[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Never assume the unions are working to an anti-government or anti competitive agenda.

I assume that the unions are anti-everything that doesn't fit their ideology or aims. Seeing a union poster pre-election threatening Tory cuts was quite enough to indicate an agenda, along with their being the major funder of the Labour party.

There's a nice load of cash in union chests for a PR offensive against the current government.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Bear in mind that if unions fought for their membership and their membership only then certain economic ideals would be realized even quicker than the coalition could hope for in that they (industry / government) could cut (streamline) workforces as they saw fit and the remaining (unionised) workforces would be forced to prove themselves more productive with the overall wage defecit spread over a shorter (unionised) base.

I'm unsure that I see what your point is with this paragraph. I can easily imagine this being a nightmare rather than doing the coalition or industry any favours. A fully unionised workforce has little incentive to be productive knowing they can rely on collective bargaining to ensure that they work less and are paid more than non-unionised workers.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

see from your info that you are 31. As such your entire working life experience since reaching voting age has, with the exception of the past two weeks, taken place under what can only be described as a disasterous labour administration. On that premise I think I'm fairly safe in assuming that you have little or no real recollection of the Thatcher era and the policies of the then day.

You have a lot of unlearning to do, believe me. What lies ahead for Britain under the tory / lib dem coalition (through no fault of their own I hasten to add) will cause catastrophic implosions in all sectors of all industries. People who currently believe there is no "use" or "need" for a union or their participation in one are about to embark on a very steep learning curve.

Looking back on history the unions caused catastrophic economic issues in the not that distant past. Their mandate is to totally ignore everything bar what they want for their members which will inevitably cause intense friction and social unrest in its' own right.

It should be noted that unions financially propped up said disastrous administration and are its' largest donor by some way now, it being very clear to almost everyone bar unions that they are totally inept. The opinion of at least two of the unions is that no-one loses their jobs and we all pay a little more tax. Great plan.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As for the being "shareholders" (and in some cases majority shareholders) of certain high street banks the fact is that the tax payers needlessly propped up banks which otherwise would have failed.

Any assertion that banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more is no more ludicrous than proposing to bail out the very same banks in the first place because of their fiscal ineptitude and greed and their continued wanting to reward failure at your / my / our collective expense.

"What's good for the goose.....". etc.

Likewise "Two wrongs don't make a right.".

I want us, the taxpayer, to get our money back, with interest from the banks as quickly as is feasible. I have no interest at all in seeing the banks propping up companies so that they can pay their unionised workers more, I see that as grossly unfair on everyone who isn't unionised. We already historically pay more for our goods and services thanks to union powered wage inflation.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I've really no wish, nor indeed the energy nor compunction, to get into this discussion other than to reiterate that people have a democratic right to be unionised and any move to forsake that democratic right for future generations just because the country has been dragged into the financial gutter by the actions of an industry fuelled by greed and which continues to show little or no compassion for its customers / saviours (as opposed to savers) would be a very, very foolish sacrifice to make.

I agree unionisation is a right, however I also think that a lot of reform is needed. The BA strike - striking due to not receiving a perk that isn't on any contract at the same level as before is ridiculous.

Unions meddle in politics at will, own the second largest party, and increasingly seem set on having public sector and ex-public sector business employees strike at a whim.

I'm frankly sick of these guys holding using us to blackmail their employers into giving them what they want. From BA to that communist twit Bob Crow and his crew through to this. No doubt Crow's cronies will be blackmailing London for a load more money and holiday around the 2012 Olympics, as those 7 weeks of paid leave per year clearly aren't enough, BA's overpaid (over double Virgin) cabin crews will continue to strike at times which cause maximum disruption, and if the BT staff strike it'll be us again that suffer.

My opinion has always been, and remains, that if you don't like your job get another one or deal with it, it's not rocket science. Unions are a throwback to that state of mind that largely only exists in the public sector and ex-public sector of a job for life.

Of course purely my opinion.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:44 ----------

Originally Posted by budwieser

Dude, You`ve changed since you used to be `Broadbandings`.

Indeed, I grew up