Strike Action

[ted tucker]

I'm not on strike on Wednesday as my union didn't ballot this time. But I'll be going down to my nearest picket line to lend my support.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Most people don't give a shit about the underlying issues.

This is based on the assumption that most people don't understand the underlying issues, which in turn is because the media don't give them any information.

 

(I've got a general faith in people's ability to distinguish right from wrong, if they are given the full picture.)

[cochcaer]

If I thought it'd achieve anything I'd say go for it but I don't. As a child of the 70s I'm very cynical of unions - not the members but those at the top.

[Sugar Ape]

If I thought it'd achieve anything I'd say go for it but I don't. As a child of the 70s I'm very cynical of unions - not the members but those at the top.

 

I must say that is my fear - that all the strikes will achieve is giving the government a ready made scapegoat for some of the fuckups it's making.

 

I wasn't born in the 70's, but the strikes back then were mainly because the unions wanted bigger pay rises wasn't it? Totally different now in my opinion, the only thing the unions want now is not to have the pensions of their members made considerably worse. They aren't the aggressors in this.

[torahboy]

I don't see what I said being nasty, petty or, crucially, as personal as you referencing SD's dad. Which you have done more than once. What's good for the Goose and all that. Maybe I'll follow you round the forum calling you names every time you post, or maybe I won't because I'm not sad and bitter.

 

 

Read it again - I did not refer to anything as 'personal'. How could it be? But people who present themselves as electoral possibilities do open themselves up to public rejection/acceptance. The Dog and his dad got rejected/fucked off by the electorate. Where's the personal?

 

You can follow me 'round the forum' as often as you like - and call me all the names you like - but I will sleep, tonight, tomorrow night, and all those nights that you may wish to torture me with your name calling.

[Sugar Ape]

Read it again - I did not refer to anything as 'personal'. How could it be? But people who present themselves as electoral possibilities do open themselves up to public rejection/acceptance. The Dog and his dad got rejected/fucked off by the electorate. Where's the personal?

 

You can follow me 'round the forum' as often as you like - and call me all the names you like - but I will sleep, tonight, tomorrow night, and all those nights that you may wish to torture me with your name calling.

 

I think people can clearly see that you are a sad, bitter crank so no need to ' torture ' you thankfully. * shakes head *

 

I will await your no doubt witty rejoinder with bated breath.

[torahboy]

I think people can clearly see that you are a sad, bitter crank so no need to ' torture ' you thankfully. * shakes head *

 

I will await your no doubt witty rejoinder with bated breath.

 

 

 

The language is English. You thick, little twat.

[Sugar Ape]

The language is English. You thick, little twat.

 

2/10. Try harder next time. Come on, you can do it.

 

I don't think you can do it without making yourself look stupid like, but it's the trying that counts.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The language is English. You thick, little twat.

 

If one think that's sure, it's that Sugar Ape isn't think.

[torahboy]

Good morning.

[VladimirIlyich]

I must say that is my fear - that all the strikes will achieve is giving the government a ready made scapegoat for some of the fuckups it's making.

 

I wasn't born in the 70's, but the strikes back then were mainly because the unions wanted bigger pay rises wasn't it? Totally different now in my opinion, the only thing the unions want now is not to have the pensions of their members made considerably worse. They aren't the aggressors in this.

 

I was only a kid in the 70s and remember sitting round the fire with candles during the miners strike of 72? or so.

 

I think the Unions did start strikes,in some cases,for very little reason,comparatively speaking and had a lot of power back then because of virtually full employment,a strong manufacturing industry and less of an 'I'm alright jack' attitude from the person in the street.The problem was that this played right into the hands of the tories and the milk snatcher to lessen the power of the unions and we've never ever recovered and Corporations rule ok!

 

As for union leaders,I suppose there are good and bad like everything but with less members overall its difficult to achieve a lot individually and communication between them all is the key to being effective.

Also they have to be very careful when whole factories,offices etc can be closed down overnight without much opposition and the jobs moved to a country where 9 yr olds can do their jobs for a pound a week.

[Strontium]

Also they have to be very careful when whole factories, offices etc can be closed down overnight without much opposition and the jobs moved to a country where 9 yr olds can do their jobs for a pound a week.

 

 

I find it pretty frightening that there are people around who actually believe this.

[VladimirIlyich]

I find it pretty frightening that there are people around who actually believe this.

 

I find it even more frightening that there are ostriches around who dont.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I find it pretty frightening that there are people around who actually believe this.

 

You know all those toys in the pound shops, they're all made by middle-aged men on 80k a year. Pension, bonus, job security, company car... cushy little number that is.

 

True story. Another win for capitalism.

[TommyW]

does anyone anticipate the unions not accepting the reforms by the end of the year?

 

the strike will go ahead as we know it has to but if agreement is as close as it is reported to be then people will be going out on strike even though the unions could be very close to accepting the offer on the table

 

I hope this isnt the case, its a big decision for most to go out on strike and I hope the union leaders realise what a betrayal it would be if they dont have the stomach to see this through after calling everyone out on strike

[Sugar Ape]

does anyone anticipate the unions not accepting the reforms by the end of the year?

 

the strike will go ahead as we know it has to but if agreement is as close as it is reported to be then people will be going out on strike even though the unions could be very close to accepting the offer on the table

 

I hope this isnt the case, its a big decision for most to go out on strike and I hope the union leaders realise what a betrayal it would be if they dont have the stomach to see this through after calling everyone out on strike

 

It is only the likes of Alexander and Maude who are saying a deal is close. Some unions say they haven't even received an official offer to study.

 

They will drag it out until the end of the year and just impose what they want. Obviously whilst blaming the unions for not taking up the ' generous ' offer they tabled.

[Strontium]

You know all those toys in the pound shops, they're all made by middle-aged men on 80k a year. Pension, bonus, job security, company car... cushy little number that is.

 

True story. Another win for capitalism.

 

 

Did I claim any of that? You can shove your strawman up whatever hole you deem appropriate.

 

It is an absolute fact that nobody's place of work is "closed down overnight", and their job handed to "9 year olds on £1 a week". Anyone who makes this claim is spreading a fiction.

 

Never been a fan of fiction myself, I much prefer reality.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

It is an absolute fact that nobody's place of work is "closed down overnight", and their job handed to "9 year olds on £1 a week". Anyone who makes this claim is spreading a fiction.

 

Aside from my off the cuff remark (you're a humourless cunt), in what way is that a fact?

 

Maybe you're more interested in semantics, but surely you're not suggesting that businesses haven't closed down call centres, factories, and other parts of their business, and then transferred those parts of their business to India, or other places?

 

If you're concerned with whether it's 'overnight' rather than a month, or 9 years old instead of 12, then I'm not really interested. It's a distraction from some of the things that have quite obviously happened all over the western world.

[Strontium]

Aside from my off the cuff remark (you're a humourless cunt), in what way is that a fact?

 

Maybe you're more interested in semantics, but surely you're not suggesting that businesses haven't closed down call centres, factories, and other parts of their business, and then transferred those parts of their business to India, or other places?

 

If you're concerned with whether it's 'overnight' rather than a month, or 9 years old instead of 12, then I'm not really interested. It's a distraction from some of the things that have quite obviously happened all over the western world.

 

 

There was nothing humourous in your comment, just the snideyness I've come to expect.

 

On your other point, I don't think British people should have more of a right to jobs over Indian people, mainly because I'm not a racist.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There was nothing humourous in your comment, just the snideyness I've come to expect.

 

On your other point, I don't think British people should have more of a right to jobs over Indian people, mainly because I'm not a racist.

 

I'm racist. Those Fucking Indian fucker need to get making curries.

 

Oh, hold on, I forgot, I'm not a racist, I just care about people's who are being exploited. I know you don't, but I do, mainly because I'm not a fake liberal. I also don't want businesses closing down and sacking workers, just because they can exploit workers elsewhere and get their products made more cheaply, all whilst taking taxable money out of the country.

[Section_31]

There was nothing humourous in your comment, just the snideyness I've come to expect.

 

On your other point, I don't think British people should have more of a right to jobs over Indian people, mainly because I'm not a racist.

 

That's a stunning thing to say from someone who likes to bang the straw man drum, I'm actually speechless at that.

 

Western society is being undone before our very eyes because corporations, some of them previously state owned and built by the taxpayer such as United Utilities and BAE Systems, are forever chasing the bottom line and trampling their workforce underfoot, they achieve these savings by offshoring work, where that work is offshored to is irrelevant, the fact it is putting people over here out of work is a problem. Or maybe you like living in a country that's rife with inequality, poverty and hardship, or perhaps you'd like to try your hand at some urban farming like they do in Detroit?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Bit racist that, sec. Bit racist.

[VladimirIlyich]

I dont believe somebody as intelligent as you took 'closing overnight' as being literal. A month or 6 weeks is still a very short time and as somebody else said,thats just semantics.

 

As for 9yr olds working for buttons.

 

I watched a BBC series called 'Tropic of Cancer' hosted by Simon Reeve a couple of nights ago and they passed through Bangladesh.They interviewed a couple of 10yr old working on a furnace making bottles recycled and sent to South Korea.One lad had scorched his arm badly and had to just carry on working.The wages were something atrocious.

UNICEF had set up a centre for these kids to go to for a couple of hours a day to get a meal and a shower before returning to work to finish a 12 hour day.

 

They interviewed a couple of adult men in their thirties and they both began working between 9 and 11 yrs old and said this was very typical.

They both said that child labour cannot be stopped otherwise the kids would have no money and starve to death.That part wasnt semantics that was literal.

 

As for racism against Indians for supporting keeping jobs in Britain,you are on a wind up with that comment.

[Tyler Durden]

There was nothing humourous in your comment, just the snideyness I've come to expect.

 

On your other point, I don't think British people should have more of a right to jobs over Indian people, mainly because I'm not a racist.

 

Probably been the first time I've seen you post something as desperate as that, sign of the times?

[Strontium]

That's a stunning thing to say from someone who likes to bang the straw man drum, I'm actually speechless at that.

 

 

Why? That's what it amounts to. We don't want THEM having OUR jobs. I can't get on board with that attitude, whether intended or not.

 

where that work is offshored to is irrelevant, the fact it is putting people over here out of work is a problem

 

 

I don't believe offshoring is a major cause of unemployment and inequality in this country. I think most studies will bear that out. This study from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills was one of the first I found, here's their conclusion: