Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Sky News says Britain agreed to ban them 6 months ago (why we didn't ban them decades ago is beyond me). So I would assume Saudi Arabia is using stockpiles of weapons it purchased before that ban.
Boris Johnson’s doomed bid to introduce water cannon to the streets of London has so far cost more than £320,000, despite it being illegal to use them in the capital amid concerns they could blind protesters.
Now the vehicles are being sold off at a knockdown price.
The former mayor of London, now foreign secretary, bought three second-hand Wasserwerfer 9000 vehicles from the German police in 2014. He hoped they would help the Metropolitan police control protests in the capital, with the expectation he could convince the government to legalise their use.
But Theresa May – then the home secretary – blocked a change in the law on the basis that they could cause “serious harm” and destroy trust in the police, especially after a similar vehicle blinded a 66-year-old man in Stuttgart.
Labour’s Sadiq Khan, the new mayor of London, has now released a breakdown of the money spent on Johnson’s watch converting the water cannon and confirmed they have been put up for sale via the Ministry of Defence.
“I have spent a significant amount of time looking into how I can do this, and have been left with no choice but sell these machines through a process that charges a fee,” said Khan, who described the vehicles as “obsolete and illegal”.
A cost breakdown provided to BuzzFeed News by City Hall shows how thousands of pounds was spent upgrading the vehicles, despite little chance of them being deployed on the streets of London.
Although originally bought for just £85,022, the three vehicles have now run up costs of £322,834 when transport, storage, and conversion are taken into account.
Among other upgrades, more than £25,000 was spent installing extra cameras and CCTV systems, while £970 was spent installing new CD players in the vehicles.
Because the vehicles did originally not meet Transport for London’s strict carbon emissions standards, they were also converted to be more environmentally friendly at a cost of £32,000.
The water cannon, which are being stored at a Metropolitan police training site in Kent, are now never likely to be deployed on British streets. Despite this, more than £1,600 has been spent on their MOTs in the last two years.
It’s unclear how much money can be recouped from the sale. The German police put strict restrictions on resale when they offloaded the vehicles to Johnson, which means they must approve every purchase. Germany also banned the vehicles being advertised publicly and stated they can only be sold to a police organisation in an EU state, limiting the potential purchasers for the ageing vehicles.
Even in the very best scenario around 40% of the sale price will go to the Ministry of Defence, although Khan insists offloading the vehicles will still save £175,000 in storage costs over the coming years which can be put into fighting youth crime.
What the vehicles cost between April 2014 and April 2016, according to City Hall:
Purchase of vehicles and initial fit-out
Cost of vehicles – £85,022.01
Transport to UK – £20,223
Transport within UK – £3,800.01
Supply and fit of warning equipment – £8,584.50
Supply and fit of 999 sirens – £3,109.20
Supply and fit of CCTV systems – £19,376.70
Supply and fit of external/internal intercom system – £4284.30
Supply and fit of PA system – £4288.80
Repainting – £19,035
Supply and fit “Battenberg” police vehicle markings – £4,538.70
Supply and fit Motorola MTM800 radios – £2,708.10
Signage – £3,511.50
Body work repairs due to corrosion – £4,911.15
Mass storage devices – £434.10
Tachograph inspections – £194.10
Radio/CD players – £970.50
Water jet camera housings – £4095.60
Front camera brackets – £2059.20
Tool kits – £986.40
Conversion to UK specification and service parts – £30,625.96
MOT tests – £1,688.04
UK registration – £499.98
Sub-total – £224,946.85
Additional modifications carried out following Home Office requirements and recommendations
Internal camera system – £2,477.40
Modification of water jet brackets – £1,909.20
Maintenance, service, and inspection
Low Emission Zone compliance – £32,004
Assistance with trials – £12,578
2014/15 – £20,880
2015/16 – £21,866.04
Wear and tear – £6,173.22
Total – £322,834.71
"£970 was spent installing new CD players in the vehicles."
errrr ..
.. nope. Got nothin'.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Sky News says Britain agreed to ban them 6 months ago (why we didn't ban them decades ago is beyond me). So I would assume Saudi Arabia is using stockpiles of weapons it purchased before that ban.
No one minded them when they thought a bajillion Ruskies were ready to roll over the German border. Times change though.
I think Yemen criticising us for War Crimes would be like Saudi criticising us for breaching their Human Right by not selling them bombs. i.e. farcical/irrelevant,
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Cluster bombs were banned in 2011 and the uk ain't made any scince 96. Old stock is old. As to cruise missiles/reconisable bits of missiles how? Are these not full of explosives which would vaporise/turn to small shapnel any casings.
yes we have sold weapons to them as we have to lots of countrys, its down to there new owners how they are put to use.
"£970 was spent installing new CD players in the vehicles."
errrr ..
.. nope. Got nothin'.
To be fair the line item is:
Radio/CD players – £970.50
Fitting some AM/FM radio systems might be potentially useful, to keep track of local news. There's no indication that they actually requested CD players.
The rest of it is a fething farce though. You'd think you'd try and get them legalized *first*, before buying, shipping and modifying them.
Philip Dunne, the minister who oversees defence exports, told parliament that the UK had delivered no BL 755s to Saudi Arabia since 1989 and had not supplied, maintained, or supported any such weapons since it signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008.
He provided a more nuanced denial than Hammond, saying, "Based on all of the information available to us, including sensitive coalition operational reporting, we assess that no UK-supplied cluster weapons have been used or UK-supplied aircraft have been involved in the use of UK cluster weapons in the current conflict in Yemen."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 18:03:50
This is already here. However in recent years trades unions have been increasingly dogmatised and some will protect workers rights but only of they have protected status for other reasons. Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.
Expressing racism, homophobia and sexism all in one sentence, that is impressive and in a bad way! With such views I can hardly take the sentence seriously!
Be careful when you accuse someone of racism. Also there is nothing racist about pointing out inequality. The dogmatised autotranslate concerns of bias as being comments of hate directed at protected clases of people from those not in a protected class. The honest point is that basic rights should be for all, not for some, and there is nothing racist, homophobic or sexist about that statement.
Assuming that I was descended from money or nobility, which I am not, at least in recent centuries, why would that be reprehensible?
Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right. Which I find morally repugnant.
You are writing off an entire class of people based on your own blanket and very biased opinion of them, let alone one that is centuries out of date. Have you ever met these people you denegrate so loosely? Sure back in days of yore when peasants toiled and nobles quaffed you would have a point, welcome to the modern age.
Every statement you keep making demonstrates your knowledge of anything to do with Unions essentially comes from one aspect of Unions in the 1970's, which is a bit like judging the entire British Empire based upon our Government's actions towards civilians in the Boer War. In other words, restricted to one limited aspect of a subject at one limited point in time. Go back and focus your attention on the desperate nature of strikes and struggle for unionisation of the Durham miners in the early nineteenth century, and you will find a very, very different, very desperate set of tales.
The trades unions as we see them today bear no relation to labour movements of the 19th century. Also a great deal of the advocacy came from mill owners with a social conscience, a group of people you don't seem to acknowledge even exist.
However the culture of the 70's is alive and kicking the the current trades union movement, for those unions that retained their power there is a direct continuency of policy and principle. No we are not as you suggest 'very lucky' to be living in their shadow.
If you go back in this very thread alone (or whichever politics one came before this), you'll find me advocating the limitation of Union rights in national politics. Whilst I am not left wing, nor am I right wing particularly.
That is not unusual, voters and parties are not made for each other. Some people cant think beyond left and right and absorb their politics entirely. I have no reason to place you in that category.
Yet I recognise the necessity for the Unions, and core need to retain the right for the withholding of labour as one of the very few tools the working man possesses. The days when strikers were deported, sentenced to death, and subjected to extensive police brutality for daring to challenge those who considered themselves their masters must never be permitted to return.
Here is your problem, you are expecting that a removal of the trades unions will mean a return to the 18th century. You have been scaremongered.
We cant even deport foreign born terrorists, let alone strikers with British passports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Sky News is reporting that British made cruise missiles and banned/illegal cluster bombs are being used by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Yemen is accusing Britain of war crimes. I'm inclined to agree.
I fething despise Westminster.
Yemen can whine on. They have the worst rating for womens rights on the planet,, and are not much better at anything else. The UK is not bombing them, and the missiles allegedly used were legal when sold. The UK does have a rep for paying out on spurious claims, thanks to Blairs policy on Iraq, we are seen as a laughing stock and a mug to fleece all at the same time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 18:34:12
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You are writing off an entire class of people based on your own blanket and very biased opinion of them, let alone one that is centuries out of date. Have you ever met these people you denegrate so loosely? Sure back in days of yore when peasants toiled and nobles quaffed you would have a point, welcome to the modern age.
Denigrate? I'm making a statement about the upper classes which has generally held true across culture, history, and geography. I never linked it specifically to Britain or a time period. That's entirely your own interpretation you're arguing with there.
After what you wrote to denegrate an entire people group, you are in no position to call anyone else ignorant.
As a historian, one could say that I'm actually pretty uniquely qualified to point out historical ignorance when I spot it. Indeed, one could even say that it's something of a professional opinion.
I also find it highly entertaining that you're trying to tell someone else they have no right to an opinion due to denigrating an entire group of people, when your original argument was....well, you know. Denigrating an entire group of people (aka, those who run the trade unions). You've actually disqualified yourself from having an opinion by your own logic.
The trades unions as we see them today bear no relation to labour movements of the 19th century.
They represent the workers who subscribe to their organisation. That's one way in which they still resemble/relate to the labour movements of the 19th century.
I could draw up a list of other ways in which they are similar, and a list of ways in which they are different. I could also do exactly the same thing for practically any two linked organisations separated by a year or more. The bare fundamentals of trade unionism are as linked to the 1870's as they are the 1970's. Any attempt to declare other wise is cherrypicking from history for political purposes in such a way that no serious historian would even attempt it.
Also a great deal of the advocacy came from mill owners with a social conscience, a group of people you don't seem to acknowledge even exist.
Mill owners? What on earth are you talking about? I haven't mentioned a vast, vast number of things relating to the labour movement over the last two hundred and fifty years, on account of the fact that I haven't written anything beyond a single paragraph pointing out an example of unionism which hardly fits your rather lurid portrayal of trade unions.
However the culture of the 70's is alive and kicking the the current trades union movement, for those unions that retained their power there is a direct continuency of policy and principle.
The culture of Thatcherism and overly-rapacious capitalism, and Nazism and many other ideologies are also alive and kicking. It is a jump from acknowledging that fact to assuming that such ideologies are dominant throughout a sector as large and diffuse as that of the Trade Unions. Len McCluskey doesn't run everything, y'know?
Not to mention that even for the people who were alive back then, I seriously doubt that their 'policies and principles' are identical to what they had then. People are always absorbing new ideas and devising new thoughts.
Here is your problem, you are expecting that a removal of the trades unions will mean a return to the 18th century. You have been scaremongered.
....no. I don't honestly believe that making train strikes illegal will lead back to strikers getting deported to Australia. Might have one or two difficulties with that these days.
But once you've made it so that train drivers can't strike due to it being detrimental to the economy, the precedent is set. Who's next? NHS workers? Teachers? An equivalently good argument could be made for either. Then the next thing you know, inciting a strike in those sectors is a criminal offence. Because you know, we have to think of the bigger picture, and such people are clearly disorderly.
Then what happens next time Hunt's successor wants to try and make savings by making doctors work harder and imposes a new contract? The doctors can't strike. They'll be forced to sign regardless to meet shortsighted political goals, or risk losing their jobs. And so on.
Slopes can be exceedingly slippery once they start rolling in that direction. And a step is only ever taken back up it when it's hardwon.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 19:15:33
This is already here. However in recent years trades unions have been increasingly dogmatised and some will protect workers rights but only of they have protected status for other reasons. Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.
Expressing racism, homophobia and sexism all in one sentence, that is impressive and in a bad way! With such views I can hardly take the sentence seriously!
Be careful when you accuse someone of racism. Also there is nothing racist about pointing out inequality. The dogmatised autotranslate concerns of bias as being comments of hate directed at protected clases of people from those not in a protected class. The honest point is that basic rights should be for all, not for some, and there is nothing racist, homophobic or sexist about that statement.
It is based on that though. What your claiming is simply untrue.
1) There is no evidence that white, straight males are more at risk than other groups of conservative dismissal.
2) When it does happen there is recourse because
3) We have no concept of "protected class" in the U.K. The equality laws apply equally to all.
There is something with a racist, homophobic and sexist basis in the claims of discrimination against white straight men with no facts to base this on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 19:52:32
This is already here. However in recent years trades unions have been increasingly dogmatised and some will protect workers rights but only of they have protected status for other reasons. Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.
Expressing racism, homophobia and sexism all in one sentence, that is impressive and in a bad way! With such views I can hardly take the sentence seriously!
Be careful when you accuse someone of racism. Also there is nothing racist about pointing out inequality. The dogmatised autotranslate concerns of bias as being comments of hate directed at protected clases of people from those not in a protected class. The honest point is that basic rights should be for all, not for some, and there is nothing racist, homophobic or sexist about that statement.
If you don't think it is and you don't think you are then you need to look very closely at yourself in the mirror! By stating that "constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse." you are in effect stating that the non-white, non-straight and non-males are in some ways getting some unfair advantage all the time and are specifically targeted because of their outlook on life. You have not even considered the reasons for redundancies simply that constructive dismissal is based on peoples views. By singling a group out you are in effect saying that these people should have been made redundant instead because of their approach to life/race/sex. That for all intents and purposes is racist/homophobic/sexist.
I am getting a very strong under current of anger from you on the union issue which makes me wonder why. So I ask the question whether you have ever been made redundant and that you feel a union let you down?
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 20:25:39
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
You are writing off an entire class of people based on your own blanket and very biased opinion of them, let alone one that is centuries out of date. Have you ever met these people you denegrate so loosely? Sure back in days of yore when peasants toiled and nobles quaffed you would have a point, welcome to the modern age.
Denigrate? I'm making a statement about the upper classes which has generally held true across culture, history, and geography. I never linked it specifically to Britain or a time period. That's entirely your own interpretation you're arguing with there.
We are discussing the present day, hence asking if you knew any? Evidently you won't know any medieval barons et al, so I wouldn't be asking about that.
After what you wrote to denigrate an entire people group, you are in no position to call anyone else ignorant.
As a historian, one could say that I'm actually pretty uniquely qualified to point out historical ignorance when I spot it. Indeed, one could even say that it's something of a professional opinion.
Hardly uniquely, unless you are so far up your backside you think that you alone are the font of truth. Any real historian wont claim that.
Also real historians recognise that not all history is seen from the same perspective, that's why there are people noted for being left wing and right wing historians.
However despite your 'professional opinion' you havent the wit to realise we are discussing the current age, (see above) nevertheless to play your game:
You ought to recognise that the upper classes involve people of widely different morals. Much of our liberal values come from Whig peers in the 18th century who were most certainly upper class, a lot of social reform does come from the top. So your blanket application of all the upper class is patently invalid. There is even a term to describe this: nobless oblige, which as a 'historian' you might be aware of.
Furthermore you could if you thought about it long enough, recognise that the excesses are a result of people wanting to remain in power, now that can and often did mean the upper class, but more accurately would mean the ruling class, which need not be from anything resembling gentry. Examples of which would include some forms of clergy, tribal or mercenary warlords who rise to power by direct feat of arms regardless of birth, populist politicians from the Gracchi through to Marxists.
I also find it highly entertaining that you're trying to tell someone else they have no right to an opinion due to denigrating an entire group of people, when your original argument was....well, you know. Denigrating an entire group of people (aka, those who run the trade unions). You've actually disqualified yourself from having an opinion by your own logic.
My logic is sound. Trades unions are a profession type, and a politicised one at that which requires politics of a left wing persuasion. It is perfectly valid to categorise them. The upper class are there by birth, though one can aspire to join them, and as people born to a culture they are as individual as people born to any other culture.
I could draw up a list of other ways in which they are similar, and a list of ways in which they are different.
You could nit pick, yes. But the fact remains that there is a clear, unbroken and ongoing communality of political policy for the trades union movement from the post war period that exists and persists to this day.
Also a great deal of the advocacy came from mill owners with a social conscience, a group of people you don't seem to acknowledge even exist.
Mill owners? What on earth are you talking about? I haven't mentioned a vast, vast number of things relating to the labour movement over the last two hundred and fifty years, on account of the fact that I haven't written anything beyond a single paragraph pointing out an example of unionism which hardly fits your rather lurid portrayal of trade unions.
The culture of Thatcherism and overly-rapacious capitalism, and Nazism and many other ideologies are also alive and kicking. It is a jump from acknowledging that fact to assuming that such ideologies are dominant throughout a sector as large and diffuse as that of the Trade Unions. Len McCluskey doesn't run everything, y'know?
Thatcherism is not purely a policy of the right, Labour extensively operated under it in the last two decades. interesting how you echo that with Nazism.
Also what is 'overly-rapacious capitalism' in moral separation to the overly rapacious use of trades union power as we have seen in living history and through to the current day. Hence £50K starting wages in those jobs where the unionist workers can paralyse the economy if/when they strike.
Also the ideologies of the hard left in the TUC are dominant, which is only nominally independent from Labour. Several Unions are directly affiliated with Labour to the extent that they are consider themselves a compnoent part of the Labour party. Many of those operate under the Closed Shop until it was made illegal.
Not to mention that even for the people who were alive back then, I seriously doubt that their 'policies and principles' are identical to what they had then. People are always absorbing new ideas and devising new thoughts.
Sure, things change, others dont, but just as Tories are still Tories, Trades Unions are still Trades Unions.
Here is your problem, you are expecting that a removal of the trades unions will mean a return to the 18th century. You have been scaremongered.
....no. I don't honestly believe that making train strikes illegal will lead back to strikers getting deported to Australia. Might have one or two difficulties with that these days.
But once you've made it so that train drivers can't strike due to it being detrimental to the economy, the precedent is set. Who's next? NHS workers? Teachers? An equivalently good argument could be made for either. Then the next thing you know, inciting a strike in those sectors is a criminal offence. Because you know, we have to think of the bigger picture, and such people are clearly disorderly.
Less of a problem than you make out. There are a number of occupations that cant strike or form trades unions. The military for example. The police have a Police Federation which is essentially a trades union, but cannot strike. It would actually be a very good idea of all emergency services were included under the same ban.
Then what happens next time Hunt's successor wants to try and make savings by making doctors work harder and imposes a new contract? The doctors can't strike. They'll be forced to sign regardless to meet shortsighted political goals, or risk losing their jobs. And so on.
Slopes can be exceedingly slippery once they start rolling in that direction. And a step is only ever taken back up it when it's hardwon.
Evidently untrue, we still have a police force operating as normal.
Now up to a point I would agree with you, but an intelligent delimiter should be to remove the right to strike and to replace trades unions with 'federations' for all non-profit making infrastructure services.
This would therefore mean, military, police, most of the NHS, fire brigade, customs, coastguard and prison service.
This makes sense as while management might want to cost cut any of those units, and that will remain a problem so long as there is any form of management, it is not done on the basis of improving ad owners or shareholders lot.
Train drivers should therefore keep the right to strike as the railways are private profit making industries, not that I agree with the trades unionist's methods. Same with postal workers as the postal service is considered a business. The fire brigade is not. Federations should have a fair amount of clout, just as the police federation does.
Industrial action should also be blanket illegal where human life is at risk as a result of industrial action. This is already so for the military, and for some types of worker for example nuclear power plant staff, but it should be extended to anyone in a role with a similar risk. Looking at the fire brigade and ambulance service there, but those would be covered above anyway. Categorisation should be completely outside the power of self assessment so no manager or any kind can categorise a job role as essential in order to disenfranchise the workers in that role.
This is already here. However in recent years trades unions have been increasingly dogmatised and some will protect workers rights but only of they have protected status for other reasons. Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.
Expressing racism, homophobia and sexism all in one sentence, that is impressive and in a bad way! With such views I can hardly take the sentence seriously!
Be careful when you accuse someone of racism. Also there is nothing racist about pointing out inequality. The dogmatised autotranslate concerns of bias as being comments of hate directed at protected clases of people from those not in a protected class. The honest point is that basic rights should be for all, not for some, and there is nothing racist, homophobic or sexist about that statement.
It is based on that though. What your claiming is simply untrue.
1) There is no evidence that white, straight males are more at risk than other groups of conservative dismissal.
2) When it does happen there is recourse because
3) We have no concept of "protected class" in the U.K. The equality laws apply equally to all.
There is something with a racist, homophobic and sexist basis in the claims of discrimination against white straight men with no facts to base this on.
1. There is plenty of evidence of it. For example the selective empowerment for protected classes to claim discrimination. This can be known by the 'race card' and similar phenomena.
2. Not really because complaints of bigotry are based on hearsay from either direction. Hence such terms as 'institutional racism', which is itself based on opinion, and often misused or at least not scrutinised fairly.
3. If only that were true. Equality and diversity doesn't mean equal rights for all, it means selective empowerment for those considered disadvantaged. We have in the UK ethnically targeted community housing projects, though these are rarer than they used to be. There is one in my home town. We also have ethnic only or women only shortlists for positions, and even distinctions of levels of discrimination based on the gender and ethnicity of the accused.
This last point bears some explaining. I remember from my mandatory government social work training learning on the equal opportunities race, and gender modules that ethnic minorities could not be racist, and women could not be sexist (only instead discriminatory to a lesser degree) because caucasian males were the dominant societal group. This doctrine is thankfully outdated, but still prevalent in society today.
Ethnicity and gender matters with regards to social housing for instance, and that is widely recognised as being the case throughout this sector, even though it is also recognised (quietly) as unfair.
However to return to my initial comment, yes it is far easier and safer to be rid of a white employee in a downturn than an ethnic one because an ethnic one might raise the spectre as to why they were made redundant, the white worker cannot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 22:53:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
If you don't think it is and you don't think you are then you need to look very closely at yourself in the mirror!
Yes I do, I am not a racist homophobe or sexist. Nor do I want to become same. But I don't go with the dogmatised definition of such, and the finger pointing that results.
By stating that "constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse." you are in effect stating that the non-white, non-straight and non-males are in some ways getting some unfair advantage all the time and are specifically targeted because of their outlook on life.
This can and does happen, however I never made any claim it happens all the time. I dont know why you would twist my words to appear so.
You have not even considered the reasons for redundancies simply that constructive dismissal is based on peoples views. By singling a group out you are in effect saying that these people should have been made redundant instead because of their approach to life/race/sex. That for all intents and purposes is racist/homophobic/sexist.
I see the problem, you assumed so much from my comments that just wasnt there.
For a start I am not singling out any group. Nor am I in any way saying that any group or groups should be made redundant due to their life approach. In fact all you can quote me of actially saying is that all people groups should be treated the same, which isn't bigoted in any way.
I am getting a very strong under current of anger from you on the union issue which makes me wonder why. So I ask the question whether you have ever been made redundant and that you feel a union let you down?
Posts here get heated. But and undercurrent of anger stems from being accused of racism, not from any problem with trades unions. I dont like Trades Unions similar to how someone who loves trads unions might not like Thatcher.
I do think there is a societal danger, back in the 70's we had a choice
Pick ONE only:
a) a functional economy
b) strong trades unions
In the 70's society picked b, or had b picked for them because the Heath and Callaghan governments . Margaret Thatcher, a junior minister in the Heath government had other ideas. She understood that a post Empire UK economy had to adapt very rapidly to a new economic model. Thatcherism was fairly brutal, but it did work. Labour, outside of Corbyn and a handful on the hard left understand that and embraced free market economics in the 90's. A capitalist system has big flaws but it is functional, Corbyn wants to set the clock back, the trouble is our native economy cannot survive on the economic model he would reimpose. The trades unions are already trying to rise again to the form of authority they had prior to Thatcher. We are totally fethed if they succeed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 23:13:03
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
We are discussing the present day, hence asking if you knew any? Evidently you won't know any medieval barons et al, so I wouldn't be asking about that.
You really should read more closely then. My original statement which you took umbrage at as a generalisation was:-
Ketara wrote: Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right.
The phrase 'always' very clearly delineates a longer period of time than that which could be considered contemporary, and the word 'viewed' is in the past tense. Not to mention the whole 'all the way back to the Divine Right' bit I ended with. If you couldn't grasp that I was discussing the past (aka, the stuff that happened before now) from all that, I'm really not entirely sure how else to communicate with you, as we're clearly not even speaking the same language.
Hardly uniquely, unless you are so far up your backside you think that you alone are the font of truth. Any real historian wont claim that.
Pretty uniquely in terms of the many, many professions one might indulge in as a working adult. There aren't so many that engage with actually examining history, after all. Not uniquely in the 'there's only one of me in the universe and I'm so special' sense. Which again, I would expect to be reasonably obvious within the statement to most casual readers.
Orlanth wrote: Also real historians recognise that not all history is seen from the same perspective
Congratulations. You passed GCSE history.
Orlanth wrote: However despite your 'professional opinion' you havent the wit to realise we are discussing the current age, (see above)
Errr, no, I made a generalised statement about the past, based upon a reasonably broad knowledge of class systems in India, China, the Middle East, and Europe over the last few thousand years, and you ran away with yourself in faux outrage. Trying to move the goalposts and pretend that the statement I made was about this specific contemporary period and geographic location only isn't fooling anyone.
Orlanth wrote: You ought to recognise that the upper classes involve people of widely different morals. Much of our liberal values come from Whig peers in the 18th century who were most certainly upper class, a lot of social reform does come from the top. So your blanket application of all the upper class is patently invalid. There is even a term to describe this: nobless oblige, which as a 'historian' you might be aware of.
Furthermore you could if you thought about it long enough, recognise that the excesses are a result of people wanting to remain in power, now that can and often did mean the upper class, but more accurately would mean the ruling class, which need not be from anything resembling gentry. Examples of which would include some forms of clergy, tribal or mercenary warlords who rise to power by direct feat of arms regardless of birth, populist politicians from the Gracchi through to Marxists.
You do realise that this gruel of euro-centric random facts and inaccuracies you just put through a sieve of generalisation actually doesn't contradict anything I said, right? To copypasta my statement again:-
Ketara wrote: Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right.
One can believe one's domination of society is just and fair even whilst donating money to the poorhouse. Being a person of good moral standing of the period and believing all those dirty miners should stop complaining and get back underground aren't mutually exclusive.
My logic is sound. Trades unions are a profession type, and a politicised one at that which requires politics of a left wing persuasion. It is perfectly valid to categorise them. The upper class are there by birth, though one can aspire to join them, and as people born to a culture they are as individual as people born to any other culture.
No mate. Wiggle as you like, you just tried to tell me I'm in no position to judge anyone after generalising a group of people, immediately after you did exactly the same thing.
You could nit pick, yes. But the fact remains that there is a clear, unbroken and ongoing communality of political policy for the trades union movement from the post war period that exists and persists to this day.
Thatcherism is not purely a policy of the right, Labour extensively operated under it in the last two decades. interesting how you echo that with Nazism.
Why wouldn't I? They're both ideologies. I could have thrown in freemasonry or Zoroastrianism. Unless you're trying to insinuate something, in which case you failed. On account of the fact that I'm not some ranting anti-Thatcherite. If you meant something else by your statement, I'd be glad to hear you explain it in detail.
Orlanth wrote: Also what is 'overly-rapacious capitalism' in moral separation to the overly rapacious use of trades union power as we have seen in living history and through to the current day.
Generally speaking, to express the difference in basic English, to be rapacious is to be greedy or grasping, to be trying to acquire or absorb. Money, property, and so forth. Unions, on the flip side, intrinsically exist for protection. The only regard in which they try and expand is to acquire new members, and the reason for that is again, protective (safety in numbers). Even the excesses of Unions are intrinsically protective (to maintain wage levels, deter disadvantageous contracts, to lower the risk of summary firing, etc).
'Overly rapacious capitalism', on the flip side is about chasing what you don't have. Acquiring more profits. More money. More property. More status. And so forth. What makes it 'overly rapacious' is the lack of concern for anything else but that acquisition. It's intrinsically selfish. Even when a Union really goes haywire and begins making plays for political power, the reason they do it normally* is still ultimately for the defence/advantage of their members.
*I say normally, because there's always the risk of a Scargill secretly getting paid off by the Soviets or something. It's not a hard objective rule, but a good rule of thumb for 99% of scenarios.
Orlanth wrote: Also the ideologies of the hard left in the TUC are dominant, which is only nominally independent from Labour. Several Unions are directly affiliated with Labour to the extent that they are consider themselves a compnoent part of the Labour party. Many of those operate under the Closed Shop until it was made illegal.
There's a lot of Unions out there, and anyone who's had the pleasure of dealing with multiple ones know they spend half their time fighting each other. Christ, you ever seen what the teacher Unions put about each other? They don't all follow the same 'Union Handbook'. The things that do bind them together to be classified as 'Unions' for the most part, those common fundamentals, also bind them to the Unions of the 1890's and so forth.
I'll reiterate it again, there is no 'continuity of principle and policy' from which you can bind the current Unions to those of the 1970's that cannot also be used to bind them to Unions of further back.
Sure, things change, others dont, but just as Tories are still Tories, Trades Unions are still Trades Unions.
The Tories of today are not the Tories of the seventies by a long stretch. And neither are the Unions.
Orlanth wrote: Less of a problem than you make out. There are a number of occupations that cant strike or form trades unions. The military for example. The police have a Police Federation which is essentially a trades union, but cannot strike. It would actually be a very good idea of all emergency services were included under the same ban.
Precisely. The emergency services is the one exception that has been generally permitted. Once you start slipping in non-emergency services, any justification you can employ for one (good of the economy, public daily need of, etc) can be applied to others. Doctors? Yup. Teachers? Yup. Sewage workers? Oh, yes. Bus drivers? Sure, they're practically land train drivers! Power company employees? Well, somebody needs to keep the lights on!
I could go on, but the point is made. Once you start excluding this many people from the right to strike, and punishing them if they choose to do so (either by making it permissible to fire them, locking them up, fining them, and so on), you are heading in a bad direction. And considering a number of these are run by private companies? It gets worse still. And so I am opposed to Mr Grayling removing the right to strike from rail workers, and carrying on as if this were the 1970's and he were in any way justified for such extreme measures.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 23:43:09
I'd probably describe myself as a 'liberal conservative' - So, a person who was kinda alright with the coalition and don't think it ended up that badly, overall.
So, generally speaking, I'd be liberal on social issues but also thinking, "yeah, we've got to pay for it somehow."
However, I've always really struggled with unions and my feelings on them. - I'm not a part of the union at work, for example, but I recognise the good they do when it comes to various conditions changes etc.
However, I've never shaken my suspicion of unions, particularly union leadership. Whether it's the American "Blue Wall of Silence" or the idea that the further up the union hierarchy you get, the more you end up finding people that are the same as the guys they're supposed to be protecting you from.
In saying that, I'm not a fan of the idea of conductorless trains, but at least according to some papers, there's more nuances involved around than the other newspapers advertise. I'm also not a fan of punishing the public rather than punishing those in charge. - Especially, for example, when it comes to the potential Christmas Royal Mail strikes.
There's gotta be better ways, right? This whole "annoy the public to make them apply pressure to the business" thing just doesn't work anymore. The businesses don't care, they have no reason to care, they've already been paid. And the public are more likely to blame the strikers, than care about their plight, real or imagined as the plight is.
We are discussing the present day, hence asking if you knew any? Evidently you won't know any medieval barons et al, so I wouldn't be asking about that.
You really should read more closely then. My original statement which you took umbrage at as a generalisation was:-
Ketara wrote: Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right.
Sorry no. Your original statement that I challenged was:
Unless you're descended from nobility/money of course, in which case the above view is understandable, if completely reprehensible.
Your railing against an entire social group is current tense, inclusive and presumptive. Tarnishing whole people groups, let alone insisting they share a common opinion, especially a negative one at that, is something to challenge.
Pretty uniquely in terms of the many, many professions one might indulge in as a working adult. There aren't so many that engage with actually examining history, after all.
There is no such thing as pretty unique. Besides it isnt even necessary unique to our conversation, let alone the thread, let alone Dakka. You presume a lot.
Trying to move the goalposts and pretend that the statement I made was about this specific contemporary period and geographic location only isn't fooling anyone.
I havent moved the goalposts, you have by taking a bigoted statement about finding a people group 'reprehensiblet' due to your bigoted opinion that they all share a common goal of fething over other peple, and then trying to turn that into a broad historical context in order to mask your unsavoury sentiments..
You do realise that this gruel of euro-centric random facts and inaccuracies you just put through a sieve of generalisation actually doesn't contradict anything I said, right? To copypasta my statement again:-
I am not here to contradict what you said, just to challenge your hatespeech.
Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right.
One can believe one's domination of society is just and fair even whilst donating money to the poorhouse. Being a person of good moral standing of the period and believing all those dirty miners should stop complaining and get back underground aren't mutually exclusive.
1. Your are trying to mask the present context that I originally challenged.
2. If you were to continue with the face saving illusion that the excesses are purely past tense, do you have cut off as to when all the nobility stopped being vile oppressors?
3. Domination of society is not an issue rrstricted to one class, as history has shown. And my examples of the Gracchi and Marxists are not inaccurate as you would like to imply.
4. Being of good moral standing presently is not mutually exclusive with a lack of sympathy for striking miners. Especially once one understands the revolutionary politics behind much of the mining union leadership in recent history.
No mate. Wiggle as you like, you just tried to tell me I'm in no position to judge anyone after generalising a group of people, immediately after you did exactly the same thing.
Trades unions are not a people group. one isn't born a trades unionist. They also have a common political milieu, even the most politically unaware know that trades union officials are almost exclusively left wing.. It is discriminatory to make sweeping political assumptions of a people group, it is not to make political assumptions about a specifically politicised occupation.
Thatcherism is not purely a policy of the right, Labour extensively operated under it in the last two decades. interesting how you echo that with Nazism.
Why wouldn't I? They're both ideologies. I could have thrown in freemasonry or Zoroastrianism.
If you are going to match ideologies it helps not to exclusively use that one, you could at least try two.
Generally speaking, to express the difference in basic English, to be rapacious is to be greedy or grasping, to be trying to acquire or absorb. Money, property, and so forth. Unions, on the flip side, intrinsically exist for protection.
Unions can be extremely greedy, grasping and rapicious, clear established and well documented history attests to this, as does present day political science.
The only regard in which they try and expand is to acquire new members, and the reason for that is again, protective (safety in numbers).
For decades, in fact until the Major government made it illegal, many unions practiced the closed shop. Union membership was mandatory for employment, and said unions were affiliated with Labour whether the individual member wants such or not. There is nothing protective about mandatory membership, it is insidious and controlling. There is nothing protective about mandatory politicisation.
Labour wanted to repeal this legislation until the EU banned the closed shop in the late 90's.
Even the excesses of Unions are intrinsically protective (to maintain wage levels, deter disadvantageous contracts, to lower the risk of summary firing, etc).
There is nothing protective about sympathy strikes, which were extremely common as late as the 70's. When one unions members would strike regardless of their own standing with their own employers, for no other reason than because another union was holding industrial action. Though the sympathy strikes of the 70's were indirect, such as power station unions working but refusing to handle coal during the miners strike.
This was inherently dishonest as the workers were technically not on strike, they just wouldn't handle the fuel for their power stations meaning they could shut down their place of employment while retaining pay.
'Overly rapacious capitalism', on the flip side is about chasing what you don't have. Acquiring more profits. More money. More property. More status. And so forth. What makes it 'overly rapacious' is the lack of concern for anything else but that acquisition. It's intrinsically selfish.
Ok your delusion stems from thinking that that form of greed is exclusively the bane of the management system. Chasing what one doesn't have can occur with anyone. From plutocrats, to bankers to government officials to trades unionists to the mugger on the street.
Even when a Union really goes haywire and begins making plays for political power, the reason they do it normally* is still ultimately for the defence/advantage of their members.
That is the excuse used, because industrial action requires spin. Though sometimes as with sympathy strikes even the thinnest veneer of the lie of protection or defensive advantage is exposed to light.
*I say normally, because there's always the risk of a Scargill secretly getting paid off by the Soviets or something. It's not a hard objective rule, but a good rule of thumb for 99% of scenarios.
Lack of Soviet backing was not the only reason for the decline in militant union activity. There is also the inherent greed of the trades union executives being sated in other ways. Blair reckoned quite correctly that there is no difference between a hardened heartless and ruthless plutocrat and a trades union official. So he raised up leaders in the unions on the New Labour gravy train, on the condition they dragged the ladder up after them.
It worked, the unions were compliant because those with influence over the TUC and major unions were in Blair's pocket. John Prescott is the best example of this. The Blair government eroded workers rights substantially, the personal protection of the trades union was pretty much dead in the last decade, and of course Prescott, that lovely man of the people got the lordly title he wanted.
BTW if you want to find a man who throw his title in peoples faces and expects than to bow and scrape look no further than a New Labour life peer, and Prescott is a very good example of this.
There's a lot of Unions out there, and anyone who's had the pleasure of dealing with multiple ones know they spend half their time fighting each other. Christ, you ever seen what the teacher Unions put about each other? They don't all follow the same 'Union Handbook'. The things that do bind them together to be classified as 'Unions' for the most part, those common fundamentals, also bind them to the Unions of the 1890's and so forth.
Power struggles. Besides some of the teaching unions are amongst the most rabidly fanatical and dogmatised of the lot. The NASUWT has a bit of a rep to put it mildly.
I'll reiterate it again, there is no 'continuity of principle and policy' from which you can bind the current Unions to those of the 1970's that cannot also be used to bind them to Unions of further back.
I am more concerned with the re-awakening Corbyn is attempting.
Precisely. The emergency services is the one exception that has been generally permitted.
You managed to completely misread me somehow. First emergency services as a whole are not an exception, only the police. (I argued that they should be). Fire Brigade and ambulance workers can and do strike, and have done so commonly enough in my lifetime. Here are recent examples:
2015 firemans strike Ambulance strike considered 2016
Once you start slipping in non-emergency services, any justification you can employ for one (good of the economy, public daily need of, etc) can be applied to others. Doctors? Yup. Teachers? Yup. Sewage workers? Oh, yes. Bus drivers? Sure, they're practically land train drivers! Power company employees? Well, somebody needs to keep the lights on!
No it hasnt because the inability for the police to strike has not trickled down even to those it reasonably should do so, the other emergency services.
So there is no reason to think it would be extended to non-essential employment.
Once you start excluding this many people from the right to strike, and punishing them if they choose to do so (either by making it permissible to fire them, locking them up, fining them, and so on), you are heading in a bad direction. And considering a number of these are run by private companies? It gets worse still. And so I am opposed to Mr Grayling removing the right to strike from rail workers, and carrying on as if this were the 1970's and he were in any way justified for such extreme measures.
Grayling would not suceed to remove the right to industrial action for commercial workers, it would require an act of parliament and it would be as devisive as the Poll Tax. Theresa May is not that stupid. Grayling can however act to ensure that striking rail workers cannot disrupt rail transport. Strikers can effectively block gates to factories to other workers, but blocking entrances to stations inhibits the general public's right of way; and while one can lie down and prevent lorries entering factories, disrupting the railway lines directly is a serious criminal act. What this means is that Grayling can act to protect alternate labour sources doing the work the strikers vacate. I think this is how he would act, not to prevent rail workers strikes per se, but to prohibit effective picketing due to the unique nature of the railway infrastructure.
It is possible for companies to have no strike contracts, but renumeration is normally quite high.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Sorry no. Your original statement that I challenged was:
Unless you're descended from nobility/money of course, in which case the above view is understandable, if completely reprehensible.
Your railing against an entire social group is current tense, inclusive and presumptive. Tarnishing whole people groups, let alone insisting they share a common opinion, especially a negative one at that, is something to challenge.
.....Nice try. But not only does your attempt to muddy the waters fail to work, it literally doesn't even make sense. Let's lay out the chronology of this conversation very, very precisely.
Orlanth wrote: You dont understand trades unions. They have two purposes
1. Gouge the nation or nor money, regardless of the cost to others.
2. Punish the populace if they dare vote in a Tory government.
Here, you generalised the Unions in an offensive manner, glossed over the sterling work they do in many regards with pay disputes, unfair dismissal, and so forth, and by being general, included every Union that has existed historically as well as those which do currently. I then responded:
Ketara wrote: You are so very, very, very lucky that so very many men in so very many Unions have fought for the rights you take so for granted, that you can be sufficiently blissfully ignorant of them to make the above statement. Unless you're descended from nobility/money of course, in which case the above view is understandable, if completely reprehensible.
It's pretty simple. You (personal, contemporary), are lucky to be able to make such sweeping generalisations as you did in your initial statement. Why? Because unless you are descended from money/nobility, you are unlikely to have not benefited from the work Unions have fought for (past tense). If you are (descended from money/nobility)however, I (personal) would find that attitude of yours today (contemporary) morally repellant if understandable.
Why? Because a) that would be selfish of you (personal, contemporary), but comprehensible, due to your own power/wealth having likely been correspondingly affected, and b) it would be a continuation of a fairly common trend throughout history (past tense, historical) where the upper classes feel their domination of society is morally just and fair (a trend so obvious, geographically broad, and continuous throughout history as to be reasonably beyond dispute).
Note that this is not a broad statement that everyone of a particular class does feel that way, only that it would be comprehensible why they hold those views IF they do. And the feeling of my own moral compass' (because morals are subjective, etcetc) perspective on that belief.
Still with me? Good. At that point, you split the conversation in two, in order to begin railing against what you've somewhat bizarely dubbed 'hatespeech' (and it is bizare, because the views above aren't exactly controversial and reasonably self explanatory). I'll cut out all the random generalisations about Unions though, it only distracts from the specific thread of accusations we're following.
Orlanth wrote: Assuming that I was descended from money or nobility, which I am not, at least in recent centuries, why would that be reprehensible?
You queried me here. At this point, Silentpuffin chipped in with the answer.
As this fairly safely covered point a) above, and I inserted point b) alone (I only have so many hours in the day), I responded:-
Ketara wrote: Because the upper classes have generally always viewed the oppression of those underneath them as something just and fair, all the way back to Divine Right. Which I find morally repugnant.
This statement is far more historical than contemporary, for all the reasons established in my prior post . And it carried on from there. Does this clear things up for you? So to say:-
Orlanth wrote: I havent moved the goalposts, you have by taking a bigoted statement about finding a people group 'reprehensiblet' due to your bigoted opinion that they all share a common goal of fething over other peple, and then trying to turn that into a broad historical context in order to mask your unsavoury sentiments..
This is very clearly, and demonstrably incorrect. As very clearly,precisely, and extensively laid out above, I made a generalised statement about an attitude that has been commonly held by people of a certain class across history/geography, and how I personally considered that aforementioned attitude on my own moral scale. You appear exceedingly desperate to try and turn it into something more than it is, with the continued implications about how I mentioned Nazism in the same breath as Thatcher, etcetc. It's kind of strange. One would almost think that you wanted to pick a debate....
...In fact, judging by the rest of your last post, you pretty convincingly do.
Spoiler:
Orlanth wrote: Unions can be extremely greedy, grasping and rapicious, clear established and well documented history attests to this, as does present day political science.
I mean, look at this one. I literally just laid out the definition of the word 'rapacious'. To acquire. To consume. There ain't no 'well documented history' of the materialism of Unions. They quite literally exist to protect the interests of their members, not to expand them. Unions don't turn into businesses trading diamonds, they don't conquer other countries, they don't fund their members to infiltrate other organisations and take control of them, or set up real estate empires. They are inherently and intrinsically protective*. It's the difference between two companies competing to grow, and an oligopoly where two companies accept defined limits in order to protect their market.
*See my previous qualification
Orlanth wrote: For decades, in fact until the Major government made it illegal, many unions practiced the closed shop. Union membership was mandatory for employment, and said unions were affiliated with Labour whether the individual member wants such or not. There is nothing protective about mandatory membership, it is insidious and controlling.
There is everything protective about the closed shop. I mean, think about it! What is the purpose of closed shop? Why did it exist? For what intent is such a policy enacted by a Union? It's not to take over ownership of a factory, or to get more money (although that might be a sideffect).
The whole point is that two blokes unionising in a factory have little leverage. Therefore they recruit everyone in order to insure that they can protect the interests of the Union members, as well as deter the hiring of blacklegs from other places. It's protective.
Orlanth wrote: There is nothing protective about sympathy strikes, which were extremely common as late as the 70's. When one unions members would strike regardless of their own standing with their own employers, for no other reason than because another union was holding industrial action. Though the sympathy strikes of the 70's were indirect, such as power station unions working but refusing to handle coal during the miners strike.
No? Again, here. What was the purpose of the sympathy strike? The answer is as simple as above. The purpose of a sympathy strike is to insure that greater pressure is brought to bear upon another employer to settle with their workers. By ensuring that this is a two way street (you do for my union what mine does for yours), you ensure that when your own members need protecting from their employers, a higher level of pressure can be achieved. The goal here remains the wellbeing of the Union members. Therefore it is protective.
Ok your delusion stems from thinking that that form of greed is exclusively the bane of the management system. Chasing what one doesn't have can occur with anyone. From plutocrats, to bankers to government officials to trades unionists to the mugger on the street.
Hardly. You asked me what 'overly rapacious capitalism' specifically was as opposed to 'capitalism'. Turning around and saying that what makes capitalism rapacious can make other things rapacious too, er yeah. That's why it's a single adjective. It can be applied to many other things too.
That is the excuse used, because industrial action requires spin. Though sometimes as with sympathy strikes even the thinnest veneer of the lie of protection or defensive advantage is exposed to light.
*sighs*
Not the dark? Or the multi-coloured hue of the rainbow? God forbid industrial action could ever be intended to protect the wellbeing of its members.
Lack of Soviet backing was not the only reason for the decline in militant union activity. There is also the inherent greed of the trades union executives being sated in other ways. Blair reckoned quite correctly that there is no difference between a hardened heartless and ruthless plutocrat and a trades union official. So he raised up leaders in the unions on the New Labour gravy train, on the condition they dragged the ladder up after them.
It worked, the unions were compliant because those with influence over the TUC and major unions were in Blair's pocket. John Prescott is the best example of this. The Blair government eroded workers rights substantially, the personal protection of the trades union was pretty much dead in the last decade, and of course Prescott, that lovely man of the people got the lordly title he wanted.
BTW if you want to find a man who throw his title in peoples faces and expects than to bow and scrape look no further than a New Labour life peer, and Prescott is a very good example of this.
There's some truth in the above, but it requires a lot more qualifiers, and you keep extrapolating what truth there is into broader unsubstantiated trends.
Okay. Prove it. We're dragged these generalisations of yours on long enough. Prove, qualitatively and quantitatively, that all Unions and their leaders are a power hungry, selfish lot, who only ever take action when it's for personal gain. Demonstrate where this shift took place from the older Unions, and exactly what aspects changed and why. Evidence how they have no interest in the protection of their members.
Because damn me, to be making these sorts of statements, you must have one hell of a lot of evidence. So lay out it out to see, and maybe you can change my mind. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I expect a considerable quantity of hard evidence in order to do so. Academic studies, surveys, and so forth.
This message was edited 16 times. Last update was at 2016/12/15 12:06:21
The Tories always mutter and moan about the unions when there's a strike. Strategy seems to be 'wind up some Union boss, get him to say something intemperate then shout AHA YOU SEE! THESE ARE THE NUTTERS THAT RUN CORBYNS LABOUR HARUMPH"
I used to belong to a union - CWU - and it did a decent enough job for its members. They are a crucial part of our society. And this is from a Tory voter btw!
That said, I always though it was a piss-take when union members use union time (and presumably money) for their pet causes. The whole point of the things are to ensure their members get decent pay and conditions, not bang on about the Israeli/Palestine mess or Venezuela or whatever.
No they don't strike over it - but these various campaigns will appear in the union newsletter/mag. I went to a few meetings out of curiosity and you'd hear about it then as well, after the proper business was done with.
I dislike this 6th form style of politics, and thought it had no place there myself.
The Venezuela solidarity people were particularly mad. I ended up on a mailing list for some pressure group who used to send me absolute drivel for years. They got funding from Unite IIRC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/15 15:39:27
We can end that there, you agree with a bigoted opinion that it is selfish to be part of the nobility. You are so far off the reservation you don't even recognise that birth and opinion are two different things. You don't inherit crime, not in any decent society.
Orlanth wrote: I havent moved the goalposts, you have by taking a bigoted statement about finding a people group 'reprehensiblet' due to your bigoted opinion that they all share a common goal of fething over other peple, and then trying to turn that into a broad historical context in order to mask your unsavoury sentiments..
This is very clearly, and demonstrably incorrect. As very clearly,precisely, and extensively laid out above, I made a generalised statement about an attitude that has been commonly held by people of a certain class across history/geography, and how I personally considered that aforementioned attitude on my own moral scale.
Nevertheless you turned that sweeping statement into one that generalised the mentality of a people group, while also refusing to ackowledge that the same mentality is found in individuals of all people groups, and some o the people group concerned do not have those attitudes. The hard reality is that people in power want to perpetuate that power, this is not a concept based on class but based on power dynamics. Therefore it isn't a factor of the nobility, but a factor of power. Where you had no detectable noble class this power dynamic still persisted, where you have a noble class which is no longer in the power structure you don't see the dynamic.
You have the same mental blind spot common to left wing class warriors. You have to maintain the ideology that nobility = oppressors as it enables a self-righteous fury for militant action, and glosses over that oppression comes from those in power, which can well be the left.
Your aim was to blame the worlds ills on the landed classes, when first they don't have power in the current age and haven't for quite a while now.
You appear exceedingly desperate to try and turn it into something more than it is, with the continued implications about how I mentioned Nazism in the same breath as Thatcher, etcetc. It's kind of strange. One would almost think that you wanted to pick a debate....
Not desperate, just honest. I challenged you as to why an entire people group s reprehensible, you are still trying to dodge and dive and weave.
Orlanth wrote: Unions can be extremely greedy, grasping and rapicious, clear established and well documented history attests to this, as does present day political science.
I mean, look at this one. I literally just laid out the definition of the word 'rapacious'. To acquire. To consume. There ain't no 'well documented history' of the materialism of Unions.
Deluson buster #1 - There is extensive history of materialism in trades unions. It is well documented it is evident at the present day and I even provided links already. Which you jut ignored as the truth doesnt help your case.
Here we see tube drivers, not the most demanding work, when starting and unskilled get £50K. That is well above the pay grade for even most graduate white collar workers. And of course this has to be increased above inflation or they hold industrial action.
They quite literally exist to protect the interests of their members, not to expand them.
Delusion buster #2 - Until forced otherwise be legislation sympathy strikes were rife in the UK, and Labour wanted to repeal the legislation banning closed shop and sympathy strikes.
Sympathy strikes do not protect members interests - they punish the employer or society in order to add leverage for the demands of an unrelated industry.
Closed shop doesn't protect members - it controls the workforce by demanding their allegiance to the trades union, often to the point here membership is a flat requirement in order to have employment. Also there is no protection against victimisation by union members of non union members. Labour thought this bullying and rough handling a good idea thy wanted to bring back the closed shop by repealing the act which banned it.
They are inherently and intrinsically protective*.
*See my previous qualification
Here we go again. I proved to you that Trades unions are not intrinsically protective because there is valid historical and unchallengeable proof in that they operate way beyond and to the detriment of those bounds: Namely again the Closed Shop and sympathy strikes.
I could add other criteria but wont bother. Both or the above criteria are flat facts, we know they happened, it was understood at the time, reported in the press and the consequences were felt by our society. All i all you have a lot to gloss over and hopefully too much to wandwave away. You maybe, just maybe, accept historical reality, you are a historian after all.
There is everything protective about the closed shop. I mean, think about it! What is the purpose of closed shop? Why did it exist? For what intent is such a policy enacted by a Union? It's not to take over ownership of a factory, or to get more money (although that might be a sideffect).
Delusion buster #3 - Yes it is to take control, if you can destroy something you control it. Also money is not a side effect but a goal. Extortionate pay increases are a perennial factor of union action. Union bosses are also very highly paid even by standards of senior management, many live a handsome lifestyle, many continue to live that handsome lifestyle paid for by the union while industrial action is ongoing ad the workers are trying to make do.
The whole point is that two blokes unionising in a factory have little leverage. Therefore they recruit everyone in order to insure that they can protect the interests of the Union members, as well as deter the hiring of blacklegs from other places. It's protective.
Delusion buster #4 - You don't understand the closed shop. Two blokes unionising in a factory might have little leverage if nobody wants to join. After all many people didn't want to join the unions because they could see that they were a political power base and not necessarily protective.
Your emphasis is on the leverage, not the motive, you endorse closed shop because it gives the unions power. You didn't stop to think if they deserved power. You didn't stop to think as to whether the workers had the right to refuse to join.
Were unions entirely protective you wouldnt need closed shop as workers would gravitate towards it naturally, because everyone likes workers rights. However the flat fact that many workers dont want anything to do with the unions indicate that those closest to the problem and with the clearest picture of what is actually going on might not want to join.
So you force them to, is that protective? Hell no!
No? Again, here. What was the purpose of the sympathy strike? The answer is as simple as above. The purpose of a sympathy strike is to insure that greater pressure is brought to bear upon another employer to settle with their workers. By ensuring that this is a two way street (you do for my union what mine does for yours), you ensure that when your own members need protecting from their employers, a higher level of pressure can be achieved. The goal here remains the wellbeing of the Union members. Therefore it is protective.
Yor reply beggars belief. Someone has done a number on you.
Lets break it down.
The purpose of a sympathy strike is to insure that greater pressure is brought to bear upon another employer to settle with their workers.
This is true, but how is that achieved: by having industrial action in an unrelated industry. This means the employers get punished, often the general public get punished, and it isn't their fault. In any other field than trades unionism the blatant injustice of this is plain to see. 'We cant find who planted the bomb, so lets round up the villagers'. 'The culprit did a runner, so lets prosecute his brother who wasnt there but hasnt fled the country'. 'The coal board is not capitulating, so lets ruin the steel industry with stoppages.'
Delusion buster #5 -
Sympathy strikes are a travesty, a clear example of punishing unrelated peoples in order to put pressure on the pwople you really want to pressure.
In some cases an entire strike has this dynamic, for example the 1974 miners strike, which was seen at the time as an attempt to overthrow the government. Scargill already ha extorted a pay upgrade for mine workers in 1972 and while the excuse of the strike was to gain even more, the actual motive was to bring down the Heath government. It was discovered later (hough probably known at he time to the relevant departments) that Scargill was on the Soviet payroll.
There is nothing 'protective' in using the power of a union to force an industrial action the gool of which is to undermine a democratically elected government that you do not want. And if the national consequence is considered somehow irrelevant one must remember that he worker who has to settle in for a lengthy strike and their family has to face destitution in order to achieve the union leaders goals.
Delusion buster #6 - The reason people are being brainwashed into believing that unions are entirely protective is in order to mask how union power is wielded.
The closed shop means that individuals who do not follow the strike agenda have to shut up, bullying of non militant workers was rife in closed shop unions. If you didn't agree with th trades union leadership you couldnt effectively vocalise such for fear of discrimination or ostracisation. th union also controlled the platform of any such meetings and made it hard to gather support for an alternate path. This methodology is live and kicking today, the 'safe space' movement in universities which shouts down alternates to the desired consensus, is still the weapon of he far left and it is waiting in the wings ready to be brought back in.
Corbyn quietly approves of Brexit partly because the EU pulled the plug on Labours plans to restore the closed shop.
Why does Labour need the closed shop and want to repeal the Employment Act 1990?
Because the closed shop forces union membership for workers in a related industry meaning that membership is mandatory in order to continue or begin employment and thus force enormous pressure to comply with the union' agenda (left wing militant airhead "for the workers own protection"). Unions control the debate platform (cue militants), unions can tie in the best jobs to union membership control (so if you want to get one of the extremely well paid starting blue collar jobs you have to be in with the union and its agenda), all with the threat of bringing down whole sections of the economy if demands are not met.
When you add to that official and unofficial affiliation, yes thee is a powerbase to be wielded. Protection for workers has nothing to do with it.
That is the excuse used, because industrial action requires spin. Though sometimes as with sympathy strikes even the thinnest veneer of the lie of protection or defensive advantage is exposed to light.
*sighs*
Not the dark? Or the multi-coloured hue of the rainbow? God forbid industrial action could ever be intended to protect the wellbeing of its members.
You cant tink straight even for a moment. With regards to a sympathy strike, that is punising the public or a separate employment infrastructure to the action with a direct agenda, exposure to light is accrate.
There is nothing remotely connected to the wellbeing of th workers of factory A to go out on sympathy strike because workers in unrelated factory B want better conditions. It hurts the future profitability of factory A and its ability to stay open, it hurts the workers of factory A who are striking for the beneit of a third party.
Even taken at it simplest most selfish form, the benefit of the trades union member, a sympathy strike is amoral. When you add the third party societal cost it is often catastrophic.
To reiterate th purpose of sympathy strikes is to wields trades union power.
There's some truth in the above, but it requires a lot more qualifiers, and you keep extrapolating what truth there is into broader unsubstantiated trends.
Well that is progress at least. Though my extrapolation is also accurate, especially with regards to the examples I gave of Prescott and New Labour. Prescott was hated within his union, which was a seamans union, because he was well known for being solely self interested and having no cause for his fellow workers at all. This is not uncommon amongst the more highly politicised unions. Prescott went over and above the call of duty. My comments on Prescott in particular are not unsubstantiated, got second hand (literal) account from the merchant seamen's union, the house of Commons and he house of Lords. I just haven't shared them here.
Okay. Prove it. We're dragged these generalisations of yours on long enough. Prove, qualitatively and quantitatively, that all Unions and their leaders are a power hungry, selfish lot, who only ever take action when it's for personal gain. Demonstrate where this shift took place from the older Unions, and exactly what aspects changed and why. Evidence how they have no interest in the protection of their members.
Ok you are putting words into my mouth here, I dont deal with absolutes but challenge mostly accepted. In fact I alreayt provided you the proof, but this time I wont add the links.
The Three Day Week and the Winter of Discontent. Look them up. De facto historical evidence of union power hunger and greed.
Because damn me, to be making these sorts of statements, you must have one hell of a lot of evidence.
Well yes I do. I lived through the 70's and while I was only a child and not really aware of what went on I know it happened. The power cuts were fun actually. But history is there for you and me to see, be careful what you might find though. The sordid stories of greed, selfishness and attempts to undermine the entire nation and its economy for the agendas of trads union bosses and whoever was behind them is not comfortable for a trades union apologist in denial.
So lay out it out to see, and maybe you can change my mind. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I expect a considerable quantity of hard evidence in order to do so. Academic studies, surveys, and so forth.
In other words you expect e to dig up survey and studies that yu havent bothred to source to back up your glaze eyed mantra that trades unions are inherently protective. and don't forget to find reasons as to why workers need to be protected from themselves and their own opinions by mandatory cosed shop. I am interested to see if you can actually find a defence of that, some propaganda has artistic value of itself.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/15 19:14:57
godardc wrote: So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)
I haven't noticed a thing to be honest. Then again, it hasn't really happened yet.
godardc wrote: So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)
I haven't noticed a thing to be honest. Then again, it hasn't really happened yet.
Other than the massive slump in the vale of the pound and it kicked off the SNP and Sinn Fein.
Though that was as Future War Cultist implies to some extent 'normal'.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
We can end that there, you agree with a bigoted opinion that it is selfish to be part of the nobility.
No. You are flat out, 100% incorrect. That is not what was said. It is a pure imaginary statement you just attributed to me. Please read the thread. Again, I shall copypaste it, for your pleasure. Please point out the section here (I'm quoting my full statement below for your convenience) which is leading you to the conclusion I am saying 'Being nobility is being selfish', and I shall attempt to simplify it for your reading pleasure. Because reading, and re-reading, I have not said anything that remotely equates to that statement. So let's see if we can track down the basic communication error which is clearly occuring.
Ketara wrote: You (personal, contemporary), are lucky to be able to make such sweeping generalisations as you did in your initial statement. Why? Because unless you are descended from money/nobility, you are unlikely to have not benefited from the work Unions have fought for (past tense). If you are (descended from money/nobility)however, I (personal) would find that attitude of yours today (contemporary) morally repellant if understandable.
Why? Because a) that would be selfish of you (personal, contemporary), but comprehensible, due to your own power/wealth having likely been correspondingly affected, and b) it would be a continuation of a fairly common trend throughout history (past tense, historical) where the upper classes feel their domination of society is morally just and fair (a trend so obvious, geographically broad, and continuous throughout history as to be reasonably beyond dispute).
Moving swiftly on.
Orlanth wrote: You are so far off the reservation you don't even recognise that birth and opinion are two different things. You don't inherit crime, not in any decent society.
That would be why I never claimed any such thing.
Orlanth wrote: Nevertheless you turned that sweeping statement into one that generalised the mentality of a people group,
I assume you're referring to my assertion that it's common historical knowledge that in any form of society with a class structure, those on the top have a habit of believing that their dominion and oppression of others is right and just? Because they do. If you look through from the Chinese court, to the Indian Caste system, to the Egyptian Pharaohs, to the British Stuart upper classes, to the Russian courts, and so on, that's what you'll find.
The origin is most likely in basic human psychology (we like to imagine that we deserve what we have) combined with upbringing (Mummy and Daddy always told me that I was better than those other people). If you want to argue whether or not this trend exists, I recommend you start a new thread and compose letters to the relevant historical societies and journals regarding your radical new revisionism of world history.
Orlanth wrote: while also refusing to ackowledge that the same mentality is found in individuals of all people groups,
Err.... all groups? So everything from your local dominoes club to people queuing at a bus stop? I think you need to generalise this one a bit less, because this statement doesn't actually mean anything.
Orlanth wrote: and some o the people group concerned do not have those attitudes.
Never said they all did. Said that already. Please pay closer attention:-
Ketara wrote: Note that this is not a broad statement that everyone of a particular class does feel that way, only that it would be comprehensible why they hold those views IF they do.
Orlanth wrote: The hard reality is that people in power want to perpetuate that power, this is not a concept based on class but based on power dynamics. Therefore it isn't a factor of the nobility, but a factor of power. Where you had no detectable noble class this power dynamic still persisted, where you have a noble class which is no longer in the power structure you don't see the dynamic.
I know you're having a great time trying to separate class groups from 'power dynamics', but you're arguing into a corner. Sorry. Since the subject at hand was those who benefited from the actions of British Unions over the last 250 years, the ruling class and the upper class are more or less the one and same thing. Saying that a member of the upper class can feel differently is well and good, but then again, so can a member of the ruling class.
When both are the same thing for the period under discussion, you're going in circles trying to distinguish the two, especially when statistical outliers have been acknowledged (and they have, as quoted above) and the actual subject under discussion is limited purely and specifically to to 'people of a certain class who hold a certain specific view' (that view which is given in your original post).
You're going balls to the wall on tangents to try and prove I said something I didn't. And it's not working, I'm afraid. Mainly on account of the fact that I keep quoting precisely what I've said,meaning you can't pin down exactly where I say things like 'being part of the nobility is selfish'. On account of the fact I never said them.
Not desperate, just honest. I challenged you as to why an entire people group s reprehensible, you are still trying to dodge and dive and weave.
I'm literally going through this over and again, post by post, quote by quote, breaking it down word by word for your semantic pleasure (rapacious ring a bell?). I'm making every clarification I can think of, highlighting and italicising the relevant phrases. I must be pretty amazing to be ducking and weaving when I'm reduced to literally reiterating every point I've made over and over again, in the desperate, vain hope, that you might actually read it instead of ascribing stupid ridiculous statements like 'nobility is selfish hurrdurr' to me.
Orlanth wrote: Unions can be extremely greedy, grasping and rapicious, clear established and well documented history attests to this, as does present day political science.
Deluson buster #1 - There is extensive history of materialism in trades unions. It is well documented it is evident at the present day and I even provided links already. Which you jut ignored as the truth doesnt help your case.
Here we see tube drivers, not the most demanding work, when starting and unskilled get £50K. That is well above the pay grade for even most graduate white collar workers. And of course this has to be increased above inflation or they hold industrial action.
Nor can the general public effectively apply for those jobs, they are filled internally on a deal with the trades unions. Jobs for the lads.
I read the links. The tube service wanted to bring in the night tube (cool), but only have a tiny increase for the added risk (studies show that working nights both chops about five years off your life expectancy, and lowers your immune system). I used to work nights. It's pretty soul-sucking.
So, sorry, how is asking for something above a tiny 2% increase for night shift materialistic? Christ, when I used to work Travelodge, even they gave a 10% above day working rate.
You're looking at the figure that they're paid already, and assuming that since they're already paid a good wage, asking for anything more is automatically materialistic. Actually? They're looking out to ensure that their union members are adequately compensated above day rate for the drudgery of night shift. That would be protective. Whether you think they're overpaid or not to begin with is quite, quite irrelevant.
Sympathy strikes do not protect members interests - they punish the employer or society in order to add leverage for the demands of an unrelated industry.
I've already outlined how a sympathy strike is inherently a protective measure (you help me out when I need helping out, I'll help you out when you do). You are correct that an unrelated employer can get caught in the crossfire, but that's kind of the point. Because that employer then adds their pressure to that of the strikers in order to get things resolved.
Is it fair? Not really. Is it inherently protective? Well...yes? I mean, when you come out in strike in sympathy, you're not looking to gain anything beyond reciprocal sympathy striking when necessary.
Spoiler:
Orlanth wrote: Closed shop doesn't protect members - it controls the workforce by demanding their allegiance to the trades union, often to the point here membership is a flat requirement in order to have employment. Also there is no protection against victimisation by union members of non union members. Labour thought this bullying and rough handling a good idea thy wanted to bring back the closed shop by repealing the act which banned it.
Nobody said there weren't downsides to it. Nobody said it can't be controlling. It's still an intrinsically protective measure, taken to strengthen the Union (and thus the workers it represents). You're not actually saying anything to prove me wrong here, just regurgitating the less pleasant aspects. Which I'm already quite familiar with.
Neither does Southern Rail, or the Coal Board etc but your point please..
Either of those could quite easily go into another market to increase profit (and would given the choice). With regards to taking over countries, well, the East India Company ring a bell? These are the sorts of things a Union cannot do.
Orlanth wrote: Here we go again. I proved to you that Trades unions are not intrinsically protective because there is valid historical and unchallengeable proof in that they operate way beyond and to the detriment of those bounds: Namely again the Closed Shop and sympathy strikes.
And I've pointed out how those two things are intrinsically protective in motive, which you've failed thus far to counter in a factual way. You have in no way demonstrated what the alternative motivations are. You point to them and say 'well, they're about getting control!' as if that's the motive in and of itself, completely ignoring the step beyond that which is 'and to use that control to ensure the wellbeing of their members'. When I point it out, you just vomit general negative facts about Unions all over the place, and ignore it. Like here:-
Also money is not a side effect but a goal. Extortionate pay increases are a perennial factor of union action. Union bosses are also very highly paid even by standards of senior management, many live a handsome lifestyle, many continue to live that handsome lifestyle paid for by the union while industrial action is ongoing ad the workers are trying to make do.
Sure. Sometimes Union bosses live on other people's gravy train. It was the case a hundred years ago, it's the case today. But a) I've never seen any statistical evidence that that's a majority (and highly doubt it is, please cite with evidence if you do), and b) completely unrelated to the purpose of the Union existing and enacting the policies it does. The two aren't even mutually exclusive, I can be a devoted hedonist who lives off the money whilst still being dedicated to helping out the members of my union.
Spoiler:
Orlanth wrote: Delusion buster #4 - You don't understand the closed shop. Two blokes unionising in a factory might have little leverage if nobody wants to join. After all many people didn't want to join the unions because they could see that they were a political power base and not necessarily protective.
Your emphasis is on the leverage, not the motive, you endorse closed shop because it gives the unions power. You didn't stop to think if they deserved power. You didn't stop to think as to whether the workers had the right to refuse to join.
Actually, my father deliberately left a factory job at one point for precisely what you've described. So no, I'm fully cognisant of that aspect, and the various other negative ones.
You still haven't shown how it isn't intrinsically protective to the Union members though. Just mentioned the less salubrious consequences. Which I already knew about, but didn't mention (on account of the fact that they were irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and still are). Talking about how they shouldn't need closed shop if they were 'really protective because people would totally want to join anyway' doesn't disprove me, provide alternative motivation, or detract from what I said.
Orlanth wrote: This is true, but how is that achieved: by having industrial action in an unrelated industry. This means the employers get punished, often the general public get punished, and it isn't their fault. In any other field than trades unionism the blatant injustice of this is plain to see. 'We cant find who planted the bomb, so lets round up the villagers'. 'The culprit did a runner, so lets prosecute his brother who wasnt there but hasnt fled the country'. 'The coal board is not capitulating, so lets ruin the steel industry with stoppages.'
Sympathy strikes are a travesty, a clear example of punishing unrelated peoples in order to put pressure on the pwople you really want to pressure.
And? The discussion wasn't whether or not it was nice or just as a concept. Just whether or not it was intrinsically defensive as a Union strategy. With the little 99% of the time asterisk I keep adding.
Orlanth wrote: In some cases an entire strike has this dynamic, for example the 1974 miners strike, which was seen at the time as an attempt to overthrow the government. Scargill already ha extorted a pay upgrade for mine workers in 1972 and while the excuse of the strike was to gain even more, the actual motive was to bring down the Heath government. It was discovered later (hough probably known at he time to the relevant departments) that Scargill was on the Soviet payroll.
There is nothing 'protective' in using the power of a union to force an industrial action the gool of which is to undermine a democratically elected government that you do not want. And if the national consequence is considered somehow irrelevant one must remember that he worker who has to settle in for a lengthy strike and their family has to face destitution in order to achieve the union leaders goals.
That was explicitly included in the asterisk earlier on.Please read this stuff if I'm going to go to the effort of typing it. I'm getting really tired of you attributing things to me that I've very literally said the opposite of, or qualified extensively.
Orlanth wrote: Delusion buster #6 - The reason people are being brainwashed into believing that unions are entirely protective is in order to mask how union power is wielded.
The closed shop means that individuals who do not follow the strike agenda have to shut up, bullying of non militant workers was rife in closed shop unions. If you didn't agree with th trades union leadership you couldnt effectively vocalise such for fear of discrimination or ostracisation. th union also controlled the platform of any such meetings and made it hard to gather support for an alternate path. This methodology is live and kicking today, the 'safe space' movement in universities which shouts down alternates to the desired consensus, is still the weapon of he far left and it is waiting in the wings ready to be brought back in.
Corbyn quietly approves of Brexit partly because the EU pulled the plug on Labours plans to restore the closed shop
Why does Labour need the closed shop and want to repeal the Employment Act 1990?
Because the closed shop forces union membership for workers in a related industry meaning that membership is mandatory in order to continue or begin employment and thus force enormous pressure to comply with the union' agenda (left wing militant airhead "for the workers own protection"). Unions control the debate platform (cue militants), unions can tie in the best jobs to union membership control (so if you want to get one of the extremely well paid starting blue collar jobs you have to be in with the union and its agenda), all with the threat of bringing down whole sections of the economy if demands are not met.
When you add to that official and unofficial affiliation, yes thee is a powerbase to be wielded. Protection for workers has nothing to do with it.
This is just general ranting and nothing to do with any of the points we were discussing. So I'll leave it alone, because this discussion is getting lengthy and tiresome enough.
Orlanth wrote: You cant tink straight even for a moment.
The irony is strong within this statement.
Orlanth wrote: There is nothing remotely connected to the wellbeing of th workers of factory A to go out on sympathy strike because workers in unrelated factory B want better conditions. It hurts the future profitability of factory A and its ability to stay open, it hurts the workers of factory A who are striking for the beneit of a third party.
Even taken at it simplest most selfish form, the benefit of the trades union member, a sympathy strike is amoral. When you add the third party societal cost it is often catastrophic.
To reiterate th purpose of sympathy strikes is to wields trades union power.
No, you just disagree with it. And you keep conflating that fact with it's purpose.
Ok you are putting words into my mouth here, I dont deal with absolutes but challenge mostly accepted. In fact I alreayt provided you the proof, but this time I wont add the links.
The Three Day Week and the Winter of Discontent. Look them up. De facto historical evidence of union power hunger and greed.
One period. One group of Unions. More please. Try for something we're not all already familiar with.
Orlanth wrote: Well yes I do. I lived through the 70's and while I was only a child and not really aware of what went on I know it happened. The power cuts were fun actually. But history is there for you and me to see, be careful what you might find though. The sordid stories of greed, selfishness and attempts to undermine the entire nation and its economy for the agendas of trads union bosses and whoever was behind them is not comfortable for a trades union apologist in denial.
Personal, anecdotal, and irrelevant when considering broader trends, long periods of time, and huge numbers of people.
In other words you expect e to dig up survey and studies that yu havent bothred to source to back up your glaze eyed mantra that trades unions are inherently protective. and don't forget to find reasons as to why workers need to be protected from themselves and their own opinions by mandatory cosed shop.
So...you can't back it up? Because I've just sat and read through a lot of 'Unions are bad and have negative aspects' talk that I already knew, but precious little in the way of actual counter-facts to anything I've said. You just keep inventing things I never said to argue with, throwing up lots of generalised tangents, and mild passive-aggressive sniping. Which is getting somewhat boring now.
So please, either source up for your original extensive, generalised claim, which covers all Unions of all periods:-
Orlanth wrote: You dont understand trades unions. They have two purposes
1. Gouge the nation or nor money, regardless of the cost to others.
2. Punish the populace if they dare vote in a Tory government
or drop it and stop wasting my time.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/15 20:27:26
If you don't think it is and you don't think you are then you need to look very closely at yourself in the mirror!
Yes I do, I am not a racist homophobe or sexist. Nor do I want to become same. But I don't go with the dogmatised definition of such, and the finger pointing that results.
So how is
Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.
Not finger pointing, isn't that exactly what your statement was (ie. 'white,straight,males' get picked on)? You could have easily stated "Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife" (although I would have asked for evidence that it is rife). Instead you added the second part of the sentence. That implies you have extra sensitivities on the subject that it does not appear you want to see. So I'll ask in a different way What evidence do you have that "white, straight, male" workers are being unfairly dismissed compared to "not-white, not-straight, not male" colleagues.
Posts here get heated. But and undercurrent of anger stems from being accused of racism, not from any problem with trades unions. I dont like Trades Unions similar to how someone who loves trads unions might not like Thatcher.
That's not what I meant. I am well aware things can get heated here. What I was asking was whether you have ever been on the wrong side of a union decision because you're anger against them seems very 'pointed'?
@Ketara - This time I agree with you! Makes a change doesn't it!
I don't think so. I think one thing that is forgotten that if you go on strike you don't get paid. So you have to be particularly motivated; if you are on £20000, that's about £300 income you are losing if you strike for a week which at this income level is a lot and may be the difference between scrimping for Christmas or getting your children something extra.
The average person isn't likely to strike because of such issues. You've really got to have a lot of frustration building to put in place something for a lengthy period of time (e.g. Southern Rail, Junior Doctors and now BA)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)
Well Boris the Clowns plan on baking biscuits to sell is going south quickly
Directly prices are starting to go up and in some product areas massively so (I'm an amateur astronomer and almost everything went up 25% overnight)
So all in all, not very well! Would you have us back if we asked nicely?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/15 20:43:07
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
errrr ..
