Thread: Hell: I think I might just go on strike... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001244
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
I'm underpaid, overworked, my job is stressful, my hours are too long, my office isn't big enough, my employers are always looking to make cuts and there's always the threat that my employment at my current place of work is a luxury that they can't afford.

The only thing that keeps me going into work every day is that I love every minute of my job and I feel a very strong sense that it is my vocation to be where am I presently working, at this particular time (and so do my superiors who ultimately have control over where I work!).
If I ever were to strike, I would not only be disobeying my superiors, I would be failing to serve the people that I serve in my ministry, depriving the people that I serve from having access to a religious minister.

Today, London was ground to a halt because the well paid people who work on the underground are going to be subject to a few cuts. I don't want to get into those cuts themselves, I'm not interested in that. But the people who have been the most affected have been the innocent members of the public who commute around London in order to make a living. It's absolutely disgusting that I received a phone call from somebody who works for a retail outlet in central London, who was late for work and was told that her wages would be docked for the first hour of work because that was the company policy. It was entirely because of the Tube strike.
I can remember working in retail when I was a young man, the same rules applied.

The rules should be changed: If you provide a service to others, you should not be allowed to strike. It doesn't only hurt the company that you work for, it hurts the innocent and this is an injustice. It would be perfectly acceptable if those who strike would personally pay compensation to each individual who is affected, but they do not. Instead we are supposed to feel sorry for them because a few of them might lose their jobs.

I'm not happy. Far too many people are hurt by strike action! [Mad]

[ 05. January 2015, 23:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
The rules should be changed: If you provide a service to others, you should not be allowed to strike.
Everybody provides a service to others, pretty much.

You just, through one hoped-for decree, removed a significant portion of the labor pool's power to improve things for themselves. There's a reason that labor unions and the like arose - fragmented labor means people powerless to bargain effectively with their employers. Fuck that noise and fuck you for thinking it.

Strikes may be uncalled for, and this strike may be uncalled for as well. If the service is needed enough, the government can break the strike. It is precisely the collective pain that is caused that makes it effective though.

I would think that Christians should support this sort of thing (when called for anyways).
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Wait a few years, and you will be able to retire.
Then, glory in the joy that there is work to be done, and you have no intention of doing any of it.
You may not get to carry a picket sign, but you can sit on a bench at the bus stop, and watch others go off to work.
You can even have beans for dinner the night before, and sit there being socially unacceptable.
So you see, there is light at the end of the tunnel, even when the train is late.
You just have to be patient, because the government is going to raise the age of retirement several times before you get there.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
As someone currently involved in trying to get my staff to sign up for union membership -- and they not only provide a service, they provide it to vulnerable people -- I have to agree with pjkirk.

My staff work in difficult (sometimes hazardous) conditions with difficult (sometimes dangerous) people and get crap pay and crap benefits and little say over what happens to them as workers.

Without the power to strike, they will likely go on as they have been.
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
pjkirk: There is no need to drop the 'F-bomb' on this thread. This thread will be a no-swearing thread if that's ok please. Thank you.

Silver Faux: There must be better ways of making your voice heard within the work place than blackmailing your company into submission by hurting innocent people.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Fuck you, Ship's Chaplain. The only thing that's giving me any hope in my life right now is my union, so just fuck you.
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously and would rather resort to dropping profanities.
 
Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
pjkirk: There is no need to drop the 'F-bomb' on this thread. This thread will be a no-swearing thread if that's ok please. Thank you.
um ... you picked the wrong venue for your rant if you didn't want people to swear.
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
As the host of this discussion I should be able to set the rules on profanities surely?
I thought Hell was where you posted if you were angry about something.
 
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
If I ever were to strike, I would not only be disobeying my superiors, I would be failing to serve the people that I serve in my ministry, depriving the people that I serve from having access to a religious minister.
Me too. Besides, if we ever were to strike, we would run the risk that our people would realize they could get along quite well without us, thank you very much.

(Also: though I almost never use the "F-bomb", I don't see how a Hell conversation should be expected to be without it.)
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
As the host of this discussion I should be able to set the rules on profanities surely?
Nope.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Fuck you, Ship's Chaplain. The only thing that's giving me any hope in my life right now is my union, so just fuck you.
Whatever one's views on Unions (and I take a pretty dim view of them, myself) an awful lot of people in Britain detest Bob Crow who is behind the Tube strikes.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Fuck you, Ship's Chaplain. The only thing that's giving me any hope in my life right now is my union, so just fuck you.
Nocolemrv, you got in before me. I have never, to the best of my recall, used an obscenity on this site. Neither have I jumped on a Newbie.

But, Ships Chaplain- learn the facts of life before posting balls. Strike action is never taken lightly. It is an act of desperation, when all else has failed, when the employer has refused to negotiate or to listen to reason.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously [...]
Okay. Lets talk. I tend to agree with pjkirk.

You have pointed out what you think is wrong with the system. So propose a solution. If striking is not allowed, or alternatively is made so harmful to the striking parties that it is effectively not an option, what realistic, practical framework for labor relations would you suggest be adopted?


And BTW, no you cannot set the rules for profanity. You posted in Hell regarding a subject on which people have very strong feelings both ways. You are going to get cursed at.

[ 03. November 2010, 23:02: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I couldn't care less about the issues behind this particular strike; I just am not in the mood for stupid anti-union rhetoric right now, when the only thing that's giving me any hope of protection against a nasty and vicious situation I'm in, that could easily cost me my job after 23 years, is my union.

I also know that the reason my union is as weak as it is, though it's still better than none at all, is because due to a particular reading of the law, we don't have the right to strike. And it SUCKS.

And ship's chaplain? The only "hosts" here are the hell-hosts. And you ain't one of them.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously and would rather resort to dropping profanities.
If you're interested more in discussion than ranting, open a thread in purgatory and ask for this one to be locked.

But if it's an angry thread in Hell that you want, you've got one.

[ 03. November 2010, 23:05: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Workers have the right to withdraw their labour. End of. It is pretty much the only effective sanction they have against an unjust employer.

You can argue whether or not the employer in this case is treating its employees unjustly. You can argue that mechanisms such as arbitration, workplace councils, and statutory pay and conditions bodies should be applied across the board, thereby negating the need to strike. But not their right to strike. It was won with people's blood.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
pjkirk: There is no need to drop the 'F-bomb' on this thread. This thread will be a no-swearing thread if that's ok please. Thank you.

Silver Faux: There must be better ways of making your voice heard within the work place than blackmailing your company into submission by hurting innocent people.
What the fuck did my comments on retirement have to do with making my voice heard, let alone blackmailing a company into submission by hurting innocent people, you snotty cunting pissant?
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
Please. There is no need to swear. I apologise if I have upset you but there is no need to swear.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Ship's Chaplain:
quote:
As the host of this discussion I should be able to set the rules on profanities surely?
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I couldn't care less about the issues behind this particular strike; I just am not in the mood for stupid anti-union rhetoric right now, when the only thing that's giving me any hope of protection against a nasty and vicious situation I'm in, that could easily cost me my job after 23 years, is my union.

I also know that the reason my union is as weak as it is, though it's still better than none at all, is because due to a particular reading of the law, we don't have the right to strike. And it SUCKS.

And ship's chaplain? The only "hosts" here are the hell-hosts. And you ain't one of them.
O.K. I understand that unions can be good. I don't have a problem with unions. It's the effective ransom of the public services sector I don't like. Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Ship's Chaplain, read the board guidelines and the board description. You are not a host. You do not get to control the thread. You do not get to control whether people swear or not.

Thinkۼ
Phasing Hell Host
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
As someone who's in danger of losing my job right now, Ship's Chaplain... FUCK YOU!
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
I don't have a problem with unions. It's the effective ransom of the public services sector I don't like.
Its called leverage, dude. Its how labor relations work.

Like I said above, propose a solution. But if you do, you might want to do it in Purgatory, or else this will just keep escalating.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously and would rather resort to dropping profanities.
OK, how about suggesting that the current system of public expenditure cuts leading to redundancies and wage cuts in th public and private sectors is immoral? They are only proposed to protect 'the economy' but I have this quaint idea that the economy is here to benefit man, not the other way round.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
[QUOTE]IQUOTE]O.K. I understand that unions can be good. I don't have a problem with unions. It's the effective ransom of the public services sector I don't like. Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
I get it. This is a bizarre attempt at humour, right? Becausae you can not really believe this nonsense. Not if you walk upright and claim to be a sentient being.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
What I suggest is that the innocent commuters who use the London Underground should fund it completely out of their fares. While we're there, we can milk them for the £16bn for CrossRail.
 
Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on :
 
This thread started because it seems that striking tube (or transport) causes other people suffer and that is not fair. Surely you should be encouraging your friend (?) to question their employees right to dock wages due to circumstances beyond their control. This may be where a union can help?
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What I suggest is that the innocent commuters who use the London Underground should fund it completely out of their fares. While we're there, we can milk them for the £16bn for CrossRail.
[Smile]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Everybody provides a service to others, pretty much.
Yes. Surely the OP has created a false dichotomy. I'd very much like to be given ANY example of a job that is not designed to be of some service to others. If you do something purely for your own amusement, it's called a 'hobby' and you don't get paid for it.

Of course, what the OP means is "if you provide a service that I care about and it inconveniences me when you stop providing it".
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Kat in the Hat:
This thread started because it seems that striking tube (or transport) causes other people suffer and that is not fair. Surely you should be encouraging your friend (?) to question their employees right to dock wages due to circumstances beyond their control. This may be where a union can help?
As a self employed musician, as well as a proud union member, I've always found it totally baffling how some people get paid for hours when they're not actually working. Whoever's fault it is. But then, if you're an hour late for a playing job, not only do you lose your fee, you never get booked again by that fixer.

Of course strikes are inconvenient. That's the point. It's like when you're a teenager and your mum gets fed up with being taken for granted. Suddenly you realise just how useful she is when she does your washing, cooks your dinner and gives you a lift when it's raining.

Last time I lived in the capital, they gave notice of the days tube strikes were going to happen, so you can always make other plans to get to work on time, & maybe appreciate the TfL employees a bit more when they come back.

[bloody iPhone keypad]

[ 04. November 2010, 00:09: Message edited by: Viola ]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
I assume that you're being deliberately inflammatory, and that you're not actually that pig ignorant?

It's interesting (in a depressing way) just how thorough and effective Thatcher's demonising of the proles using the only leverage they've got has been. I was inconvenienced by the tube strike today, but such is life. I'm also inconvenienced by corporations constant paring back on quality and service in the push to drive costs down and profits up while performing a total snow-job on the public.

Argue against strikes in the abstract on the grounds that they're unlikely to be very effective in this day and age, sure. Argue against (or for) the LU strike in particular on the merits of the case. But arguing that they're "unjust" because they cause an inconvenience (well, d'uh, that would rather be the point), and because third parties elect to enact their own 'injustice' as a side-effect is just spurious guff.

So far it comes across that you're just put out because the rest of the world has it so much better than you, and any that might not (they won't be so "well-paid" when they lose their jobs, after all), are clearly just human waste not worthy of any consideration, empathy, understanding or fellow-feeling. Or will your ministerial services swing into overdrive once they're in the crap and on the dole?
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
You know, it occurs to me that this . . .

quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I'm underpaid, overworked, my job is stressful, my hours are too long, my office isn't big enough, my employers are always looking to make cuts and there's always the threat that my employment at my current place of work is a luxury that they can't afford.

The only thing that keeps me going into work every day is that I love every minute of my job and I feel a very strong sense that it is my vocation to be where am I presently working, at this particular time (and so do my superiors who ultimately have control over where I work!).
. . . might well be how the workers you're so teed off about feel.

Oh, but no -- how could they? They're not ministers, they're just navvies. How could somebody driving a train or operating track switches and signals or selling tickets or tokens or whatever they use on the Underground feel any sense of mission or take any pride or even, gasp, actually love their job?

News flash: loving your job to pieces is JUST what gets workers exploited by employers more often than not. The fact that you're willing to be overworked and underpaid, etc. doesn't mean everybody else should follow suit.

Get a backbone instead and stick up for yourself in your own situation.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
quote:
IQUOTE]O.K. I understand that unions can be good. I don't have a problem with unions. It's the effective ransom of the public services sector I don't like. Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
I get it. This is a bizarre attempt at humour, right? Becausae you can not really believe this nonsense. Not if you walk upright and claim to be a sentient being. [/qb]
He's not a sentient being, he's a fucking moron.

I'm pro-union, and I vote! Ha ha, take that, fuckwit. You are jealous of my union benefits and my union salary! Yes, I could make a shitload more money if I went into the public sector, but I'd be paying a minor shitload for healthcare out of that shitload salary and have to work 80-90 hours a week with no overtime. And they wouldn't be paying for me to increase my job skills like my current, union-represented job is doing.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Waaah, waaah. Your trip around town was made more difficult today. Suck it up, whinerbaby. You're the kind of person who makes other preachers and chaplains look bad; you come off as the kind who actually does only work one hour a week of a Sunday morning.

If you're so interested in making seminarians 'understand common people' better, go fucking do a union job for a while, you useless waste of air.

*writes "Mary Sue + Union = BFF" all over her PeeChee folder*

*Then says fuck shit damn hell cocksucker tits pussy. Because she can.*

[ 04. November 2010, 01:51: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Aaaand I fucked up my code. Damnit. A thousand apologies, Hellhosts, I'd throw myself upon your mercies but y'all don't got none.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Don't let em get you down TSC.

Darn it. You made a wonderful attempt at a Heck thread.

Just as a question though. Were you aware of the 17 preacher per square inch posting population around here before you chose your name?
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Once upon a time, there was an active poster named The Atheist.
The Atheist.
He used an avatar representing Jesus.
His schtick was that he swore non-stop, and especially, he used the word "cunt" a lot.

Time passed. Time always does.

Along comes an active poster named The Ship's Chaplain.
The Ship's Chaplain.
He uses the same avatar representing Jesus.
His schtick is that he objects to swearing.

Isn't it cool how, over time, history repeats itself, yet with very different active posters?
If you wait long enough, you see some fascinating things here.
Or you think you do.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
My, you are a suspicious soul SF.

I have been reformed by GK, jacobsen and girder. I will not attack any more, no siree bob.

Gonna lay down my sword and shield
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Gonna lay down my sword and shield
Down by the riverside
Ain't gonna study war no more.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Gonna go lay my reusable grocery bag down;
Don't buy the liverwurst,
Don't buy the liverwurst,
Don't buy the liverwurst.
Gonna go lay my reusable grocery bag down;
Don't buy the liverwurst,
Don't buy the liverwurst,
It tastes like bloody shite.

Gonna go lay my reusable grocery bag down;
Don't buy the...

Oh, forget it.
Tortuf is better at poetry than I am.
At least his efforts scan.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
There must be better ways of making your voice heard within the work place than blackmailing your company into submission by hurting innocent people.
All right, sock 'em to me. What are they?

.
.
.
.

Uh huh. Thought so.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ship's Chaplain:
quote:
As the host of this discussion I should be able to set the rules on profanities surely?
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
Dammit, you got there before me.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I'm underpaid, overworked, my job is stressful, my hours are too long, ...
Goodness. So too are are many workers in that position.

quote:
... The rules should be changed: If you provide a service to others, you should not be allowed to strike.
Why not bring back serfdom while you're at it?

quote:
Instead we are supposed to feel sorry for them because a few of them might lose their jobs.
I find it interesting you are in effect demanding others feel sorry for you.

quote:
I'm not happy. Far too many people are hurt by strike action! [Mad]
*shrug* I was once a shopfloor steward and a strike organizer. Causing unhappiness is exactly what a strike has to do, otherwise it's ineffective and easily ignored.

[ 04. November 2010, 02:48: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
*writes "Mary Sue + Union = BFF" all over her PeeChee folder*

*Then says fuck shit damn hell cocksucker tits pussy. Because she can.*
I love you, Spiffy.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run
There will be no greater power anywhere beneath the sun...

PeteC continues, humming softly to himself, not wishing to fall afoul of copyright somewhere

[ 04. November 2010, 08:31: Message edited by: PeteC ]
 
Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :
 
Originally posted by The Shit Chaplain
_______________________________________
I don't want to get into those cuts themselves, I'm not interested in that.
_______________________________________
Are your reasons to do what you do better than the reasons of the strikers, or more important? You sound a bit up yourself, fucking dickhead.
 
Posted by thomasm (# 4618) on :
 
Part of the problem us Londoners have though is that the tube seems to be on strike regularly and when they do strike they fail to communicate to the world why they are striking.

If the public is unaware of why you are going on strike then you are going to create anger, especially with Bob Crow's inflammatory remarks to the media which usually seem to imply that the only reason they are going on strike is for political advantage generally rather than for better pay and conditions specifically.

T
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
The rules should be changed: If you provide a service to others, you should not be allowed to strike. It doesn't only hurt the company that you work for, it hurts the innocent and this is an injustice.
So I take it, then, that strikers are, by definition, "guilty."

quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
It would be perfectly acceptable if those who strike would personally pay compensation to each individual who is affected, but they do not. Instead we are supposed to feel sorry for them because a few of them might lose their jobs.
You know, this makes me wonder about the nature of your ministry. To whom do you minister, precisely, and how?

I suspect I would not enjoy being in your pastoral care if I were unemployed. "Oh, you poor sod, you've lost your job and will starve and get evicted, but even though I work frightfully long hours in crap conditions for low pay, I'll just see if I can't work in the odd prayer for you while I'm in the bog."
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Causing unhappiness is exactly what a strike has to do, otherwise it's ineffective and easily ignored.
"Fuck everybody else, we're going to get the most we can for ourselves".

With, in the public sector, the delightful addition of "...and make them pay for it".

And you want me to support this?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah, a Hell thread where the OPer pronounces in favour of the Taff Vale judgement. Sorry, padre, but that particular issue was sorted out contra tuam 104 years ago.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Causing unhappiness is exactly what a strike has to do, otherwise it's ineffective and easily ignored.
"Fuck everybody else, we're going to get the most we can for ourselves".

With, in the public sector, the delightful addition of "...and make them pay for it".

And you want me to support this?
I appreciate that there'd never be any situations where you and your colleagues would down tools, even if (as is alleged by the rail unions) job losses and changes in working practices meant that for all intents and purposes, the consumers of your product were no longer safe.

Some of us would disagree.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Except more often than not strikes are about pay and conditions not safety. Notwithstanding what I said in my last post, I do have some sympathy for the people in the OP; strikes are meant to hurt the employer, not the public at large, whether it be working parents having to pay for childcare when teachers go on strike or,as in this case, people having to either be late for work at their personal cost or having to find alternative means of transport. Like I said, though, this issue was settled in 1906 in this country by the Trade Disputes Act (which reversed the Taff Vale Decision), so the 'tough shit to everyone else' principle was enshrined then. It would IMO do more harm than good to undo that across the board but the corrollary is that strikers who inconvenience the public can't expect a massive amount of public sympathy.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I always find it amusing (read: depressing) to hear educated people insist that to make a wealthy person work harder you have to offer them more money, but to make a poor person work harder, you have to try and pay them less.

Pay and conditions can be about safety too. You want a train driver who's been working their normal shift, plus overtime to make ends meet, plus they're on the early shift next morning? Be my guest.

(Pretty much in the same way I wouldn't fancy a defence counsel who'd been up all night at the cop shop doing a no-reply interview with 'Mad Dog' McNulty, coming to court to represent me.)
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Spiffy's spot on.

The alternative to unions is letting the bosses do what they want. Luckily we've come a long way from the 19th century.

Strikes are an act of desperation, not entered into lightly.

Power to them.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would IMO do more harm than good to undo that across the board but the corrollary is that strikers who inconvenience the public can't expect a massive amount of public sympathy.
But why is it always the strikers who inconvenience the public, and never the employers? As far as I know, it takes two to tango.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I suspect it is because it is the strikers who withdraw their labour, rather than the employer directly withdrawing the service, and therefore the strikers are perceived - rightly or wrongly - as being the immediate cause of the inconvenience. This presents an uphill PR battle for union officials re winning hearts and minds.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Strikes are an act of desperation, not entered into lightly.
Or, in the case of Bob Crow, acts by rabid left-wing demagogues who don't live in the reality-based community.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Causing unhappiness is exactly what a strike has to do, otherwise it's ineffective and easily ignored.
"Fuck everybody else, we're going to get the most we can for ourselves".

With, in the public sector, the delightful addition of "...and make them pay for it".

And you want me to support this?
1) If it's a choice between the selfishness of Tube workers, and the selfishness of you plus The Ship's chaplain, oh ooooer, tough choice.

2) Who said I asked or wanted you to support this?

3) Any genuine alternative options you have on offer?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Strikes are an act of desperation, not entered into lightly.
Or, in the case of Bob Crow, acts by rabid left-wing demagogues who don't live in the reality-based community.
You beat me to it. Bob Crow is the sort of person who would call a nationwide strike over not being given the right type of biscuits at a meeting.

I mean, people have talked on this thread about employers not being willing to negotiate, but in my experience unions are just as guilty in that respect. They don't negotiate, they just say "here are our demands, accept them or we strike". It's batty.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Meh. Whiny Londoners. If you want a proper transport strike, try crossing the Channel.

The trains (mercifully, not the metro as well)have been on strike for about a month. Oh, and there's no petrol in certain parts of the country either. Which basically means you can't go bloody anywhere.

The insane thing is that most French people apparently support the strikers' right to inconvenience us so that they can carry on retiring at 50 at the taxpayer's expense.

Personally I hope Sarko does something really obscene to them with a rusty farm implement. And I am far from being Napoleon's biggest fan.

I hate strikes.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
1) If it's a choice between the selfishness of Tube workers, and the selfishness of you plus The Ship's chaplain, oh ooooer, tough choice.
And I suppose the shop workers who had their pay docked are being selfish too?

quote:
2) Who said I asked or wanted you to support this?
Just putting the other side of the coin.

quote:
3) Any genuine alternative options you have on offer?
Um...yes: they could recognise that the world has changed economically and deal with that new harsh reality like the rest of us ie: having to work harder and longer for less money in real terms.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I mean, people have talked on this thread about employers not being willing to negotiate, but in my experience unions are just as guilty in that respect. They don't negotiate, they just say "here are our demands, accept them or we strike". It's batty.
Seriously? And see reply above too. In my own experience, strikes almost always happen only after normal routes of negotiation and bargaining have broken down.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
3) Any genuine alternative options you have on offer?
Accept that cuts are necessary, and work with the employers to ensure that they fall in the least safety-essential areas. Simply saying "no cuts shall be tolerated" is unworkable.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And I suppose the shop workers who had their pay docked are being selfish too?
You claiming altrusim for them?

quote:
Just putting the other side of the coin.
Maybe Marvin can speak for himself.

quote:
Um...yes: they could recognise that the world has changed economically and deal with that new harsh reality like the rest of us ie: having to work harder and longer for less money in real terms.
Go down there in Pharoah's Land, tell that to them yourself. You claiming cutbacka affect all groups equally?
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Accept that cuts are necessary, and work with the employers to ensure that they fall in the least safety-essential areas. Simply saying "no cuts shall be tolerated" is unworkable.
1) You'ld be amazed at how many unions do that when necessary. But do you know all the actual concrete details of the history behind this particular strike.

2) Never heard of an ambit claim?

3) It is a union's job to fight for its members.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Just putting the other side of the coin.
Maybe Marvin can speak for himself.
OK then - you say you're not asking me to support the strikes, but you're getting really fucking pissy when I criticise them, aren't you? The latter fact suggests that the former claim is just so much bullshit.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK then - you say you're not asking me to support the strikes, but you're getting really fucking pissy when I criticise them, aren't you?
No.
1) And I'm not asking you to "support" the strikes. I tend to think unless you can make your opinion somehow relevant and reality-based, it's worthless.

2) Challenging you on your general claims is exactly that.

3) It looks far more like you're the one getting really pissy, not me.

quote:
The latter fact suggests that the former claim is just so much bullshit.
4) So you don't actually know the details, but you want to emote. Understood.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
1) You'ld be amazed at how many unions do that when necessary. But do you know all the actual concrete details of the history behind this particular strike.
The history appears to be that LU want to get rid of some ticket office staff on the perfectly decent grounds that there are plentiful machines that do the same job. The unions are insisting that the staff should be kept on even though there's no good reason to do so. They're using the safety card to justify that stance even though it's a load of old tosh.

quote:
2) Never heard of an ambit claim?
I grew out of asking my parents for a pony so that I'd have a better chance of getting the rocking horse I really want at about age 6.

quote:
3) It is a union's job to fight for its members.
Even when their cause is unjust? In that respect they're no more than a more public version of the Masons, looking out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else's.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
You claiming cutbacka affect all groups equally?
Well, speaking as someone who on several occasions hasn't been paid at all in the last 2 years, I'm finding it a bit difficult to drum up sympathy for those who are having pay freezes or moderate pay rises.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The history appears to be that LU want to get rid of some ticket office staff ...... They're using the safety card to justify that stance even though it's a load of old tosh.
Did you miss the part about it being a union's very primary job being to fight for its members?

quote:
I grew out of asking my parents for a pony so that I'd have a better chance of getting the rocking horse I really want at about age 6.
And you're not a union negotiator, nor do you apparently wish to tackle the general nature of the negotations process.

But, you see, I tend to dislike empty emoting, so I guess both you and I will walk away unsatisfied from this particular negotiation.

quote:
Even when their cause is unjust? In that respect they're no more than a more public version of the Masons, looking out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else's.
Did you miss the part about it being a union's very primary job being to fight for its members?

Hellooo?

Funny. Remind me, please, of how you yourself have done things for them? While the charge of selfishness is being thrown around?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
[cross posted with about the past half dozen or so]

Unions are a mixed bag, just like politicians, managers, and all the rest of us.

I grew up in the land of the United Auto Workers when they made Detroit a paradise for the working man. Good wages, excellent benefits, and a couple of generations of working class kids grew up healthy and got to go to college and/or got good jobs.

I've worked construction sites, mostly in "second world" countries (at the time). Those with unions provided safer working conditions.

I've also worked union places where I, as an engineer, wasn't allowed to touch a tool. I had to find the proper employee and ask that something be done.

Finally, I ended up on my local School Board and ended up negotiating the contracts for the teachers and Support Staff. Our biggest frustration was that the chief negotiator from the union side didn't give a shit about the young incoming teachers or the support staff people. We always ended up trying to negotiate two sides of the fence at once, hoping to keep the total cost down to something the taxpayers would approve when the voted on it, while making sure that all the hard-won money didn't go to the active union members who were all on the top of the pay scale.

Which leads to the point that the rank and file union members don't always agree with what their leaders decide to do. And just like the rest of us, they get often stuck with leaders they think are idiots.

Did I mention that as a local elected official, I helped pass policies that other people thought were idiotic? Can I also point out that the boards I served on passed policies that I thought were idiotic and even sometimes harmful?

Life would be simple if we all agreed on The Right Thing To Do. Unions are part of how we deal with the fact that life isn't simple.

[ 04. November 2010, 11:53: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I think part of the problem is that people don't see what unions do the rest of the time. I am a union rep, in my organisation staffside meets management once very two months and review HR policies assist in consultations etc. By good communication we can forestall many potential problems - though inevitably not all. Unions negotiated in the UK car industry such that people worked short time to avoid compulsory redundancies and companies then retained their skilled workforce for the economic recovery.

In my sector we have accepted pay freezes without attempting to contest them.

Our ability to effectively negotiate though, is based ultimately on the right to withdraw our labour. Striking is not the easy option - especially for low paid workers, who struggle to cope with even a few days without pay.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, speaking as someone who on several occasions hasn't been paid at all in the last 2 years, I'm finding it a bit difficult to drum up sympathy for those who are having pay freezes or moderate pay rises.
You asking for sympathy? Better to get a union instead. Guess how reasonable pay and safety conditions were obtained in the first place.

Plus a political point. The only ones standing effectively against cut-backs now are lobby groups and unions.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
No, I'm not asking for sympathy; again you're making assumptions.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
You claiming cutbacka affect all groups equally?
Well, speaking as someone who on several occasions hasn't been paid at all in the last 2 years, I'm finding it a bit difficult to drum up sympathy for those who are having pay freezes or moderate pay rises.
Surprisingly enough, I have lots of sympathy for you. My wife's a lawyer, and I know how damn tough it can be to fulful your statutory duties when the government (of either stripe) has treated legal aid and the justice system in general like a whipping boy, cutting and cutting and cutting, and still expecting lawyers to carry on working because they actually care what happens to their clients.

You know why this farce goes on, year on year? Why they're closing courts, cutting back on trained prosecutors and savaging legal aid rates?

It's because none of you has the backbone to go on strike. Not invidually. Collectively. Shut down for a week. Don't represent anyone. Don't go to court. Don't charge, don't advise, don't prosecute, don't defend. Things would change for the better. Guarantee it.

But it won't happen because private practice is full of back-stabbing sharks and the prosecutors are co-dependent with their public service ethos.

It's a bit rich, then, to hear you complain about the tube workers.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I think part of the problem is that people don't see what unions do the rest of the time. I am a union rep, in my organisation staffside meets management once very two months and review HR policies assist in consultations etc. By good communication we can forestall many potential problems - though inevitably not all. Unions negotiated in the UK car industry such that people worked short time to avoid compulsory redundancies and companies then retained their skilled workforce for the economic recovery.

In my sector we have accepted pay freezes without attempting to contest them.

Our ability to effectively negotiate though, is based ultimately on the right to withdraw our labour. Striking is not the easy option - especially for low paid workers, who struggle to cope with even a few days without pay.
Well, yes.

Nuance is the word often used around here regarding theology.

Can be applied to trade unions as well.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, I'm not asking for sympathy; again you're making assumptions.
No, wrong again. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your actions and claim. I can explain, should you so desire, though it's fairly obvious.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
You claiming cutbacka affect all groups equally?
Well, speaking as someone who on several occasions hasn't been paid at all in the last 2 years, I'm finding it a bit difficult to drum up sympathy for those who are having pay freezes or moderate pay rises.
Surprisingly enough, I have lots of sympathy for you. My wife's a lawyer, and I know how damn tough it can be to fulful your statutory duties when the government (of either stripe) has treated legal aid and the justice system in general like a whipping boy, cutting and cutting and cutting, and still expecting lawyers to carry on working because they actually care what happens to their clients.

You know why this farce goes on, year on year? Why they're closing courts, cutting back on trained prosecutors and savaging legal aid rates?

It's because none of you has the backbone to go on strike. Not invidually. Collectively. Shut down for a week. Don't represent anyone. Don't go to court. Don't charge, don't advise, don't prosecute, don't defend. Things would change for the better. Guarantee it.

But it won't happen because private practice is full of back-stabbing sharks and the prosecutors are co-dependent with their public service ethos.

It's a bit rich, then, to hear you complain about the tube workers.
Er...newsflash - we don't do any legal aid work.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Even when their cause is unjust? In that respect they're no more than a more public version of the Masons, looking out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else's.
Did you miss the part about it being a union's very primary job being to fight for its members?
Did you miss the fact that that was my response to that very point? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...newsflash - we don't do any legal aid work.
Would you if it paid better?
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
.....
It's because none of you has the backbone to go on strike. .... But it won't happen because private practice is full of back-stabbing sharks and the prosecutors are co-dependent with their public service ethos.

It's a bit rich, then, to hear you complain about the tube workers.
Thanks, that fills out the picture. I've gotten some idea of the parlous situation from The Magistrate's Blog (The Law East Of Ealing), but it's always good to get more info.

Fortunately I live somewhere saner, with more socially responsible economics (shout-out to Anglican't, maybe you and I can get a good positive discussion going albeit from different sides, after all we're both reality-based, or I can claim the phrase belongs to my side, not yours [Razz] ), so I can adopt an Olympian detachment in all this if I want to.

I did find it funny how Matt Black made an argument from sympathy/cry for pity, and ignored the only effective way of gaining benefits is through a union or similar.

The tube workers have to do without the sympathy daily of Matt and Marvin daily anyway, so I guess they're probably not too worried right at the mo about that.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, I'm not asking for sympathy; again you're making assumptions.
No, wrong again. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your actions and claim. I can explain, should you so desire, though it's fairly obvious.
I'm self-employed, so there's no point in my being in a union.

As for Doc Tor's point, yes, we in small solicitors' firms in private practice are ripped off - the last few years by indemnity insurers. It is a requirement for us to practise that we have indemnity insurance. The cost of that indemnity insurance has trebled in the last three years which has in turn coincided with the property crash and general economic downturn. My earnings for 2008-9 were £8000 and in the last tax year picked up to £33000 but the indemnity insurance is now running at £43000pa. We've had to lay off most of our staff and the remainder have had to accept - with very good grace, bless them! - significant pay cuts.

So, no, I'm not asking for sympathy - this is Hell, after all - but neither do I feel particularly sympathetic to the strikers.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Did you miss the fact that that was my response to that very point? [Roll Eyes]
No. You missed the fact you're making the same accusation over and over again, despite it been shown that it's irrelevant.

Here. Let me help you out. You whined:

quote:
In that respect they're no more than a more public version of the Masons, looking out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else's.
And I pointed out to you that is exactly what a union's job is, and quite validly too, since your personal sympathy one way or another won't decide or win a thing. You ignored that.

Now, roll eyes at me as much as you like, but do try to grasp that a union is very much first and foremost there for its own members. Just like a business is there first and foremost for its owners.

Now: do you have any reasonable alternative options to offer? Any?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Wouldn't it be funny if all these strikes meant everyone stopped using the tube, thus putting every single one of the strikers out of work permanently?

Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I bet that with every strike a few more people discover a love of working from home or riding their bike, and that means less passengers, which means less income, which means more cuts are necessary, which means more strikes.........
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
....
So, no, I'm not asking for sympathy - this is Hell, after all - but neither do I feel particularly sympathetic to the strikers.
And does your lack of sympathy mean anything real in terms of consequences? Plus, see my reply to Marvin just above.

Seriously, why should anyone care about your individual lack of sympathy? I'm sure some kind of good argument can be made, so make it.

By the way, is the phrase "crab-bucket mentality" known to you? And do you see it in operation here? Because I do.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...newsflash - we don't do any legal aid work.
Would you if it paid better?
Actually, probably not - unless that was the only sort of paying legal work going; the reason we pulled out of criminal defence work some 10 years ago was far more to do with the ever-increasing burden of regulation (franchises to contracts to tendering etc), rather than the pay scales. So, in our little, two-partner way, I suppose we did kind of go on strike - we downed tools after a fashion. But it didn't make any difference and neither did we expect it to, nor did it AFAIK inconvenience anyone.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't it be funny if all these strikes meant everyone stopped using the tube, thus putting every single one of the strikers out of work permanently?
..... which means more cuts are necessary, which means more strikes.........
Dream on. Revenge fantasies, I dunno, again, I together with Anglican't are missing reality in here. BTW, you haven't answered my post showing you making the same old but irrelavant accusation.

Although Peak Oil might well soon enough fulfill your revenge fantasy, though at the same time really giving you too a hard going, so .... be careful of what you wish for? [Razz]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't it be funny if all these strikes meant everyone stopped using the tube, thus putting every single one of the strikers out of work permanently?

Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I bet that with every strike a few more people discover a love of working from home or riding their bike, and that means less passengers, which means less income, which means more cuts are necessary, which means more strikes.........
Hilarious.

Over a billion journeys a year, all transfered above ground. Good luck with that. At least everyone who doesn't live in London wouldn't have to subsidise it to the tune of £1bn a year.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
....
So, no, I'm not asking for sympathy - this is Hell, after all - but neither do I feel particularly sympathetic to the strikers.
And does your lack of sympathy mean anything real in terms of consequences? Plus, see my reply to Marvin just above.

Seriously, why should anyone care about your individual lack of sympathy? I'm sure some kind of good argument can be made, so make it.

See Marvin's reply to you above; everytime there's a postal strike, for example, a few more businesses switch to alternative forms of communication: Document Exchange, courier, email, etc, which threatens the long-term job security of the striking workers. So, yes, individuals' lack of sympathy and inconvenience is important, because a bunch of individuals make a trend.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Gurdur, we solicitors, like doctors, do not join anything so squalid and working class as a Union - we have our own professional body instead. "From negotiating with and lobbying regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we're here to help, protect and promote solicitors."
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
the reason we pulled out of criminal defence work some 10 years ago was far more to do with the ever-increasing burden of regulation (franchises to contracts to tendering etc), rather than the pay scales.
Of course, you know why they made it more and more difficult, don't you?

The Law Society aren't a union, and it shows.

(x-posted with dyfrig)

[ 04. November 2010, 12:31: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
See Marvin's reply to you above; everytime there's a postal strike, for example, a few more businesses switch to alternative forms of communication: Document Exchange, courier, email, etc, which threatens the long-term job security of the striking workers. So, yes, individuals' lack of sympathy and inconvenience is important, because a bunch of individuals make a trend.
Nonsense.

1) See reply to Marvin, and my other reply just above.

2) Good safety conditions and pay were won through action, not through sympathy, so I am getting really bored of claims of lack of sympathy.

Unless you can make a really good, concrete case about the wrongness of this one particular strike, and unless you can convince enough people, your opinion is worthless.

And as for generalizing it to all trade-union action; hey, lots of anti-trade-union people out there. You think unionists don't know that already? You think it makes all that much difference? Know much about the history of trade unionism?
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Gurdur, we solicitors, like doctors, do not join anything so squalid and working class as a Union - we have our own professional body instead. "From negotiating with and lobbying regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we're here to help, protect and promote solicitors."
Indeed. Everyone needs and/or wants some promotion. Odd, but true. Although I'm thinking the Law Society could have done far better. And the magistrates' association.

[ 04. November 2010, 12:40: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
the reason we pulled out of criminal defence work some 10 years ago was far more to do with the ever-increasing burden of regulation (franchises to contracts to tendering etc), rather than the pay scales.
Of course, you know why they made it more and more difficult, don't you?

The Law Society aren't a union, and it shows.

(x-posted with dyfrig)
Neither are the BMA, but my GP seems to be doing pretty well out of it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Over a billion journeys a year, all transfered above ground. Good luck with that. At least everyone who doesn't live in London wouldn't have to subsidise it to the tune of £1bn a year.
It's not very likely, is it?

I wonder if that's why the tube goes on strike more often than anywhere else? They've got us over a barrel and don't they know it.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Unions are a mixed bag, just like politicians, managers, and all the rest of us.

I grew up in the land of the United Auto Workers when they made Detroit a paradise for the working man. Good wages, excellent benefits, and a couple of generations of working class kids grew up healthy and got to go to college and/or got good jobs.
I wanted to take off from this a touch.

I come from a UAW family, born and bred in Detroit for generations. The union made Detroit, and the union has killed Detroit.

As may be true w/ the Tube strike currently (from the sparse details on this thread), the reason may be a bit silly. It certainly has been for many UAW strikes, a recent Boeing strike imo, and others. The result of this is fewer unionized shops everywhere. I can't even blame those employers (all the Japanese carmakers in the US are non-union, for example.)

But, for all the silly strikes that have occurred, organized labor has improved the United States considerably and we are worse off for its downfall. Employers grow stronger relative to workers continually, wages have fallen for 30 years now, conditions largely worsen, etc.

Is this strike "immoral"? I think that would be an overly extreme term for it. Is it a case of this union shooting themselves in the foot? It might be.

A sensible "new" organized labor structure is needed imo with more checks and balances. Unions have had their day, and served us well. Business has changed, government has changed, and they need to change as well to be a widely useful structure again.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
the reason we pulled out of criminal defence work some 10 years ago was far more to do with the ever-increasing burden of regulation (franchises to contracts to tendering etc), rather than the pay scales.
Of course, you know why they made it more and more difficult, don't you?

The Law Society aren't a union, and it shows.

(x-posted with dyfrig)
Neither are the BMA, but my GP seems to be doing pretty well out of it.
The BMA aren't scared of flexing their professional muscle. The Law Society is above that sort of thing.

Which is why you're poor and your GP isn't.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Well, we agree on that at least!
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Neither are the BMA, but my GP seems to be doing pretty well out of it.
In the US at least there is a gigantic glut of lawyers w/ more excess graduating every year. There's enough that the state of New Jersey has convinced new graduates to provide some services for free to the state so they can get something on their resume while looking for work.

Doctors on the other hand are in short supply. The AMA is rapidly greying and we are anticipating a huge greater shortfall in MDs in many areas soon - when I was looking at going to med school for pathology, it was expected that there would be a 30% shortfall in pathologists by the time I would graduate. That notwithstanding, general practitioners (family docs) make a very poor salary here compared to the rest of the field and what they need to deal with to get it (it's barely enough to pay back med school bills and be lower middle class in most areas, though decent after those are gone (i.e. 20 years)).

A similar situation would certainly help to explain the difference in your waters. I'm guessing that the guaranteed(?) fee schedule from the UK health care system also helps provide a lot of stability to the BMA members whereas your group is more free-market.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Plus (i) generally people like doctors (especially GPs) but dislike lawyers (ii) related to the above, most people know they might need a GP, and quite a lot of people of all classes do use them: most people (even criminals, I'd guess since they presumably don't expect to be caught!) don't think they'll need a criminal defence lawyer, and indeed aren't too bothered about the kind of service that criminal defendants get.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I mean, people have talked on this thread about employers not being willing to negotiate, but in my experience unions are just as guilty in that respect. They don't negotiate, they just say "here are our demands, accept them or we strike". It's batty.
How many negotiations have you sat in on?

My union's done the contract negotiation thing twice since I joined. It never even came down to a strike vote, because months of negotiations went into the contract.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I mean, people have talked on this thread about employers not being willing to negotiate, but in my experience unions are just as guilty in that respect. They don't negotiate, they just say "here are our demands, accept them or we strike". It's batty.
How many negotiations have you sat in on?
My union keeps me in touch with their pay negotiations. It's usually along the lines of "This is what we've asked for. They've made a lower offer. We've refused it and threatened action."

quote:
My union's done the contract negotiation thing twice since I joined. It never even came down to a strike vote, because months of negotiations went into the contract.
Well obviously that's not in my experience, is it. In fairness my union hasn't called us out yet (they know as well as I do that the money for extra wages simply doesn't exist), but I do wish they'd be a bit more mature about things rather than using the threat of strikes as a first resort as soon as anyone says "no" to them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well obviously that's not in my experience, is it. In fairness my union hasn't called us out yet (they know as well as I do that the money for extra wages simply doesn't exist), but I do wish they'd be a bit more mature about things rather than using the threat of strikes as a first resort as soon as anyone says "no" to them.
You seem curiously untroubled by the notion that an employer will use the threat of no money/possible redundancies/lack of orders as a first resort...
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...or statement of reality...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well, it's odd that many major companies, including banks part owned by us, are busy laying off staff at one end, and paying their executive bonuses at the other.

I guess reality looks different when viewed from the top down...

(edited for speeling)

[ 04. November 2010, 14:33: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...or when you're a small business
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, it's odd that many major companies, including banks part owned by us, are busy laying off staff at one end, and paying their executive bonuses at the other.

I guess reality looks different when viewed from the top down...
Just ask any Republican. Or ask any Democrat who was lured into voting Republican by attack ads.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
So maybe small business owners need to unionize? Or create a collective of some sort, which is pretty much the same thing.

Farmers are pretty old hat to this idea of collectives of individual 'firms'. Here in New Engldn they created Cabot Creamery in order to be able to make an honest, if small, living from their farms despite the problems presented by the economy of the times. (Sadly, it now seems to be more of a corporation than a co-op.)

If you independent or small firm lawyers don't like the ABA (or your local equivalent), start your own. That's what the farmers did. That's what the (US) Chambers of Commerce did. Local businessmen who decided to get together and work for their own interest (which tended to include working for their town's interest, back when most people didn't wander around too much).

And finally returning to the OP, that's what the original unions did. They saw a local problem and they rallied the local people together to defy the local powers in order to fix it.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
We have the Chamber of Commerce, Round Table and, more remotely, the Confederation of British Industry, not that any of them do much apart from possibly the latter.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

My point was to start your own if you're so unhappy with what you have and also so unhappy that the peon unions that somehow have the clout to interfere with you daily life.

I suspect that despite some people not paying you, you are hardly living in a hovel, buying the cheapest beans and worrying about how to find some heat to cook them, much less keep yourself from freezing.

So agitate and organize or shut up, OK?
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
Just wrapping up a few issues, now that I've gotten my most urgent work out of the way:

- unions exist for their members. Accusing them of selfishness is like accusing the Pope of being Catholic. Into addition, while a tu quoque argument, those accusing unions of selfishness seem themselves to be only criticizing from the stance of their own selfishness, so who gives a stuff about selfish criticisms?

- claiming that strikes will only lead to consumers adopting a different service is merely missing the point. The purpose of the unions is to be in the here and now.

The unions are not the government, and do not have to act like one. No-one expects businesses to all act in the national interest, so why demand it of trade unions?

- The Royal Post is a special example, and one I stayed off beforehand; the Royal Post would have been fine had it not been for some very ill-advised decisions by the previous government, decisions which have effectively led the Royal Mail and the taxpayers to subsidize its private competitors.

Brilliant, that isn't. As indeed the whole history of recent privatization of rail in Britain; it has led to worse service, far higher prices for consumers and far more subsidy by tax-payers than before when it was all nationalized. Talk about counter-productive. Don't think you're better off; try sending an ordinary letter, going longer distance by train, and none of that is the fault of the unions. Look at reality, not prejudices.

- the USA again, plus the Dems/Reps, is all rather a special case, owing to the labour history of the 1890's and 1917-1925. It's led to an unhealthy kind of politics nationally. Britain does have healthier politics.

- if you want something different, ffs come up with viable, practical alternatives.

I'm only seeing vague chuntering so far, and Daily Mail-type emo isn't some magic answer. So if you want to criticize unions, by all means, do so, but some factualness and actually getting to grips with the issues would be nice, since emo is so boring. There hasn't been made one signle argument as yet against trade unions that wasn't made as an argument over 100 years ago, seriously, and those arguments are just as wrong now as they were then.

And always bitching about how someone or other is not doing it right or not doing enough is simply narcissism, unless you are willing to get up off your hind feet and do something real yourself.

[ 04. November 2010, 15:42: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
For the last time, I am not unhappy with my lot! Nor am I unhappy per se with the LU unions as I don't use the Tube myself; I just find it difficult to muster up sympathy for them.

[reply to jlg]

[ 04. November 2010, 15:45: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For the last time, I am not unhappy with my lot! Nor am I unhappy per se with the LU unions ....
Just kinda odd how much you reply and what you say, then.

quote:
I just find it difficult to muster up sympathy for them.
And others have a distinct lack of sympathy for your lack of sympathy. Yet again.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I mean, people have talked on this thread about employers not being willing to negotiate, but in my experience unions are just as guilty in that respect. They don't negotiate, they just say "here are our demands, accept them or we strike". It's batty.
How many negotiations have you sat in on?
My union keeps me in touch with their pay negotiations. It's usually along the lines of "This is what we've asked for. They've made a lower offer. We've refused it and threatened action."
So the answer is 'none'.

If you don't like your union job, QUIT. I'm sure there are 3500 people ready to apply for it.

That number is based on the number of applications for the last open position in our office.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or when you're a small business
You've already said that the staff you've laid off took it well. They didn't strike.

I'm guessing that most small businesses are staffed by people who know exactly what's going on, how the company is doing, and whether or not their boss is a dickhead who'd screw them over just so he/she can have a new Porshe.

When the company gets bigger, that's when you can (not necessarily) end up with a disconnect between the people who actually do the work and the people who reap the benefit of that work. If the company is doing well, they expect to share the good times. If the company is doing badly, they expect to share the pain.

What they don't understand is when their friends get laid off and the boss gets a fat bonus. I've had a google to see if the John Lewis partnership has ever had a strike. I'm still looking.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Farmers are pretty old hat to this idea of collectives of individual 'firms'. Here in New Engldn they created Cabot Creamery in order to be able to make an honest, if small, living from their farms despite the problems presented by the economy of the times. (Sadly, it now seems to be more of a corporation than a co-op.)
This isn't "Old Hat" to farmers. This doesn't even exist for farmers - milk coops are not an advocacy group and farmers have essentially no control over their actions now. They have no positive control over prices*, which are controlled on a federal level. All they are is a drain.

It was a sad day here in Vermont when Agri-Mark cooperative bought out Cabot Creamery and McAdam Cheese.

I wish the US would adopt the Candian style quota system for agricultural production - at least for milk. Every time the price goes up a touch, mega-farms in the West boost production so high that they kill the price for several years afterwards. Vermont has lost almost 80% of its dairy farms in the 15 years I have been here, and if something doesn't change, that'll be over 90% verrry soon.

*Which are far below the cost of production currently.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or when you're a small business
You've already said that the staff you've laid off took it well.
I wouldn't say that. Several of them cried. It was horrible (more so for them than for me, obviously). But if you mean by that that they understood and bore me no animosity, then correct.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
pjkirk, I suppose I should have said "used to be" old hat to farmers.

I wrote a long rant and edited it down to something short or more in line with the topic of the OP. In the process I guess I lost the part where I admitted that current farms are either big agri-business corporations (including Cabot and Agri-Mark) or small farmers who work their butts off and need someone to have an outside job or two so they can make ends meet.

You are quite right about that.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
pjkirk is right: unions, and the right to strike, exist for a reason - a very good reason. At times like these, the right to strike needs to be protected, as it is one of the few means for the bottom half of western society to make their voices heard.

So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously and would rather resort to dropping profanities.
How about the suggestion that the current neo-liberal globalised capitalist system is immoral?

Really, come off it, do you think that striking is "immoral"? It might be inconvenient. But it's not immoral. In fact, it protects people from being treated in immoral ways.

Maybe if the retail worker in question had stronger union rights they wouldn't get an hour's pay docked for being late through no fault of their own!
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
I am a bit perturbed that we appear to have run him off, as it were, with an onslaught of fucks, but it seems that he's either not looking for much discussion (achieved here or in purg), or thought this was a "Heck" board.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
I am a bit perturbed that we appear to have run him off, as it were, with an onslaught of fucks, but it seems that he's either not looking for much discussion (achieved here or in purg), or thought this was a "Heck" board.
Yes. I think the poor fellow didn't know what hit him. Oh well.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
I am a bit perturbed that we appear to have run him off, as it were, with an onslaught of fucks, but it seems that he's either not looking for much discussion (achieved here or in purg), or thought this was a "Heck" board.
Yes. I think the poor fellow didn't know what hit him. Oh well.
Trouble at the mill! One o' th'crossbeams 'as gone out o' skew on th' treadle.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
I am a bit perturbed that we appear to have run him off, as it were, with an onslaught of fucks, but it seems that he's either not looking for much discussion (achieved here or in purg), or thought this was a "Heck" board.
Yes. I think the poor fellow didn't know what hit him. Oh well.
He totally does.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
I wrote a long rant and edited it down to something short or more in line with the topic of the OP. In the process I guess I lost the part where I admitted that current farms are either big agri-business corporations (including Cabot and Agri-Mark) or small farmers who work their butts off and need someone to have an outside job or two so they can make ends meet.

You are quite right about that.
Not quite as right on this side of the pond.

The largest farmer in the UK is the Co-operative.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As for Doc Tor's point, yes, we in small solicitors' firms in private practice are ripped off - the last few years by indemnity insurers. It is a requirement for us to practise that we have indemnity insurance. The cost of that indemnity insurance has trebled in the last three years which has in turn coincided with the property crash and general economic downturn. My earnings for 2008-9 were £8000 and in the last tax year picked up to £33000 but the indemnity insurance is now running at £43000pa. We've had to lay off most of our staff and the remainder have had to accept - with very good grace, bless them! - significant pay cuts.
OK I'm confusef you are a small business presumably your turnover is separate from your wage ? Or are you telling me your individual indeminity insurance is more than 17,000 over the national average income and you are expected to pay it out of your wages ?

I have professional indeminty insurance covering me for liabilities upto about 5 million pounds a year - it costs me 78 pounds a year but it covers just me. (Strictly speaking I don't have to have it as I am not in private practice but I chose to.)

What exactly are they expecting you to be liable for ?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As for Doc Tor's point, yes, we in small solicitors' firms in private practice are ripped off - the last few years by indemnity insurers. It is a requirement for us to practise that we have indemnity insurance. The cost of that indemnity insurance has trebled in the last three years which has in turn coincided with the property crash and general economic downturn. My earnings for 2008-9 were £8000 and in the last tax year picked up to £33000 but the indemnity insurance is now running at £43000pa. We've had to lay off most of our staff and the remainder have had to accept - with very good grace, bless them! - significant pay cuts.
OK I'm confusef you are a small business presumably your turnover is separate from your wage ? Or are you telling me your individual indeminity insurance is more than 17,000 over the national average income and you are expected to pay it out of your wages ?

I have professional indeminty insurance covering me for liabilities upto about 5 million pounds a year - it costs me 78 pounds a year but it covers just me. (Strictly speaking I don't have to have it as I am not in private practice but I chose to.)

What exactly are they expecting you to be liable for ?
I think it's the value of the deals Matt handles that makes his insurance cost what it does. Hundreds of pounds received in relation to deals of hundreds of thousands of pounds, results in hefty liabilities compared to income. When circumstances are that claims are more not less likely (possibly because other solicitors want to make a living), the premiums increase further.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I love the way that nobody is willing to take the suggestion that the current system of striking is immoral and to have a proper discussion seriously and would rather resort to dropping profanities.
How about the suggestion that the current neo-liberal globalised capitalist system is immoral?

Really, come off it, do you think that striking is "immoral"? It might be inconvenient. But it's not immoral. In fact, it protects people from being treated in immoral ways.

Maybe if the retail worker in question had stronger union rights they wouldn't get an hour's pay docked for being late through no fault of their own!
Yes, what a fuckwit. Shopworker is delayed through no fault of her own by tube strike- employer docks an hour's pay- what's the rule that needs changing? Not the one that allows this kind of bullying by employers, obviously, 'cos that might mean admitting that the rich aren't always in the right...
D'you know, i think TSC should go on strike- in the interests of the people to whom he ministers.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:


D'you know, i think TSC should go on strike.
how would you tell?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... strikers who inconvenience the public can't expect a massive amount of public sympathy.
So it is good to see that the London firemen are going to be working on Guy Fawkes - out of concern for public safety. Link.
The timing of the strike did seem to be shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
Good for the LFB!
 
Posted by The Ship's Chaplain (# 15751) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So yes, Ship'sChaplain - fuck you. (Actually, what pissed me off more was your assertion that this will be a no-swearing thread. Doublefuck.)
I am a bit perturbed that we appear to have run him off, as it were, with an onslaught of fucks, but it seems that he's either not looking for much discussion (achieved here or in purg), or thought this was a "Heck" board.
Yes. I think the poor fellow didn't know what hit him. Oh well.
He totally does.
I'm very sorry for not responding within 24 hours. At the moment I am in the midst of leading day retreats. As I said: I'm overworked and of course: I have a job.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
You are back [Eek!]

Horray [Yipee]

Get back in there bubba and give 'em what for.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence.
This explains why you don't understand why people swear. Stupid presuppositions.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... strikers who inconvenience the public can't expect a massive amount of public sympathy.
So it is good to see that the London firemen are going to be working on Guy Fawkes - out of concern for public safety. Link.
The timing of the strike did seem to be shooting themselves in the foot.
Check it out for yourself, the weather looks lousy for November 5th in the London area!
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
Quite so.

But that doesn't take away from, or excuse, the foolishness of your OP. Still, I'd like to hear you justify it, if only to give you a chance to redeem yourself.

You have pointed out what you think is wrong with the system. So propose a solution. If striking is not allowed, or alternatively is made so harmful to the striking parties that it is effectively not an option, what realistic, practical framework for labor relations would you suggest be adopted?

[ 04. November 2010, 22:44: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:


I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
I don't swear - but I defend people's right to do so 100%

I am interested to know why you chose Jesus as your avatar?

Seems a bit ummmm....
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I'm very sorry for not responding within 24 hours. At the moment I am in the midst of leading day retreats. As I said: I'm overworked and of course: I have a job.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
You know, instead of going on and prissily on about people swearing, you might like to save yourself a bit of time abd actually deal with real issues, like the right to strike?

Unless, of course, the goal is merely to be prissy.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though,
It's fun and it gets the point across so much easier.

quote:
it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
I am compelled to point out that your inane insistence that profanity is the hallmark of an uneducated mind is leading me irrevocably towards the conclusion that, due to your inherent inability to pique the interest of any fine ladies in your locale, your social habits must, perforce, consist of nothing more than online verbiage and enthusiastic masturbation. I am left with the conclusion that your defenestration is the only viable solution to our mutual problem, viz. your continued insistence on ludicrous vocabulary constraints.

Means "Shitting hell, you are one tedious wanker. Why don't you just take your stupid 'no swearing' bollocks and fuck off."

See, it's much easier and more to the point if I use profanity, isn't it? [Smile]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[Y]our social habits must, perforce, consist of nothing more than online verbiage and enthusiastic masturbation.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
Yeah. Yeah, I heard that sort of thing a lot from my Mother. What it really means, decoded, is 'Nice people don't swear'. What 'nice' means when decoded is 'people like me'. Nice people don't swear. Nice people don't rock the boat. Nice people don't ask difficult questions. Hell - [is that a profanity still?] - nice people don't go on strike. Common, coarse, people who don't know their collective place in the scheme of things, go on strike. Not nice people like you. Which to be honest seems to be the undertone of your posts. Try to understand that not everyone aspires to be like you. Perhaps try re-reading the thread with that in mind, even.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
To be briefly serious for a moment, TSC: the reason you don't understand why people use profanities is because you can't see why this:
quote:
Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
is actually far worse, far more offensive, than saying this:
quote:
Shit piss bollocks
When you've worked out why you've written probably the filthiest words of any of the contributors to this thread, perhaps you might change your mind about the occasional expletive.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[Y]our social habits must, perforce, consist of nothing more than online verbiage and enthusiastic masturbation.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
I've tried it. I knock it.

TSC - cursing is wonderfully cathartic. I suggest you give it a go. With gusto!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Ship's Chaplain:
I really don't understand why people feel the need to swear though, it has always been my understanding that the greater the need to use profanities, the lower the intelligence. It makes perfect sense as obviously the lower the intelligence the more limited the vocabulary is likely to be.
Eh? Who said anything about need? What's wrong with a plain old bit of desire?

As for vocabulary... you do realise there's a fair amount of foul language in Shakespeare?
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
How about this: shut the fuck up, Max, you stupid incompetent motherfucking sockpuppeteer.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I should have seen it coming. Only a person who has so little touch with reality of living as a lower or middle class person would suggest a thirteen year seminary preparation.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I have enough trouble figuring out real people, Triple T. I don't have that kind of forensic mojo.

Max, get over it already, there's a good boy.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
Glad you are back, TSC.

I have actually withdrawn my labour- which is what a strike actually involves. The decision to withdraw from work until a situation is resolved. A basic human right.

I was a Social Worker. We agonised, worried about our clients, until we realised that the Employer depended on this, thinking we would never actually strike.

Well, we did. Our clients visted us on the picket lines, encouraging us. They brought us sandwiches and flasks, as well as the problems they needed help with.

They knew how much we put into the job. The unsocial hours, the unpaid overtime. The support we gave in all sorts of ways which were never recorded in case notes. Attending family funerals, weddings and christenings, for instance.

Our Team Managers came out in sympathy, even though they were not striking themseles-they recognised the justice of our cause.

We won our case, eventually, and this led to a pay review for Social Workers nationwide.

I have never regretted the decision to strike, in spite of the personal struggle involved.

You have no idea how most people live.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
We suspected almost immediately and knew for a little while. We were just hoping he'd behave this time around. I mean, it's not like it's rocket surgery. But I guess the leopard really can't change its spots after all. If you're going to be a sanctimonious ass, you should maybe try to not use the sanctimonious ass persona that got you banned in the first place.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
If you're going to be a sanctimonious ass, you should maybe try to not use the sanctimonious ass persona that got you banned in the first place.
So does that mean that this is going to happen to TSC?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Erin:
quote:
We suspected almost immediately and knew for a little while. We were just hoping he'd behave this time around.
That was really damned generous to the young goof.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
My [Votive] for whatever parish is dealing with him.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As for Doc Tor's point, yes, we in small solicitors' firms in private practice are ripped off - the last few years by indemnity insurers. It is a requirement for us to practise that we have indemnity insurance. The cost of that indemnity insurance has trebled in the last three years which has in turn coincided with the property crash and general economic downturn. My earnings for 2008-9 were £8000 and in the last tax year picked up to £33000 but the indemnity insurance is now running at £43000pa. We've had to lay off most of our staff and the remainder have had to accept - with very good grace, bless them! - significant pay cuts.
OK I'm confusef you are a small business presumably your turnover is separate from your wage ? Or are you telling me your individual indeminity insurance is more than 17,000 over the national average income and you are expected to pay it out of your wages ?

I have professional indeminty insurance covering me for liabilities upto about 5 million pounds a year - it costs me 78 pounds a year but it covers just me. (Strictly speaking I don't have to have it as I am not in private practice but I chose to.)

What exactly are they expecting you to be liable for ?
Sioni got it right, pretty much. The insurance isn't to do with turnover (ours was around £200K in the last year) but to do with potential liability incurred as a result of the value of the transaction).I'll give you a recent real-life example:

Before the credit crunch we acted on a remortgage of a house in Gosport. There was a restrictive covenant on the title forbidding any alteration to the property without so-and-so's consent. Unbeknown to us, the owner - our client - had put up a conservatory. This was not communicated to us by our client nor by the new mortgage lender, not even in their valuation-survey, a copy of which we had with the mortgage offer. The transaction completed, then the downturn hit, the client defaulted and the lender repossessed, at which point the issue of the illicit conservatory reared its ugly head. The lender - of course, that being the way of things in those days - had lent over the odds and lost money on the repo sale, exacerbated by the issue of the conservatory. They are now trying to sue me for their loss, arguing that I knew about the conservatory since their valuation-survey had photos annexed to it (it didn't) clearly showing the conservatory (I've now seen these photos which have miraculously appeared and they don't, unless you already know the conservatory's there), and we should have obtained retrospective consent from the covenantee.

Needless to say, the above is a complete try-on by the lender but it is illustrative of what solicitors are typically up against, particularly in the wake of a recession: lenders lend over the odds in the boom times, it then all goes Pete Tong, lenders lose money and try to recoup that from someone. The borrowers are difficult targets since they either have no money (hence the default on the mortgage) or have disappeared or both. The conveyancing solicitor however is another matter: not only are we 'visible' but we also carry indemnity insurance which allows the lender - if they are able to claim successfully - to recoup their losses on the property. For every 'try-on' like the above, there are unfortunately perhaps several successful claims, which puts indemnity insuarnce costs up for the rest of us.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
PS Just read the rest of the thread - Oh, Max! [Frown] [Mad]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
this:
quote:
Why should innocent commuters have to suffer because of a few job losses in a couple of train stations? It's not as if we really need to have people in ticket offices anyway, we have oyster cards and ticket machines!
is actually far worse, far more offensive, than saying this:
quote:
Shit piss bollocks
It's offensive to suggest that due to technological advances certain jobs may no longer be required?

Really?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's offensive to suggest that due to technological advances certain jobs may no longer be required?

Really?
No. It's the careless attitude behind the comment - quite literally. He couldn't care less about the real people who lose their jobs.

Since it comes from someone who purports to act as a 'chaplain', such a monstrous lack of compassion is more than a little worrying.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think I liked the old Max better. This one gives the impression of having aged about 40 years and turned into a sort of cut-price Norman St.John Stevas.

Now what were we talking about? Oh yes, strikes, unions, that sort of thing. My view is that it's a pity the unions are so run-down in this country. 'Cos right now they're just about all that stands between the British people and the full-scale dismantling of all the modern, civilised liberal values we enjoy by a government made up mainly of cash-greedy millionaires and their friends.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, because they did such a great job of that in the 1970s...
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, because they did such a great job of that in the 1970s...
No they didn't. But it would be a very, very, very silly person indeed that suggested that the unions as they are now are the same as they were in the 70s.

Wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think I liked the old Max better. This one gives the impression of having aged about 40 years and turned into a sort of cut-price Norman St.John Stevas.

[Killing me]

Now what were we talking about? Oh yes, strikes, unions, that sort of thing. My view is that it's a pity the unions are so run-down in this country. 'Cos right now they're just about all that stands between the British people and the full-scale dismantling of all the modern, civilised liberal values we enjoy by a government made up mainly of cash-greedy millionaires and their friends.
Dead right.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Since it comes from someone who purports to act as a 'chaplain', such a monstrous lack of compassion is more than a little worrying.
Yup, that's our Max. Making us wonder what the hell is wrong with him since 200-something. Can't remember when his heyday was. Don't really care at the moment, actually.

I'd say this parole given to dear old Maxy is proof to those who complain the Admins are heavy-handed with the planking, but those conspiracy theorists are liable to just take it as one more straw on the camel's back (the hump is a naturally ocurring feature, not proof it's broken).

[ 05. November 2010, 13:27: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erin:
quote:
We suspected almost immediately and knew for a little while. We were just hoping he'd behave this time around.
That was really damned generous to the young goof.
That was my thought too.

Maybe Erin's post could be archived somewhere, ready for the next "Why did the Admins pick on poor little Max?" thread ...
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, because they did such a great job of that in the 1970s...
Weren't you saying how you weren't per se unhappy with unions? Sorta decrying any personal investment?

Would it be valid to compare your business with Enron? Just asking, because this little one-liner of yours doesn't make any sense at all, unless of course you were trying very hard to damn unions with one giant tar-brush. You wouldn't be trying to claim industrial action never works, would you?

Oh, that's right, you previously tried exactly that. With the silly little argument that industrial action would only lead to consumers abandoning the service and mass-bicycling to turn London into 1970's Peking, or something.

1) Industrial action often works. Get over it.

2) Reasonable pay and safety provisions were only won through industrial action and trade-union-influenced politicking. So I reckon they neither need nor particularly want your specific sympathy. Again, get over it.

2) Do you think you can come up with anything more .... discussable than inaccurate one-liners?
Seriously.

Good cases can be made for how to minimise industrial action, strikes, and so on, and still have a reasonably fair society, yet neither you nor Marvin are making those cases. Just emo and snideness.

Plus you really are making me feel like sending in a donation to the tube-workers' strike fund.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The TU movement virtually destroyed Britain in the 1970s. Yes, times have changed, as per Adeodatus' post, but I was putting the counter-argument to his "they're the saviours of civilisation" claim by pointing out they don't exactly come to the table with clean hands and an unblemished track record on that front.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The TU movement virtually destroyed Britain in the 1970s. Yes, times have changed, as per Adeodatus' post, but I was putting the counter-argument to his "they're the saviours of civilisation" claim by pointing out they don't exactly come to the table with clean hands and an unblemished track record on that front.
Ahem. Certain traditions and actions within the TU movement (specifically IMO a very active lack of interest in German-style participation in industrial strategy and management) plus a crap and lazy management culture
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Granted.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
My historical knowledge is probably shite and I'm sure the likes of ken can correct me and/or fill in details but my *feeling* is that from the start of the Chartist movement until the Thatcher Axe# - a period of some 125 years or so, the sentiments underlying the joining-together of those who, hitherto, could be just totally disregarded in society was An Extremely Good Thing - for one, it gave all of *you* (unless you were/are a member of the aristocracy) the universal vote as well as the instigation of decent health and safety provisions at work. I fear it is a great shame that this Century+ of Progress for the People is destined to be merely a blip on the chart.


# and yes, I remember the excesses of the so-called *Winter of Discontent* when the union bosses flexed their muscles - sometimes to excess - yet I also remember the brutality of the backlash [Frown]

Jahlove, on some issues Very Conservative, on others a Raving Red [Biased]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
Like what clues?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
Like what clues?
'Well, I can't really go into detail on a website board because it would be easy for people to work out who I am and I am criticising the Church a bit. I wouldn't want to get into trouble with my superiors.' This, from the 'New Seminary' thread was the giveaway for me.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
It was the capital letters peppered about that made me suspect initially.

Thurible
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
Like what clues?
oh, you know, just about everything he posted!

You get the picture?
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
Well, I'm sure he'll be back, or has another puppet already registered that will get more active all of a sudden and want to be the center of attention [Biased] . Because he hasn't changed.

I sort of tuned out after the early stages of the New Seminary thread so missed some of the clues.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
the use of buttock-clenchingly awful vocabulary like "my gathered community"
Strong.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why did that take so long? The clues were there from the start. I thought he had been granted some sort of amnesty and new ID.
Like what clues?
oh, you know, just about everything he posted!

You get the picture?
Well, shit, more than half those things I'm guilty of. Especially the fact that I do know better than anyone else about everything there is to know, and the world would be a better place if y'all just did what I said.

I solemnly swear I'm not a Max. puppet.

I'd say that listing out his tells like this would teach him to hide better next time his feet are too warm and he takes off a sock, but that boy's proven time and time again that he just don't learn.

[ 06. November 2010, 16:50: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
We're going to stop talking about the banned now.

Marvin
Hellhost
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Serious question: may we still attack the arguments 'TSC' advanced in this thread? (However pointless it might be, given that he's no longer here to consider defending them.)

Thurible

[ 06. November 2010, 18:04: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
As an old-timer, I suggest you start a new thread (in Purg or Hell as you like), if you really want to talk about it.

But word it carefully so it isn't about Max. He seems to have used up all nine of his lives.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Serious question: may we still attack the arguments 'TSC' advanced in this thread?
Arguments yes. The person no.

If anyone wants to discuss those arguments then the thread will thrive, if not it will die. I note that there was a thriving argument about trade unions going on before the banned was outed as such - the continuation of this is perfectly OK.

Marvin
Hellhost
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Maybe if the retail worker in question had stronger union rights they wouldn't get an hour's pay docked for being late through no fault of their own!
Yes, what a fuckwit. Shopworker is delayed through no fault of her own by tube strike- employer docks an hour's pay- what's the rule that needs changing? Not the one that allows this kind of bullying by employers, obviously, 'cos that might mean admitting that the rich aren't always in the right...
A bit of common sense is all that is needed here to allow this to be resolved without any financial penalties. The employer needs to let her off this time and allow her to receive the full pay without any further consequences if she has consistently shown she is serious about her job. The employee needs to meet the employer in the middle and proactively offer to work enough overtime to regain the lost productivity, and also learn from this and own her responsibility for getting to work on time in the future.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
own her responsibility for getting to work on time in the future.
You can own your sodding responsibility all you want, but if you can't drive and there is no public transport and the cost of a taxi would be more than you earn in a day - when are you allowed to say you made every reasonable effort but it wasn't enough?

Firenze (still smarting from being told she should 'have got up earlier' to cope with a public transport shortfall, while knowing she had been queuing on the winter streets while that fat bitch had been having a leisurely breakfast prior to getting in her car).
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
When we've had these problems with Transport for London before employers who really need their employees in next morning make sure they can get there - often by providing somewhere to sleep overnight - access to washing, places to put down sleeping bag and bedding roll.

I live in one of the areas where people commute in. If the Tube isn't running it's 16 to 20 miles into Central London walking, cycling or whatever, and it's 8 miles to the nearest railway station that will get you in to one of the Central London Stations. What responsibility do you suggest the employee can take if the employer isn't providing somewhere to sleep in Town. Car sharing isn't really an option into London, cycling 20 miles isn't an option unless you can change and shower at the other end.

Also this particular strike - the tubes were beginning to be difficult from 6:30pm the night before.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Call in your unavailability to get to your job on time before that day then if it's a strike known well in advance. Even if your boss will pay you for work you don't do, in a retail environment it's important to make sure things are covered during that time you are not working.

At my previous job in a computer store, if I was an hour late it would mean one technician would be tied up with work out front instead of doing service jobs. If I was really unlucky in my timing it could push a couple of warranty jobs back one day and lower the service excellence rating which Apple uses to determine labour costs paid to third-party service centres. We're looking at a minimum of $150 loss of income to a small business, which is why the policy of lateness being taken out of TOIL (time off in lieu of payment for overtime) at time and a half and/or working overtime to recover lost productivity was the policy.

I'm personally astonished that people think it's acceptable to get paid for productivity lost when they are late - unless of course the striking union/s provide compensation to affected businesses for lost productivity. That may be decent in a salaried position where you are paid for doing a job, but not for a position paid by the hour. The vast majority of small businesses don't have money growing on trees to pay for work that is not getting done outside of money set aside in annual budgets for each employee's 6 days of paid sick leave and 20 days of paid annual leave.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This last strike wasn't well advertised. It was a very unfunny shock to try and go to a course on the Tuesday night by tube and find that the trains were already disrupted by 6:30pm for a 24 hour strike. That one I walked home from rather than fight the tubes home.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Sorry, Curiosity Killed..., that doesn't wash with me, I thought the last strike was as well advertised as any other.

M.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I guess there's a difference between an occasional user of the Tubes and a regular user. If I'd been commuting I would have been far more aware, but I'm not and it wasn't that well advertised. There was very little coverage on the national news, unlike previous ones, and it was only going to the tube station that made me aware. The same was true for the students who come in by Tube - they weren't aware in advance either. We'd have been told that they weren't going to be in on the Monday if the advertising had been clearer, not on Wednesday morning.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I guess there's a difference between an occasional user of the Tubes and a regular user. If I'd been commuting I would have been far more aware, but I'm not and it wasn't that well advertised. There was very little coverage on the national news, unlike previous ones, and it was only going to the tube station that made me aware. The same was true for the students who come in by Tube - they weren't aware in advance either. We'd have been told that they weren't going to be in on the Monday if the advertising had been clearer, not on Wednesday morning.
It was all over the Transport for London website, the BBC News website, the TV news, I got an e-mail about it from TfL the day before, and it was mentioned in the evening Tube status update e-mails I subscribe to, along with the morning Tube status update texts I get. And I don't use the Tube as my normal method of commuting these days, I cycle.

Even my colleagues in Warsaw knew about it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
mm - I did say that I was having problems early evening on Tuesday, not Wednesday, didn't I?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
So, the problem is you are too dumb to do math and figure out when a 24 hour strike begins?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Nope, 6 hours later that damn strike was supposed to start. And because we've had so many recently, it wasn't big news. We've had a series of them.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
mm - I did say that I was having problems early evening on Tuesday, not Wednesday, didn't I?
There are actually two strikes running on the same days, but at different times. Maintenance staff walked out from 5pm on Tuesday evening, drivers & station staff from 9pm. So you may have been caught up in a signal problem that had no-one to fix it.

But my point is that it was thoroughly advertised, and not by methods that required you to be a regular user of the Tube (although there were posters up at all the stations).

I got an e-mail about it on Monday, it was on the Transport for London website from at least the Monday morning, it was on the BBC news website from that time as well. Then when it actually started, it was mentioned in the Tuesday evening "service disruption" e-mails I get from TfL, and in the text alerts I got on the next morning.

The TfL travel alerts are free to use and you can sign up for them here.

Of course, because I have a slight touch of OCD, I also put the strike dates in my work calendar as soon as they were announced. The next one is at the end of November.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
If I seriously cared I wouldn't be posting in Hell about it. I got where I had to go, by the skin of my teeth and amused myself by walking home - through the Forest in the dark, without a torch - but who said I was sane?

But the point I was making was that particular strike was a little more unpredictable than people are making out.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Crumbs CK you need to be careful venturing out alone in the woods ...
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
whinge whinge whinge
I fixed your last post for you.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
--------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I am a supremely annoying, cloying dumbass, who just can't STFU and quit behaving like a stewed turd on a buffet table.
--------------------------------------------------
I fixed your most recent post for you, Spiffy.

[ 07. November 2010, 20:51: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
--------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I am a supremely annoying, cloying dumbass, who just can't STFU and quit behaving like a stewed turd on a buffet table.
--------------------------------------------------
I fixed your most recent post for you, Spiffy.
And you needed to edit that?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
I am a supremely annoying, cloying dumbass, who just can't STFU and quit behaving like a stewed turd on a buffet table.
We can play this game all day! Wheeee!

(But this does make me wonder about the kind of buffet luncheons SF gets invited to.)
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Learn to code, mousethief; it's a broken line for disengenuously changing the words within a quote.
There is a UBB practice thread in the Styx for beginners such as you.
Dumbass.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I so love it when you pay attention to me, Fux.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
I wasn't speaking to you.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It's most unkind of you to call other people by my name. Tsk.
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
You may be right.
(I hope when Erin repairs the search function tonight, no one can find this thread; it would probablly be safer that way.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Safer for whom?
 
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :
 
Sentient beings, mostly.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Bah! What do they know?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Call in your unavailability to get to your job on time before that day then if it's a strike known well in advance. Even if your boss will pay you for work you don't do, in a retail environment it's important to make sure things are covered during that time you are not working.

At my previous job in a computer store, if I was an hour late it would mean one technician would be tied up with work out front instead of doing service jobs. If I was really unlucky in my timing it could push a couple of warranty jobs back one day and lower the service excellence rating which Apple uses to determine labour costs paid to third-party service centres. We're looking at a minimum of $150 loss of income to a small business, which is why the policy of lateness being taken out of TOIL (time off in lieu of payment for overtime) at time and a half and/or working overtime to recover lost productivity was the policy.

I'm personally astonished that people think it's acceptable to get paid for productivity lost when they are late - unless of course the striking union/s provide compensation to affected businesses for lost productivity. That may be decent in a salaried position where you are paid for doing a job, but not for a position paid by the hour. The vast majority of small businesses don't have money growing on trees to pay for work that is not getting done outside of money set aside in annual budgets for each employee's 6 days of paid sick leave and 20 days of paid annual leave.
Aww...
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
Cue violins
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?

Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
Cue violins
No, cue bankruptcies. Cue no jobs being created by the private sector to compensate for public sector cuts.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?

Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Er, no. Neither. Businesses provide a profit for their owners. Customers are necessary, staff are usually necessary.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
....
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Funny. Businesses exist first and foremost to provide a profit to owners; claiming altruism here is more than wonky.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
Er, no. Neither. Businesses provide a profit for their owners. Customers are necessary, staff are usually necessary.
Yeah, OK. But in order to generate that profit they must provide the best possible service to their customers, and not to their staff.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[ Businesses provide a profit for their owners.
Or not in my case ATM [Frown]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Aww...
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
Cue violins
So to sum up: you don't care if a store provides a worse service or loses productivity and income, just so long as its staff are well paid and allowed to turn up late without penalty?

Tell me, why do you think businesses exist - to provide a service to their customers or to provide a job to their staff? (clue: it's the former)
I do have a certain sympathy with small businesses of the kind we're talking about (although not enough to see why workers should bear the cost of absence or latenesss that is not their own fault). And I do agree that you are probably more likely to find the ethic of service, which should be the prevailing ethic of business, in small firms which are actually run by their owners.
But it was the tone of the post to which i was replying which pissed me off- and why not, this is Hell after all! Not just the assumption that when a strike is called it's always the union's fault (it is sometimes, but not always: sometimes employers are extremely unreasonable)but the implied 'hey, it's sooo unfair, we even have to pay the bludgers while they're on holiday and off sick'.
So i stand by my post.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, OK. But in order to generate that profit they must provide the best possible service to their customers,
That is bullshit. Any basic economics and business knowledge will show you that the main factors that play a role in how profitable a business actually is often have little to do with the quality of "service" they provide (and you also, for reasons best known to yourself, seem to ignore primary and secondary economic sectors. Why the faddish idolatory for the tertiary sector?)

quote:
and not to their staff.
Again, simply funny.

Over and over again you try making some sort of halfarsed argument about how businesses are implicitly altruistic operations, and how those naughty strikers and/or staff are being all "selfish". Talk about self-serving arguments.

quote:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
Do you think you could possibly tackle the actual point? Because this fiddlefaddling around seems more than a bit silly to me.

Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners. This is a central point, the profit motive. It is not primarily altruistic in any way.

And as for the ritual bitching about staff and so on, until you finally grasp what staff, workers and others grasp,that the world does not centre around whatever some businessman wants, then we're just going to stay stuck here on this small point, aren't we?

There is no valid Great Grand Religious Justification for a selfishness centred around the wants of a business, or of a consumer, or of a worker; pretty much almost everything gets put up for negotiation.

(Ignoring the case of co-ops and some charity businesses, all of which are a very small sector, relatively speaking).

[ 08. November 2010, 14:55: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Why the faddish idolatory for the tertiary sector?
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.

quote:
Over and over again you try making some sort of halfarsed argument about how businesses are implicitly altruistic operations, and how those naughty strikers and/or staff are being all "selfish". Talk about self-serving arguments.
I've said nothing about altruism. I've said that businesses exist to make money by selling a product or service to their customers, and that that is rightly more important than keeping their staff happy (in situations where it's not possible to do both).

The argument for altruism is all coming from those who think a business primarily exists for the benefit of its staff.

quote:
quote:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.
Do you think you could possibly tackle the actual point? Because this fiddlefaddling around seems more than a bit silly to me.
Which point would that be?

quote:
And as for the ritual bitching about staff and so on, until you finally grasp what staff, workers and others grasp,that the world does not centre around whatever some businessman wants, then we're just going to stay stuck here on this small point, aren't we?
Of course the world doesn't. Their jobs might, though.

quote:
There is no valid Great Grand Religious Justification for a selfishness centred around the wants of a business, or of a consumer, or of a worker; pretty much almost everything gets put up for negotiation.
Yes, negotiation. Not extortion.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And do employers not extort?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And do employers not extort?
No, they just fire. Pffft. And of course employees can just quit at any time, so they're equal, wot? Just as the rich man and the poor man are equally prohibited from sleeping in the park.

What the worshippers of the Free Market (pbui) can't see is the inherent inequality of power. The union is an attempt to balance that. Can't have that, can we? Then the businessmen might have to treat their employees well, and for some reason treating the employees well is anathema. Oh, right, because of the Free Market (pbui). Employers must be Free to squeeze whatever they can out of their employees, who must remain powerless, or the employers aren't Free. (That is a rough translation of what is meant by using the word "extortion" of labour unions.)
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
Bullshit again. But let's proceed as if your perception was correct:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.
I wonder why. Oh dear, oh yes, it was all that 1980's snobbishness about filthy workers, strikers, manufacturing as a whole. Hey, and you think repeating old mantras will help?

quote:
I've said nothing about altruism.
Oh puhleeeze. We can go back to each post where you implied it, while contrasting the implied altruism against the alleged selfishness of strikers and/or staff. But hey.

quote:
I've said that businesses exist to make money by selling a product or service to their customers,
No. You actually said something different. But never mind.

quote:
and that that is rightly more important than keeping their staff happy
Again and again, you slide in invalid implied moral arguments. "Rightly" ????? I reckon you've got Hume turning in his grave at a number of revolutions per second that if harnessed could power the entire British isles for decades. Talk about alternative energy!

quote:
The argument for altruism is all coming from those who think a business primarily exists for the benefit of its staff.
Bollocks. Where? Cite a post or quote.

quote:
]Yes, negotiation. Not extortion.
You really don't want to grasp that name-calling is not an effective substitute for a good argument?

FYI: extortion is a crime -- legally. If you can prove extortion, get the police and CPS onto it.

Or was that just mere ... name-calling? Emo? Bullshit?

We are just so never going to get this argument to some place productive, are we now?

[ 08. November 2010, 15:23: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's pretty much all we've got left in Britain these days.
I wonder why. Oh dear, oh yes, it was all that 1980's snobbishness about filthy workers, strikers, manufacturing as a whole. Hey, and you think repeating old mantras will help?
And here was me thinking the principal reason was we got priced out of the market by foreign firms.

quote:
We are just so never going to get this argument to some place productive, are we now?
Not while you insist on leaping to the worst possible interpretations of my posts, no.
 
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And here was me thinking the principal reason was we got priced out of the market by foreign firms.
*snort* *snort*

Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?

I mean, these are facts. Why don't we do some facts instead of various shibboleths?

Because if you can explain that well, we might actually get somewhere.

quote:
Not while you insist on leaping to the worst possible interpretations of my posts, no.
Funny. [Killing me] You wanted to make it personal by first of all attributing every possible wrong motivation to strikers, every cliché in the book, you also tried getting personal with me without any need nor excuse, and you want to try claiming I put the worst possible interpretation on your remarks?

Funny. No, I do something far worse. [Big Grin] I quote your remarks exactly as given, and address them as you gave them.

And the reason why we don't get anywhere productive is because you're sloganeering, not examining. You damn one side, and the slogans are based on that predamnation. It's all too obviously one-sided, too lacking in facts, and too self-congratulatory.

But hey. We can keep on roasting the slogans. It doesn't need any real work.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?
They make better stuff?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "what do you think businesses should exist for?" I've heard more than once the claim by socialists that the primary reason to have companies is to provide jobs for the workers.
I believe the Socialist position is that the workers should, as far as possible, be the owners, so that this sort of conflict would not arise.

All of a company's profits are generated by its employees. Being nice to one's employees is simply a recognition of how the company is able to exist.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Can you explain why Germany has higher wages, stronger trade unions, and better social security than Britain or the USA, and yet manages to be a bigger manufacturer and exporter than either the USA or Britain?
... and why we buy rail parts of Alstom, and electricity off Electricité de France ... France not exactly being known for its pacific and amenable trades unions ...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What the worshippers of the Free Market (pbui) can't see is the inherent inequality of power. The union is an attempt to balance that. Can't have that, can we? Then the businessmen might have to treat their employees well, and for some reason treating the employees well is anathema.
Depends on the Union. Depends on the issue. Depends on the strike. This thread was started because of strikes on the London Underground. Last time I checked, tube drivers were paid somewhere around £40,000 per year (US$64,714.80), making them one of the best paid public sector workers. Kind of hard to sympathise with them in those circumstances (and that's before we get on to Bob Crow).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I didn't realise the tube workers were public sector. I thought transport was all privatised long ago. Is it only London where transport is still in the public sector?

Not that it should make any difference to salaries ... private and public sector workers shouldn't get paid different amounts for doing the same job.
 
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
Victory to the RMT, quite frankly.

The strike is about manning levels and the subsequent affect on safety cover.

At the same time we have a public enquiry into the bus and tube bombings in '05. An event where we needed lots of people around to help the injured and trapped.

I buy an expensive season ticket and travel by tube a lot. I like the idea that if something bad happens, there will be well equipped and trained tube staff to help me and my fellow travelers. An automated ticket machine ain't going to help me much.

If you are going to have enough people around on stations, you might as well keep the ticket office open so they have something to do the rest of the time.

[ 11. November 2010, 16:10: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0