2010 09:42
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
I fail to understand what strikes really achieve. Yes eventually there might be a pay rise, but if yo've been on strike for a couple of weeks, how much money have you lost before you even got that pay rise? Maybe there might be some form of hardship fund, but that isn't going to go far. Meanwhile the company involved is damaged and in the cases of companies such as British Airways where there is plenty of competition, then that will ultimately lead to a reduction in workforce as customers look elsewhere. Unfortunately in monopoly situations such as public service there aren't alternatives for the customer and the strike mentality can have greater impact due to the innocents in any often contrived dispute.

What really bugs me though in all of this argument about cuts and reduction in spending is the common sense economic reality that you have to balance the books. As a household you know you can only get so much credit as loans, overdrafts, etc before you can't get any moe, and your own interest repayments become too much to bear. Why do some expect that the government can just keep endlessly borrowing beyond it's means?

Sirius 13-09-2010 09:45
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35090390)
It's up to the worker to fight back,

as you can see from the above they barely represent the majority in the public sector and are all but impotent in the private sector.

Would I cross a picket line?
Yes, I bloody well would. I've never been a member of a union and don't intend to start.

I guarantee you that whilst all his low paid members are out on strike not being paid, that Bob Crow and his ilk will still be enjoying their six figure salaries that his poorer members have contributed to.
That's the way of the Union bosses, High salary's, Big cars, Fancy offices all paid for by the the workers who's jobs will be at risk by the unions stupid willy waving actions.

Yes i would cross a picket line and yes i would sue the union if i can if i lost wages because of there actions.

Osem 13-09-2010 09:48
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob (Post 35090404)
Why do some expect that the government can just keep endlessly borrowing beyond it's means?
Because, in their cosseted existence, that's what they've become used to and they don't want to give any of it up. To hell with everyone else.....

grandmaster 13-09-2010 10:00
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Im in the union and to be honest I forgot I was.
<Checks pay slip>
hmmmm i think I shall be leaving as I dont think I need to be in.

TheDaddy 13-09-2010 10:19
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35090375)
A bunch of raving trots with no respect for the fact that the parties on the Government benches won the support of a very clear majority of the British people. Still, since when has democracy ever trumped naked self interest for these people.
Yeah the very clear majority, that's why it's a coalition, nobody ticked the slip for that option...

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35090390)
It's up to the worker to fight back,

as you can see from the above they barely represent the majority in the public sector and are all but impotent in the private sector.
Could that be because a lot of firms refuse to recognise a union, as my place does.

Quote:
Prime Minister David Cameron’s spokesman recently insisted: ‘The cuts are not something that the Government would choose to do, but it is something that it is required to do because of the state of the public finances.’
Why do I get the impression it's some thing they have set about with almost religious zeal, it's almost as if they are enjoying cutting things...

Chris 13-09-2010 10:22
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
This is a representative Parliamentary democracy Daddy ... we vote for individual MPs. A clear majority of the British electorate returned MPs who are now sitting on the Government benches.

Anyone who claims 'we didn't vote for a coalition' is both ignorant of the basic processes in our system and is also, IMO, being wilfully ignorant of all the polling and punditry that went on in the month prior to the election. It was abundantly clear that no single party was going to get an outright majority.

TheDaddy 13-09-2010 10:27
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35090427)
This is a representative Parliamentary democracy Daddy ... we vote for individual MPs. A clear majority of the British electorate returned MPs who are now sitting on the Government benches.

Anyone who claims 'we didn't vote for a coalition' is both ignorant of the basic processes in our system and is also, IMO, being wilfully ignorant of all the polling and punditry that went on in the month prior to the election. It was abundantly clear that no single party was going to get an outright majority.
Blah blah, you only have to listen to the Lib Dem back benches and the polls to know whats happening isn't representative of them or their voters.

Chris 13-09-2010 10:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
... and yet this is precisely the outcome we will get at every election, should we ever enact their core policy of PR voting for Westminster by Single Transferable Vote. The Lib Dems and their supporters had better get used to it.

In a coalition, nobody gets everything they wish for, only what is achievable by consensus. As it happens, this is exactly what goes on within all political parties anyway; it's just that in a coalition arrangement the horse trading is a lot more visible.

Claims that the proposed spending cuts are not legitimate because the Government is somehow not legitimate are a massive red herring (as well as having something of a desperate, hollow ring to them, given that Labour both knew the cuts were necessary and was prepared to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems).

Damien 13-09-2010 10:39
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35090420)
Why do I get the impression it's some thing they have set about with almost religious zeal, it's almost as if they are enjoying cutting things...
I do get the feeling the Tories are using the public acceptance that cuts need to be made to aggressively cut as much as possible and greatly reduce the size of the state, which is ideologically appealing to many of them.

Cuts do have to be made but the extent and targets of those cuts should be examined closely and people are entitled to oppose certain cuts. Obviously if jobs are on the line then people in those sectors will be campaigning very hard against them.

I question the decision to abolish the Film Council and the extent to which they want to cut funding for Scientific research.

I heard what I think was the Science minister, it was a government figure anyway, on the radio stating that only 'the best' research which has a direct commercial application should receive funding. Staggeringly idiotic because your not sure of the success of a research program until it's done and some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs did not necessary have a commercial application upon invention.

This is off-topic anyway but my point is that unquestioning acceptance of government cuts is not a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35090433)
... and yet this is precisely the outcome we will get at every election, should we ever enact their core policy of PR voting for Westminster by Single Transferable Vote. The Lib Dems and their supporters had better get used to it.

In a coalition, nobody gets everything they wish for, only what is achievable by consensus. As it happens, this is exactly what goes on within all political parties anyway; it's just that in a coalition arrangement the horse trading is a lot more visible.
Again, off-topic and I apologise.

I think this is a good thing though, with the current system usually a part can get between 35/40% of the vote but dictate policy for 100% of the electorate. I think coalition governments are a better idea as current over 50% of the electorate has some representation.

Hugh 13-09-2010 10:40
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35090432)
Blah blah, you only have to listen to the Lib Dem back benches and the polls to know whats happening isn't representative of them or their voters.
Strange - I could have sworn the coalition proposition was put to a special Lib Dem Conference, and they overwhelmingly approved it, and this was after the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive and Parliamentary Party approved the coalition agreement negotiated with the Conservative Party (both bodies endorsed it by more than a three-quarters majority) - part of the Triple-Lock process.

Mick 13-09-2010 11:21
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35090432)
Blah blah, you only have to listen to the Lib Dem back benches and the polls to know whats happening isn't representative of them or their voters.
Blah blah (Yeah I can be rude back :rolleyes:) - poor argument if you are going to discuss Polls and representation - According to the polls when the leaders debates kicked off before the election race, Nick Clegg and the Libs were either going to become second, with Labour in 3rd place or become the party in power, yet they fared the worst ever results and actually lost more seats than they gained and stayed in third place after Labour.

TheDaddy 13-09-2010 12:24
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35090433)
Claims that the proposed spending cuts are not legitimate because the Government is somehow not legitimate are a massive red herring (as well as having something of a desperate, hollow ring to them, given that Labour both knew the cuts were necessary and was prepared to go into a coalition with the Lib Dems).
It's not the cutting I or anyone else objects to, it's the level they are trying to achieve that's the problem. Even the Mail's own article suggested such

Quote:
Britain could be in recession again ‘by Christmas’ if current economic trends do not improve, research suggests.

Boardroom confidence has sunk to depths not seen since the height of the 2008 crisis and companies have become increasingly unwilling to take on new staff, it claims.

Concerns over Chancellor George Osborne’s austerity drive could see the economy go back into reverse in the final three months of the year, says the report by accountants BDO.

Peter Hemington, of BDO, said: ‘What’s so disappointing is businesses
seem to be convincing themselves things are going to get really tough in 2011.’
---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35090442)
Strange - I could have sworn the coalition proposition was put to a special Lib Dem Conference, and they overwhelmingly approved it, and this was after the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive and Parliamentary Party approved the coalition agreement negotiated with the Conservative Party (both bodies endorsed it by more than a three-quarters majority) - part of the Triple-Lock process.
I wonder when that was agreed if they knew the scale of their 'partners' plans, if they did then they deserve to become as unelectable as some political observers have said recently.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35090482)
Blah blah (Yeah I can be rude back :rolleyes:) - poor argument if you are going to discuss Polls and representation - According to the polls when the leaders debates kicked off before the election race, Nick Clegg and the Libs were either going to become second, with Labour in 3rd place or become the party in power, yet they fared the worst ever results and actually lost more seats than they gained and stayed in third place after Labour.
Yes Mick we are all well aware that you can be rude. However if my comments caused Chris any unpleasentness I would hope he/some one removes them as it wasn't my intention.

Stuart 13-09-2010 12:35
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
While I am not defending the unions, it's easy to forget (as seems to be happening here) that as a result of these cuts, a lot of people will lose their jobs. A lot of people who didn't even vote for the government that caused it. And yes, I do mean the previous two Labour governments.

martyh 13-09-2010 13:45
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35090537)
While I am not defending the unions, it's easy to forget (as seems to be happening here) that as a result of these cuts, a lot of people will lose their jobs. A lot of people who didn't even vote for the government that caused it. And yes, I do mean the previous two Labour governments.
Quite agree with you stuart .It is worrying me how deep the cuts will be and how quickly they will be made .It seems to me that the current coalition are trying to clear the 155billion debt or what ever this weeks figure is in a couple of years which does seem a tad unrealistic.
In my opinion we don't need the unions to creat trouble by strikes if the cuts/job losses are too severe too quick then the general public will kick back with protests as happened with the poll tax.I heard a report after the election that we needed to clear the debt or at least get it down to a more manageable level to maintain our 5 star credit rating ,would it be such a bad thing if our credit rating did go down for a few years ?After all if the gov do their job properly we shouldn't need to borrow so much in the future anyway

I don't have anything to do with unions and never will but i always thought that unions were there to protect workers against unfair working conditions,low wages ect ,within a specific company not to protest against government policy

Osem 13-09-2010 13:52
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35090603)
I heard a report after the election that we needed to clear the debt or at least get it down to a more manageable level to maintain our 5 star credit rating ,would it be such a bad thing if our credit rating did go down for a few years ?After all if the gov do their job properly we shouldn't need to borrow so much in the future anyway
As I understand it, if our credit rating is downgraded the interest the UK pays on its massive borrowing will increase hence we'll be wasting even more money than we currently are purely on interest with less available to actually pay off debt and run the country.

martyh 13-09-2010 14:01
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35090609)
As I understand it, if our credit rating is downgraded the interest the UK pays on its massive borrowing will increase hence we'll be wasting even more money than we currently are purely on interest with less available to actually pay off debt and run the country.
Thanks Osem ,i think i understand a bit better now :tu: ,this does answer a lot of questions ,like why the gov is trying to get as much paid off as possible as quickly as possible ,basically it's the same principle as a family would do with the house hold income ,the unions being the kids kicking and screaming because they have to have a cheap computer instead of a state of the art one because the mortgage has to be paid

fireman328 13-09-2010 14:42
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Has any one seen the obcene bonuses the awarded to the city brokers rake in for pushing money around.

Ignitionnet 13-09-2010 14:49
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireman328 (Post 35090640)
Has any one seen the obcene bonuses the awarded to the city brokers rake in for pushing money around.
Has anyone seen the relevance of this to strikes over government cuts, 75% of which were in Labour's March budget anyway?

Sirius 13-09-2010 16:05
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
who gave Bob Crow and the other dinosaurs the right to tell the British public to take part in civil disobedience.

Who gave them the power to affect my pay.

Who gave them the power to mess up my working day.

I don't remember there being a vote put to the uk that did give them that power.

Bunch of jumped up little gits that is all they are.

Would they if Labour had put forward these cuts have tried to ruin the county just as much, I seriously don't think so myself.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35090646)
Has anyone seen the relevance of this to strikes over government cuts, 75% of which were in Labour's March budget anyway?
Now now stop bringing facts in to this, The unions don't understand facts.

Damien 13-09-2010 16:23
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35090683)
Would they if Labour had put forward these cuts have tried to ruin the county just as much, I seriously don't think so myself..
Well Bob Crow and others went on strike during the Labour years despite the lack of cuts so I think we can presume they would have...

Sirius 13-09-2010 16:28
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35090693)
Well Bob Crow and others went on strike during the Labour years despite the lack of cuts so I think we can presume they would have...
Did they recommend civil disobedience as well ??

Quote:
Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' (RMT) leader Bob Crow has called for a campaign of "civil disobedience"
Oh great here we go again with union men disrupting people's lives, Calling people scabs, And creating friction in communities. How long before workers are attacked again like in the miners strikes. I wait to see bus loads of pickets turning up outside places of work to disrupt peoples right to work.

PeteLockwood 13-09-2010 16:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
quite obiously the rules on strike action need ammending, perhaps those that are disposable should be fired it they take part in any such action punishing the very people paying there wages ? yeah that makes sense and is going to upset a lot of people but what can the government do WITH NO MONEY lets not forget labour did this to us! (started by the unions obviously) so in reality they are screwing us (again) selfish bastar.....!

Hom3r 13-09-2010 16:40
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Unions do serve a purpose, but joing up is wrong.

When I was last in a Union (the head of which was a family friend) was very good and took no crap from manangement.

The trouble was the members, we wanted 4% rise the company offered 1.5%, we rejected, they raised to 2.5%, again rejected. we all gathered to discuss what we do next which was work to rule, but this failed because several people didn't want to because they needed the overtime (they based their morgage on salary + overtime, and couldn't pay it on basic wage) and as some of these women* had "bitches" who were scared to go against them.

As such we had to cave in and accept 2.5%.

*My mum worked in that department and wasn't a lamb, she was sent to conventry. But didn't give a dam as she was moving to another department.

Sirius 13-09-2010 16:49
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport, has called for demonstrators to "sit down on motorways... protesting like we did against the poll tax".
What a complete idiot. Will he pay the compensation when some idiot that did as he said gets run over. ???

And what happens when a fire engine or Ambulance does not get to an emergency because Bob the idiot and his union bully boys has blocked the roads ???

punky 13-09-2010 17:47
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35090714)
What a complete idiot. Will he pay the compensation when some idiot that did as he said gets run over. ???

And what happens when a fire engine or Ambulance does not get to an emergency because Bob the idiot and his union bully boys has blocked the roads ???
I'm all for it if he leads by example. I might even fancy a trip up north.

Also I used toplay Carmageddon so I do have some experience at this.

PeteLockwood 13-09-2010 17:51
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
during all this strike action over pay and jobs etc i wonder what the union top brass are on ?

punky 13-09-2010 18:21
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Reading the paper on the way home - and with the unions threatening to cripple the country unless they get their own way - I wondered how I or anyone else could protest the unions. I haven't the faintest idea. Certainly not legally anyway.
Anyone think of anything?

Sirius 13-09-2010 18:22
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35090803)
during all this strike action over pay and jobs etc i wonder what the union top brass are on ?
Nights over at meetings in top class hotels all paid for by those on strike who are NOT getting paid, Food on the table for there familys because they are getting paid, No mortgage to worry about as they are getting paid, Its a lucrative business for a union rep and leader to keep the work force out as long as possible..

PeteLockwood 13-09-2010 18:27
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky (Post 35090842)
Reading the paper on the way home - and with the unions threatening to cripple the country unless they get their own way - I wondered how I or anyone else could protest the unions. I haven't the faintest idea. Certainly not legally anyway.
Anyone think of anything?
i think it was 2000 when the fuel prices went silly and the truckers etc brought the country to a stand still i believe they changed the law so they could actually charge them under terrorism law (i could be wrong)

the unions are trying to hold the country (ultimately us) for ransom and to me this seems like borderline terrorism ?

also these warnings they are giving about the poll tax riots (i dont know much about them) the MILITANT unions are causing it out of there own greed

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35090844)
Nights over at meetings in top class hotels all paid for by those on strike who are NOT getting paid, Food on the table for there familys because they are getting paid, No mortgage to worry about as they are getting paid, Its a lucrative business for a union rep and leader to keep the work force out as long as possible..
they probably wont even have mortgages i read somewere a while ago that several union top brass are into the 100's of k's per year salary

martyh 13-09-2010 18:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky (Post 35090842)
Reading the paper on the way home - and with the unions threatening to cripple the country unless they get their own way - I wondered how I or anyone else could protest the unions. I haven't the faintest idea. Certainly not legally anyway.
Anyone think of anything?
simply by not complying .The likes of Crow forget that it's 2010 now and most of their membership own houses ,2 cars ect,ect not like the 70's early 80's when the membership all lived in council houses and only went to blackpool for their hols.Peoples financial commitments are much greater now than then and cannot afford to suffer any earning loss at all

Sirius 13-09-2010 18:43
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35090852)
simply by not complying .The likes of Crow forget that it's 2010 now and most of their membership own houses ,2 cars ect,ect not like the 70's early 80's when the membership all lived in council houses and only went to blackpool for their hols.Peoples financial commitments are much greater now than then and cannot afford to suffer any earning loss at all
:clap:

yesman 13-09-2010 19:41
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
The Telegraph have summed up the situation quite well, similar in fact to some replies in this thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...-the-sand.html

I was wondering about Labours views on this subject before I read the Telegraph's view, the last paragraph of the comment explained it very well in my opinion.

PeteLockwood 13-09-2010 19:48
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
labour attacked almost all the conservatives cuts, but had this been reverse role like the article suggests labour would of ultimately had to do the same thing!

martyh 13-09-2010 19:51
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35090915)
labour attacked almost all the conservatives cuts, but had this been reverse role like the article suggests labour would of ultimately had to do the same thing!
But would they? as i recall Brown was constantly telling us how financially fit we were to pull out of the recession ,how well things were going ,blah,blah,blah,drivel,drivel,drivel

PeteLockwood 13-09-2010 19:57
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
labour and the unions are in it together (for obvious reasons) and if labour would of got in they would of bowed to the unions (in the civil sector, that's were there funding comes from) and screwed the rest of us ? they would have carried on borrowing to look after there own

martyh 13-09-2010 20:00
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35090923)
or on another note they could have carried on borrowing and living in sin ?
Indeed ,it would have been the only way to cover up the lie

Cobbydaler 13-09-2010 20:37
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
At least Cuba has seen the light...

yesman 13-09-2010 21:27
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobbydaler (Post 35090944)
At least Cuba has seen the light...
From that story.....

Quote:
"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.

Does Bob Crow know about this? :erm:

Cobbydaler 13-09-2010 21:36
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Middlesbrough has 42% of workers employed by the public sector.

That's nearly half the proportion in Cuba....

Osem 14-09-2010 12:24
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
I see Harman's come out in support of the unions, surprise, surprise..... :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11283048

Conveniently forgetting that it was her and her rotten 'government' that took us to the brink of financial ruin, thereby necessitating the cuts we're now all going to suffer, she's back on the "it's all the fault of those nasty, evil Tories" bandwagon.

Had she and her grubby, inept, collegues worried a bit more about where all that money they were spending like confetti was coming from, there'd be no need for such drastic measures now!

Hugh 14-09-2010 12:52
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
And the latest from the Socialist Paradise of the Republic of Cuba
Quote:
Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees, to help revive the communist country's struggling economy.

The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers would lose their jobs - half of them by March next year. Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.

Analysts say it is biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.

Cuba's communist government currently controls almost all aspects of the country's economy and employs about 85% of the official workforce, which is put at 5.1 million people.

As many as one-in-five of all workers could lose their jobs.

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy," the labour federation said in a statement.


Qué bolá asere?

Osem 14-09-2010 13:19
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35091261)
Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls and losses that hurt the economy.....
Wonder what Harman and her 'bankrupt' party think of that?

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 14:37
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35091245)
I see Harman's come out in support of the unions, surprise, surprise..... :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11283048

Conveniently forgetting that it was her and her rotten 'government' that took us to the brink of financial ruin, thereby necessitating the cuts we're now all going to suffer, she's back on the "it's all the fault of those nasty, evil Tories" bandwagon.

Had she and her grubby, inept, collegues worried a bit more about where all that money they were spending like confetti was coming from, there'd be no need for such drastic measures now!
spot on, typical of these labour idiots blind to what they caused and still cant see the problem ! encouraging these strikes is suicide

Ignitionnet 14-09-2010 15:02
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091305)
spot on, typical of these labour idiots blind to what they caused and still cant see the problem ! encouraging these strikes is suicide
Not really it's a calculated political move. In any event Labour are still extremely reliant on union money so have little choice but to toe the line.

As another reminder Harman's husband is a union man through and through.

If the unions can cause enough grief it may assist with getting Labour back into power - as their puppets.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 15:18
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
it will have the opposite effect, if labour encourage another winter of discontent so to speak it would be political suicide

the current government needs to reform the laws on strike action

Traduk 14-09-2010 17:19
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091338)
it will have the opposite effect, if labour encourage another winter of discontent so to speak it would be political suicide

the current government needs to reform the laws on strike action
I remember the Winter of discontent very well as in 1978 I was 32. If you had lived through the preceding mess of totally inept governments which started around 1972 you would have a completely different opinion.

I am not union orientated and have never been but there was a mood of public disquiet around that time where most people were simply fed up to the back teeth with years of incompetence. Masses of people were action orientated and supportive of those that acted.

I hope you never have to endure such a period in your lifetime but strongly suspect that my feelings of Deja Vue will give you first hand experience.

Governments have reformed the laws on strike action and have moved the criteria into the area of strict rules that ensure true democratic activity based on majority votes. Surely you not against democracy?.

Chris 14-09-2010 17:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
That all depends on your definition of 'democracy'. Strike ballots may be 'democratic' within the Union concerned, but what about all the people outside the Union who are affected by the strike action? Where do they go to have their say?

Sirius 14-09-2010 17:31
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Any legal eagles on here know if you can sue a union if by there actions or there union members actions you lose pay. IE if you try to work but are stopped from entering your place of work because you felt intimidated or threatened by the actions of union pickets acting on the orders of there union . ???


However for those like me who just want to work then these are the rules that pickets must abide by. Should they not then you have them by the bits :)

I will be crossing any picket line i come across and woe betide the union who's members stop me from legally attending my place of work.

Quote:
A prominent feature of recent industrial action has been the increasing use of picketing and demonstrations to attract media attention and to heighten the public relations risks for the employer. There have been rooftop demonstrations, sit-ins, and site occupations across the country.

There is no sign of this phenomenon going away and many commentators suggest we will see a further increase in the coming years. One national broadsheet predicted that industrial action would be one of the top 10 features of life in 2010.

Picket lines are often highly-charged environments, and behaviour can easily deteriorate causing numerous problems for the employer, for non-picketing workers and for neighbouring businesses. Management usually want to exert control over the situation, but many are often too unsure of the legal position regarding picketing.

The first principle to get to grips with is that a peaceful picket line is, in itself, entirely lawful due to s220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. A peaceful picket line is one in which the pickets peacefully assemble at or near their own place of work (with a couple of exceptions). To be peaceful, the Acas Code of Practice on picketing suggests a maximum of six pickets, but this numerical limit must be treated with some caution now since the UK has adopted the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.

The second principle is that pickets can lawfully engage in only two types of activity on the picket line: they can peacefully obtain or communicate information; and they can attempt to persuade others, usually fellow workers and delivery drivers, to break their contractual obligations to work or deliver. However, pickets can only invite a person to listen to them; they cannot compel them to do so.

The third principle is that the right to picket peacefully does not legitimise any other behaviour that takes place on a picket line or demonstration. In particular, pickets are subject to the full rigour of our criminal law.

The types of unlawful behaviour that often occurs on a picket line and which employers can challenge are as follows:

Intimidation/harassment – Pickets are only entitled to communicate and seek to persuade peacefully. Pickets cannot use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or actions to try to pressurise others to act as the pickets want. Nor can they make express or implicit threats of physical harm or otherwise cause individuals to fear for their safety. If pickets do so, they can commit a variety of offences. The non-permitted behaviour can range from semi-childish (hiding an individual's clothes, tools or property) to implicit menace ('watching and besetting' a place where an individual lives/works, or persistently following a person from place to place) to threats of or actual violence to a person.

Breach of the peace – Pickets are acting unlawfully if within a person's presence they either actually harm or cause that person to fear that they will harm either him or his property. This can occur simply if the picket line becomes too large and/or unruly.

Damage to property – Pickets are acting unlawfully if they vandalise gates, fencing or vehicles that are entering or leaving the employers premises or if they throw objects into the employers property that cause damage.

Trespass – Pickets are only allowed to attend at or near the entrance to their workplace. They have no right to enter the employer's premises or land without permission.

Obstruction of the highway – Pickets are entitled to gather peacefully at or near their place of work but they are not allowed to deliberately prevent other persons from using the public highway. This could include stepping in front of vehicles to force drivers to stop and listen to them or simply trying to make progress awkward for the employer, delivery drivers, or workers who continue to work.

Public order offences – A group of pickets, even a small group, who are or seem likely to use threatening or insulting behaviour, language or signage, or seem likely to cause nuisance, trespass may commit a variety of public order offences.

Key points

Types of permitted behaviour

* Peacefully attendance at the picket line (eg standing on the line)
* Peacefully communicating with other persons (eg holding placards, chanting/shouting lawful slogans)
* Attempting to persuade other persons to break their contractual obligations.

Types of unlawful behaviour

* Generally insulting, abusive or threatening words or actions
* Watching, following or threatening an individual
* Obstructing the highway
* Trespass
* Damage to property.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 17:57
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traduk (Post 35091430)
I remember the Winter of discontent very well as in 1978 I was 32. If you had lived through the preceding mess of totally inept governments which started around 1972 you would have a completely different opinion.

I am not union orientated and have never been but there was a mood of public disquiet around that time where most people were simply fed up to the back teeth with years of incompetence. Masses of people were action orientated and supportive of those that acted.

I hope you never have to endure such a period in your lifetime but strongly suspect that my feelings of Deja Vue will give you first hand experience.

Governments have reformed the laws on strike action and have moved the criteria into the area of strict rules that ensure true democratic activity based on majority votes. Surely you not against democracy?.
i am not against democracy no, however i also dont want a bunch of militants holding the country to ransom for there own personal gain as ultimately it is at the expense of the tax payer, people in the private sector are suffering why do those in the public think they should be above cuts ?

and if they start striking playing silly beggars maybe we should be able to stop paying our council tax as we won't be getting what we pay very good money for ?

Hugh 14-09-2010 18:41
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091449)
i am not against democracy no, however i also dont want a bunch of militants holding the country to ransom for there own personal gain as ultimately it is at the expense of the tax payer, people in the private sector are suffering why do those in the public think they should be above cuts ?

and if they start striking playing silly beggars maybe we should be able to stop paying our council tax as we won't be getting what we pay very good money for ?
So we should penalise the Councils for the actions of their workers?

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 19:08
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
well to an extent yes, the councils should prevent workers at all costs striking ? example if my bin does not get emptied think that should be reflected in my council tax, just like if the bbc strike and it interferes with any programming i happen to watch i think i should be entitled to a partial rebate as compensation

Traduk 14-09-2010 19:11
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091449)
i am not against democracy no, however i also dont want a bunch of militants holding the country to ransom for there own personal gain as ultimately it is at the expense of the tax payer, people in the private sector are suffering why do those in the public think they should be above cuts ?

and if they start striking playing silly beggars maybe we should be able to stop paying our council tax as we won't be getting what we pay very good money for ?
Perhaps I did not make the point very clearly..... Very few people would support militancy now and very few would have supported militancy before the 70's. As the 70's progressed times became very hard for almost everybody and people reached breaking point as year after miserable year ground by. By 1978 most had long since had enough and although did not welcome the disruption that ensued, more than understood the reasons.

General moods of mass dissatisfaction are fairly rare with last I can remember as being the poll tax revolt when millions received court summonses for refusal to pay. Millions were incensed by the unfairness of the tax levy and the public mood was anger. Only when the vast majority of the country feels badly treated by government will you see mass action of the type that union leaders are salivating over and I hope it never comes to pass.

The law states that you pay council tax and if you are obliged to do so and refuse then I am afraid that action will be taken against you. Councils are rather fast at sending in bailiffs and if needed instigating bankruptcy proceedings. They are certainly not an institution to pick a fight with even if they supply you with nothing.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 19:16
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
i just think it is is *******s if they dont provide me with a service i pay for should i not be entitled to compensation ? yes i SHOULD however i suppose in reality it is not going to happen, anybody that strikers (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job

martyh 14-09-2010 19:21
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091503)
well to an extent yes, the councils should prevent workers at all costs striking ? example if my bin does not get emptied think that should be reflected in my council tax, just like if the bbc strike and it interferes with any programming i happen to watch i think i should be entitled to a partial rebate as compensation
The council tax you and everybody else pays is exactly what it says it is ..a council tax.. in other words you pay money to your LA and it provides services for your benefit ,what those services are depends on the council ,if for example a LA decides to stop bin collections on a weekly basis in favour of a fornightly one they can ,it does not mean you are entitled to a reduction even though you are only getting half the service

---------- Post added at 20:21 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091512)
i just think it is is *******s if they dont provide me with a service i pay for should i not be entitled to compensation ? yes i SHOULD however i suppose in reality it is not going to happen, anybody that strikers (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job
Out of those 3million how many are actually prepared to work ?

Mr Angry 14-09-2010 19:30
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091512)
i just think it is is *******s if they dont provide me with a service i pay for should i not be entitled to compensation ? yes i SHOULD however i suppose in reality it is not going to happen, anybody that strikers (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job
I wouldn't call you "harsh" - naive would be a better description.

If people are on strike because their employers are planning on cutting their jobs what logical rationale would there be in their employer sacking them for striking - only to give their jobs to any of the three million people on Job Seekers?

I mean really, come on.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 19:37
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ctor-cuts.html

they are prepared to break the law, so should the government on protection of striking workers ?

the fact is, these people deserve to be punished if they go ahead with the proposed strike action

Mr Angry 14-09-2010 19:43
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091526)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ctor-cuts.html

they are prepared to break the law, so should the government on protection of striking workers ?

the fact is, these people deserve to be punished if they go ahead with the proposed strike action
My post above was pointing out the fundamental naivety of your stated position on sacking people on strike and then replacing them.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 20:06
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
why is it naive ? they are threatening society for there own personal gain, you dont think they should be punished ?

Hugh 14-09-2010 20:07
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091535)
why is it naive ? they are threatening society for there own personal gain, you dont think they should be punished ?
Pete - they are not threatening society, they are withdrawing their labour, as they are entitled to do in a free society; if they break any laws, I am sure the employers will be over them like a rash.

Mr Angry 14-09-2010 20:17
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091535)
why is it naive ? they are threatening society for there own personal gain, you dont think they should be punished ?
It's not about whether I think they should be punished.

You post shows that you are totally naive when it comes to matters involving industrial action - whether legal or not.

I'll explain it for you.

You said that you felt that "anybody that strikers (sic) (call me harsh) should be fired there are 3 million on job seekers just waiting for a job".

Read my post again if it helps.

I am pointing out to you the fact that people may strike because their employer wants to cut their jobs based on their (the employer) having arrived at the conclusion that a reduced work force is an absolute necessity.

You, somewhat bizarrely, are suggesting that the best way for employers to punish them for striking (whether legally or not) to try and save their jobs is to sack them and employ someone else to do a job that they (the employer) were trying to do away with.

Are you with me yet?

Your assertion is preposterous in that it defeats the very premise you are trying to put forward as a viable means to address industrial action. It is naive in the extreme.

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 20:22
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
but it is not exclusively cuts is it ? pay freezes as well it is all about greed? they (public sector) have had it easy for years under labour, did they not think it would come to an end ?

perhaps they could get rid of 10 x people on 20 grand a year and employ maybe 13 or 14 people on 15 grand and still save money ? it really is as simple as that, if they are told that they will think twice about striking wont they ?

Mr Angry 14-09-2010 20:29
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091546)
but it is not exclusively cuts is it ? pay freezes as well it is all about greed? they (public sector) have had it easy for years under labour, did they not think it would come to an end ?
You obviously know nothing. A pay freeze agreed in the last 18 months is actually a pay cut (no matter what business you are in) when you factor in inflation, VAT increases, projected increases in base interest rates and credit / working family tax reductions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091546)
perhaps they could get rid of 10 x people on 20 grand a year and employ maybe 13 or 14 people on 15 grand and still save money ?
Do you think that people employers "get rid of" simply "disappear"?

Do the maths (factoring in the benefits that those 10 people will now claim) and you'll see just how stupid and naive you are being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091546)
it really is as simple as that, if they are told that they will think twice about striking wont they ?
That being the case then why are we posting in a thread called "There is trouble afoot" with you quoting threats of strikes?

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 20:33
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35091548)
You obviously know nothing. A pay freeze agreed in the last 18 months is actually a pay cut (no matter what business you are in) when you factor in inflation, VAT increases, projected increases in base interest rates and credit / working family tax reductions.



Do you think that people employers "get rid of" simply "disappear"?

Do the maths (factoring in the benefits that those 10 people will now claim) and you'll see just how stupid and naive you are being.



That being the case then why are we posting in a thread called "There is trouble afoot" with you quoting threats of strikes?

the 10 people on the dole then will be countered by the 14 people that have just come off....

everybody else in the private sector has had a freeze (well not all but a lot, i have as well) why should they be immune ?

perhaps if people were not so stupid (and selfish) in general there would have never been all them years of labour rule and we would not be in this state ?

Jon T 14-09-2010 20:37
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091546)
but it is not exclusively cuts is it ? pay freezes as well it is all about greed? they (public sector) have had it easy for years under labour, did they not think it would come to an end ?

perhaps they could get rid of 10 x people on 20 grand a year and employ maybe 13 or 14 people on 15 grand and still save money ? it really is as simple as that, if they are told that they will think twice about striking wont they ?
Pete - that's illegal, you can't get rid of someone who's not broke the terms of their contract and then replace them with other workers.

When I applied, was interviewed, and then was given my current job, the LA I work for had advertised it 2 times before, they needed to advertise it a 3rd time because the first two times they weren't able to attract any applicants due to the low wage offered when compared to the private sector.

You just can't attract the same skillset if you reduce the wage banding of a job by a quarter.

There's the other side to this as well, under your plan, the lower paid, lower skilled, less motivated workers wouldn't be providing the same standard of service as you are used to. Therefore your council tax will go less of a distance as it does now.

Just a thought, if you feel as strongly as you do, stand for election as a councillor for your LA. That way you can make your voice heard.

Oh, and just for the record, I can't afford to strike, I won't strike, and yes I am a member of a trade union.

martyh 14-09-2010 20:38
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091551)
the 10 people on the dole then will be countered by the 14 people that have just come off....

everybody else in the private sector has had a freeze (well not all but a lot, i have as well) why should they be immune ?

perhaps if people were not so stupid (and selfish) in general there would have never been all them years of labour rule and we would not be in this state ?
You seem to be forgeting that an employer cannot sack someone engaged in legal industrial action .

PeteLockwood 14-09-2010 20:44
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
like i said before laws on strike action needs amending?

the prison officers are prepared to break the law, doesn't it work both ways ?

unions should not be allowed to hold any private or public employer to ransom especially when there motives are totally selfish and even more so when we are in this type of financial climate

we as a country are broke and borrowing just to stay a float private firms have had to lay people off for various reasons we have to cut costs but still need to maintain value for money to the tax payer, what else do they suggest we do ?

Hugh 14-09-2010 20:44
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Pete, what are you employed as at the moment, and are you in a union?

Mr Angry 14-09-2010 20:47
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091551)
the 10 people on the dole then will be countered by the 14 people that have just come off....
It's not that simple - as I said you quite obviously know nothing of basic mathematics and cross collateralization when it comes to benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091551)
everybody else in the private sector has had a freeze (well not all but a lot, i have as well) why should they be immune ?
OK, so it's "everybody" and then it's "well not all but a lot". Do you see how foolish that statement appears? When you ask "why should they be immune" are you including yourself in "they"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091551)
perhaps if people were not so stupid (and selfish) in general there would have never been all them years of labour rule and we would not be in this state ?
On the matter of stupidity and selfishness here's one for you.

Since you appear to have resigned yourself to the fact that there need to be cuts here there and everywhere and that you are as susceptible to them as anyone else why don't you do your bit for the national recovery / austerity drive which you are so passionately and slavishly advocating and turn up at work tomorrow (assuming you do actually work) and give your employer back all of the money you've been paid as a result of any pay rises negotiated either by or without your union during "all them years of labour rule" and promptly resign from your job?

At least that way someone with the backbone to stand and fight for his / her job will have the opportunity to do so and you can sheepishly skulk off to a life on the benefit system safe in the knowledge that you've "done your bit" for the recovery.

Just a thought.

nomadking 14-09-2010 20:52
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
The disputes/strikes I don't fully understand are where things like, closure of final salary pension schemes to new employees and redundancy via natural wastage. None of the current employees are adversely affected by being out of pocket.

martyh 14-09-2010 20:53
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
[QUOTE=PeteL;35091559]like i said before laws on strike action needs amending?QUOTE]

That would mean if workers were being treated badly by an employer then they couldn't strike because they would just be sacked

yaaaayy bring back the workhouse :rolleyes:

Jon T 14-09-2010 20:53
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteL (Post 35091559)
we as a country are broke and borrowing just to stay a float private firms have had to lay people off for various reasons we have to cut costs but still need to maintain value for money to the tax payer, what else do they suggest we do ?
Put simply, value for money cannot be totally maintained.

LA's are currently exploring and implementing shared services between them and neighbouring LA's. They are cutting discretionary services so that they can focus on the statutory, etc.

Not to mention something called Job Evaluation/Single Status, this has the ability to slash thousands of pounds off a job's wage banding, the result of this is that people will seek alternative jobs, the LA will then have to lower the standards they expect of the person filling that role as they just will not attract the same sort of people at the lower wage.

Traduk 14-09-2010 23:33
Re: There is trouble afoot
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35091566)
The disputes/strikes I don't fully understand are where things like, closure of final salary pension schemes to new employees and redundancy via natural wastage. None of the current employees are adversely affected by being out of pocket.
The situation you describe would not trigger industrial unrest. I worked for a large company that regularly altered pension schemes and I and everyone else cared not at all that the later entrants were on lesser deals. New entrants knew what they were signing up for and accepted. Redundancy via natural wastage is commonly called retirement:). Nobody cares who does their job or if nobody does it after they leave a company.

Where strife is a near certainty is when new recruits are on a new lower salary structure, have lower cost pension deals and are seen as a replacement work force by higher cost incumbents. If the higher cost incumbents have a degree of certainty that their careers are going to be cut short and one way or another they will be forced out then trouble is afoot.


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:50.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum