Jump to content

Please Sir can I have more!!


Banker

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Max Power said:

This has opened up a crack for the unions to pry open further, they are fighting for their existence in many areas and industries. They need Union subs and there’s nothing like action to increase memberships!

Not sure whether you ever read or watch the news - but the trades unions are currently enjoying a significant renaissance which is entirely down to the pendulum having swung far to far and for too long in favour of big business, the wealthy and the wealthly elderly.

As capitalists, we need to understand that this is an example of reaping what we sow.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said:

One benefit of this dispute ending will be that it shoots the fox some obsessed bores have been chasing on here ad nauseam.

No chance.  Those curtains will keep twitching for ever.  The advantage of getting mad at imaginary things is that you can keep at it for ever - or at least as long as it suits.  And you never have to look at the real word or its problems.

(There, I've just explained the British media for you).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, genericUserName said:

Not sure whether you ever read or watch the news - but the trades unions are currently enjoying a significant renaissance which is entirely down to the pendulum having swung far to far and for too long in favour of big business, the wealthy and the wealthly elderly.

As capitalists, we need to understand that this is an example of reaping what we sow.

Oh really? Like the poor train drivers and their refusal to allow technology in to their lives and  provide a decent service at fares that the public can afford, whilst they are on wages comparable to airline pilots? You mention the 'wealthy' who are shareholders, without shareholders there is no funding to employ anyone!

Like the teachers with their wonderful terms and conditions, compared to many in the private sector, no 'big business' here! Likewise the Nurses, no 'big business' there either!  

I agree that employment terms for many in the private sector are abysmal, but no unions are shouting about that! Isn't that odd, it's all in the public services that the problems appear to lie?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 0bserver said:

It's good to see the Union has blinked first with the realisation (finally) that their demand for a 30% payrise was massively out of touch with reality. 

They should be put on a pay freeze.

Can you find a source for the union demanding a 30% pay rise?

 

The union sent an offer to the government last week to call off the strike, it was only today that the government got their act together and responded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Max Power said:

Oh really? Like the poor train drivers and their refusal to allow technology in to their lives and  provide a decent service at fares that the public can afford, whilst they are on wages comparable to airline pilots? You mention the 'wealthy' who are shareholders, without shareholders there is no funding to employ anyone!

Sorry but you are living in fairy land if you think the only thing preventing driverless trains is the Unions.

It has been pointed out many times that the UK rail infrastructure would require a huge investment in order to allow the safe operation of driverless trains.  I am not aware of anyone willing to make that investment at this stage.  

It is, however, a useful way to portray Train Drivers as greedy, selfish and blocking progress.

12 hours ago, Max Power said:

Like the teachers with their wonderful terms and conditions, compared to many in the private sector, no 'big business' here! Likewise the Nurses, no 'big business' there either!  

Those are public services which we all pay for in tax.  If you believe they should be privatised then you don't believe that they should be public services and available to all.

12 hours ago, Max Power said:

I agree that employment terms for many in the private sector are abysmal, but no unions are shouting about that! Isn't that odd, it's all in the public services that the problems appear to lie?

You are generalising.  There are private sector employers who have excellent terms and conditions.

There are plenty of people working in Construction trades whose whole terms and conditions are governed by Trade Union Agreements and the TU's will fight tooth and nail for them when needed.

Private sector pay disputes also tend not to make national news because they don't impact everyone.  

There are plenty of Private sector businesses where terms and conditions are poor and people are trying to Unionise.   See Amazon Warehouses as an example.

There are others where workers are simply exploited but have very limited rights because people felt they didn't need a Trade Union.  I would point to most people working zero hour contracts for the likes of Amazon, Delivered, etc etc.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

In the private sector, yes. 

Public sector negotiations rarely have any grounding in reality. As shown by a 30% pay demand. 

If they had asked for 10% they would have 10% already.

Ms Edge was being disingenuous in that interview. She presumably got the 30% figure from a statement made by the NASUWT to the effect that their pay had dropped in real terms by 30% since 2010. They were asking for a multi-year pay deal to start to address that problem. They weren't asking for a 30% pay increase this year. You really shouldn't believe everything you read. I guess Ms Edge felt that it would help the Government's position if she made it seem that they were asking for 30% in one year

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Ms Edge was being disingenuous in that interview. She presumably got the 30% figure from a statement made by the NASUWT to the effect that their pay had dropped in real terms by 30% since 2010. They were asking for a multi-year pay deal to start to address that problem. They weren't asking for a 30% pay increase this year. You really shouldn't believe everything you read. I guess Ms Edge felt that it would help the Government's position if she made it seem that they were asking for 30% in one year

30% is 30%

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...