30/11 Strikes.

Not all your membership feels or votes the same way, therefore you would need a membership equivalent to the population to be democratic.

Good luck with that one.
Not to mention the ridiculously low voting turnouts they base their strike decisions on.
 
That confuses me a lot. If you are in public service you would surely want the public on side ? Statements like the above would surely encourage the public to hope the government break you and force you back to work.

surely it also shows to some extent that the public sector workforce is a smash and grab outfit that has no regard for the public it serves as a whole ?

Indeed, it's a complete failure to learn the lesson of the miner's strike. The left forgets that the public supported Thatcher and her curtailment of the union bullies during this time.

By alienating the public, the unions are pretty much ensuring public support for more controls on unions and striking, and making themselves less important moving forwards.
 
Of course public sector workers pay tax on their income. Very little within the public sector is taxed -for example if a public sector department runs more efficiently it's better off. If a private company runs more efficiently it pays more tax on profits. Tax which could be paid into employee's pensions, for example.

This statement also makes no sense.

Public services (mostly) run as not for profit kind of schemes, they are funded by public money gathered via taxation. Why in gods name would the government then go and tax itself again if they run an efficient service ? If the NHS was running efficiently it would be a case of breaking even and Tax Payers getting good services with little to no financial wastage, how would you propose to tax that ?

Private enterprise is different, they are run specifically to make profits and lots of them so, greater efficiency = better turn over= more gross profit = good chance you pay more tax.

You comparing bananas with pineapples here ?
 
Apologies, I've confused you with Floogie. My mistake.

Apology accepted.

I love the way most people here view me a hard left wing millitant where as most of my members and peers in the union view me as somewhat of a moderate and reformist.

Maybe that means something.

you've never posted even a hint of an indication that you could possibly consider the other side of the argument

Yes I have. I've stated time and time again that if the government were negotiating instead of mandating then the Unions should be looking to reach an agreement - one that would likely include significant comprimise on thier part.

However, as I've again said many times, the government have NOT been negotiating - they have been dictating. Consultation is all about compromise or finding a workable solution - it is not "this is what we're doing and there is jack **** you can do about it".

The government don't want a compromise - they don't even want an agreement - they want a fight, and the unions, rightly or wrongly, are going to give them one.

Many in the trade union movement are viewing this as thier last stand - that they will either crush the government or they'll be crushed themselves. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

If I were a betting man, I would put £100 on there being no trade unions in the UK in 5 years time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government don't want a compromise - they don't even want an agreement - they want a fight.

I guess that you have to regurgitate this kind of thing, given your position within the union. Tell me, at what point do you actually start believing the rhetoric?

And if it's not too personal a question, is your position paid?

Well it is part of one of the many tangents going on here.
Indeed, and it always crops up when the strikes are mentioned, and I don't believe it's relevant. It may well be considered ironic, although I fail to see its humour, but it isn't relevant.
 
Oh yay, more strikes and inconvenience for people that don't have anything to do with the situation at hand.

Wonderful. Well done. :rolleyes:
 
I guess that you have to regurgitate this kind of thing, given your position within the union. Tell me, at what point do you actually start believing the rhetoric?

Didn't see the article where the times quoted David Cameron as being pleased the strike is going ahead then?

And if it's not too personal a question, is your position paid?

Nope, voluntary.
 
A job is a privilege, not a right.

A lot of people have totally forgotten this. Even during a recession, where people ought to be reminded of it most.

So you don't subscribe to the "right to a fair days pay for a fair days work" mantra then?

I pity some people.
 
It will be a boost to the economy. The salary bill is cut and more money will be spent in the pub or going shopping.
 
So you don't subscribe to the "right to a fair days pay for a fair days work" mantra then?

I pity some people.

No, I don't. I subscribe to the principle that if you're not happy with your level of pay or conditions then you should complain. If you don't get the result you are hoping for then leave and look for another job elsewhere. Anything else is just blackmail.
 
A job is a privilege, not a right.

A lot of people have totally forgotten this. Even during a recession, where people ought to be reminded of it most.

However, while this may technically be the case, it's important to note that if families can't feed their kids they're going to get just a little upset. Of course this is a little more extreme than a weaker pension scheme but what you've just said, though I do agree with you, needs to be bent a little in mitigating circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom