Union bashing

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

derben 15 May 15 1.03pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 12.35pm Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it. Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is. Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm) Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there. This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death? Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm) No it is not. It is merely pointing out that Britain supposedly having 'the harshest anti union laws' is nonsense when regimes like South Africa (that gussett no doubt generally supports) shoots striking workers dead. Where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left by the way? Do at least try not to let your knee jerk prejudices and tunnel vision analysis evidence themselves so manifestly?. From the "Unite" union website,as an example. "As the world becomes smaller Unite members are becoming increasingly engaged in action to support workers and communities across borders and continents. Unite is affiliated to the following campaigning organisations. ACTSAAction for Southern Africa ...ACTSA has longstanding and close ties with many organisations, including unions, across southern Africa and in the UK. Unite is affiliated to ACTSA and has supported many of its campaigns, including work on Zimbabwe, Swaziland and justice for South African miners." Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 12.35pm) As I say, where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left? All I recall there were a few mumbled 'oh dears' and embarrassed shrugs. Imagine if a similar act was carried out by a regime that the left disapproves of. Imagine the number of marches, the calls for sanctions etc. Very similar to their reaction to Palestinian violence as opposed to Israeli violence. The left's level of outrage depends on who is involved. Edited by derben (15 May 2015 1.06pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

15 May 15 1.03pm

Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 12.35pm

Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm

Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights.

Cunds

Impossible? Why impossible?

50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike.
So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion.

Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.

Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is.

Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm)

Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there.

This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death?

Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm)

No it is not. It is merely pointing out that Britain supposedly having 'the harshest anti union laws' is nonsense when regimes like South Africa (that gussett no doubt generally supports) shoots striking workers dead. Where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left by the way?

Do at least try not to let your knee jerk prejudices and tunnel vision analysis evidence themselves so manifestly?.

From the "Unite" union website,as an example.

"As the world becomes smaller Unite members are becoming increasingly engaged in action to support workers and communities across borders and continents. Unite is affiliated to the following campaigning organisations.

ACTSAAction for Southern Africa

...ACTSA has longstanding and close ties with many organisations, including unions, across southern Africa and in the UK. Unite is affiliated to ACTSA and has supported many of its campaigns, including work on Zimbabwe, Swaziland and justice for South African miners."

Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 12.35pm)

As I say, where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left? All I recall there were a few mumbled 'oh dears' and embarrassed shrugs. Imagine if a similar act was carried out by a regime that the left disapproves of. Imagine the number of marches, the calls for sanctions etc. Very similar to their reaction to Palestinian violence as opposed to Israeli violence. The left's level of outrage depends on who is involved.

Edited by derben (15 May 2015 1.06pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 15 May 15 1.22pm
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 1.03pm Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 12.35pm Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it. Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is. Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm) Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there. This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death? Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm) No it is not. It is merely pointing out that Britain supposedly having 'the harshest anti union laws' is nonsense when regimes like South Africa (that gussett no doubt generally supports) shoots striking workers dead. Where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left by the way? Do at least try not to let your knee jerk prejudices and tunnel vision analysis evidence themselves so manifestly?. From the "Unite" union website,as an example. "As the world becomes smaller Unite members are becoming increasingly engaged in action to support workers and communities across borders and continents. Unite is affiliated to the following campaigning organisations. ACTSAAction for Southern Africa ...ACTSA has longstanding and close ties with many organisations, including unions, across southern Africa and in the UK. Unite is affiliated to ACTSA and has supported many of its campaigns, including work on Zimbabwe, Swaziland and justice for South African miners." Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 12.35pm) As I say, where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left? All I recall there were a few mumbled 'oh dears' and embarrassed shrugs. Imagine if a similar act was carried out by a regime that the left disapproves of. Imagine the number of marches, the calls for sanctions etc. Very similar to their reaction to Palestinian violence as opposed to Israeli violence. The left's level of outrage depends on who is involved. Edited by derben (15 May 2015 1.06pm) If you put an event in context, the regularity of it and the wider implications - if there are any - then why there is disparity in reactions compared to other nasty events is pretty clear and rational. You can't get angry at every worldwide misdemeanour just to balance one's repulsion at the IDF bulldozing tens of thousands of houses and shooting youngsters in cold blood. The human mind does not work like that. Now if SA miners were being massacred every other year and were dispossessed and were held in ghettoes and were being tortured then obviously it would be comparable. Your own reaction to murdering innocents depends, it appears, on who is doing the murdering. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 15 May 15 1.22pm

Quote derben at 15 May 2015 1.03pm

Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 12.35pm

Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm

Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights.

Cunds

Impossible? Why impossible?

Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.

Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is.

Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm)

Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there.

This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death?

Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm)

Do at least try not to let your knee jerk prejudices and tunnel vision analysis evidence themselves so manifestly?.

From the "Unite" union website,as an example.

ACTSAAction for Southern Africa

Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 12.35pm)

Edited by derben (15 May 2015 1.06pm)

If you put an event in context, the regularity of it and the wider implications - if there are any - then why there is disparity in reactions compared to other nasty events is pretty clear and rational. You can't get angry at every worldwide misdemeanour just to balance one's repulsion at the IDF bulldozing tens of thousands of houses and shooting youngsters in cold blood. The human mind does not work like that.

Now if SA miners were being massacred every other year and were dispossessed and were held in ghettoes and were being tortured then obviously it would be comparable.

Your own reaction to murdering innocents depends, it appears, on who is doing the murdering.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 15 May 15 2.04pm
It's also to ensure strikes are no longer called for frivolous reasons like protecting a train driver who was pissed while driving a train Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

15 May 15 2.04pm

It's also to ensure strikes are no longer called for frivolous reasons like protecting a train driver who was pissed while driving a train

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Southampton_Eagle At the after party 15 May 15 2.39pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it. Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is. Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm) Not really surprising though seeing the unions ripped the absolute sh*t out of the public during the 70s & 80s.
Alert a moderator to this post

Southampton_Eagle

At the after party 15 May 15 2.39pm

Send a Private Message to Southampton_Eagle

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm

Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights.

Cunds

Impossible? Why impossible?

Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.

Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is.

Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm)

Not really surprising though seeing the unions ripped the absolute sh*t out of the public during the 70s & 80s.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 May 15 2.58pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 15 May 2015 2.04pm It's also to ensure strikes are no longer called for frivolous reasons like protecting a train driver who was pissed while driving a train I'm sure that's exactly what the Conservatives agenda in going after the Unions is, making sure they don't do things like that. Also the strike was over the use of only a breathaliser to determine whether someone was drunk, without corroborating evidence (urine sample or blood test). Breathalisers can produce false positive results in certain situations - Which is why the police don't rely entirely on just a breath test (they take a secondary sample to corroborate evidence in accordance with legal advice. And I agree, before dismissing someone for an offence its best to be certain. I'd probably fail a drug test as my medication will give a false positive result in many tests for MDMA as it is a serotonin Specific Reuptake Inhibitor. I'd object to being fired without a reliable second measure to eliminate a false positive. But don't let the facts get in the way. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 May 15 2.58pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 15 May 2015 2.04pm

It's also to ensure strikes are no longer called for frivolous reasons like protecting a train driver who was pissed while driving a train

I'm sure that's exactly what the Conservatives agenda in going after the Unions is, making sure they don't do things like that.

Also the strike was over the use of only a breathaliser to determine whether someone was drunk, without corroborating evidence (urine sample or blood test). Breathalisers can produce false positive results in certain situations - Which is why the police don't rely entirely on just a breath test (they take a secondary sample to corroborate evidence in accordance with legal advice.

And I agree, before dismissing someone for an offence its best to be certain. I'd probably fail a drug test as my medication will give a false positive result in many tests for MDMA as it is a serotonin Specific Reuptake Inhibitor.

I'd object to being fired without a reliable second measure to eliminate a false positive.

But don't let the facts get in the way.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 May 15 3.01pm
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it. Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is. Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm) Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there. This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death? Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm) No it is not. It is merely pointing out that Britain supposedly having 'the harshest anti union laws' is nonsense when regimes like South Africa (that gussett no doubt generally supports) shoots striking workers dead. Where were the protest marches and denunciations of it from the left by the way? South African Anti-Union laws don't actually permit shooting protesters to death, similarly Apathied law didn't legally allow extra judicial police murders of dissdents such as Steve Bilko. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 May 15 3.01pm

Quote derben at 15 May 2015 12.10pm

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.06pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm

Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights.

Cunds

Impossible? Why impossible?

Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.

Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is.

Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm)

Lucky you are not in South Africa, they shoot striking workers there.

This is basically the equivalent of slapping your wife then telling her to be thankful she's not in the middle east being stoned to death?

Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.08pm)

South African Anti-Union laws don't actually permit shooting protesters to death, similarly Apathied law didn't legally allow extra judicial police murders of dissdents such as Steve Bilko.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 May 15 3.03pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 15 May 2015 2.39pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights. Cunds Impossible? Why impossible? 50% of those eligible to vote must vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must vote for the strike. So if the workforce numbered a 100, 50 of them must vote and 40 of those must vote to strike. So you could still have your strike although 60% do not want it or have no opinion. Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it. Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is. Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm) Not really surprising though seeing the unions ripped the absolute sh*t out of the public during the 70s & 80s. Not really so much in the 80s, the Conservative party was fully intending to take on the Unions, specifically the Miners and Power workers and break them. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 May 15 3.03pm

Quote Southampton_Eagle at 15 May 2015 2.39pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote derben at 14 May 2015 5.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 14 May 2015 5.31pm

Make it impossible to strike, then hit people with cuts to work rights.

Cunds

Impossible? Why impossible?

Hardly communist-block suppression of union rights is it.

Not Communist block suppression. No. But still suppression. We already have among the harshest anti union laws in the western world as it is.

Edited by nickgusset (14 May 2015 6.03pm)

Not really surprising though seeing the unions ripped the absolute sh*t out of the public during the 70s & 80s.

Not really so much in the 80s, the Conservative party was fully intending to take on the Unions, specifically the Miners and Power workers and break them.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken 15 May 15 3.45pm
I wonder what pay and conditions all those people who complain about unions and strikes would be working in now if it were not for unions
Alert a moderator to this post

Fatherken

15 May 15 3.45pm

I wonder what pay and conditions all those people who complain about unions and strikes would be working in now if it were not for unions

Alert a moderator to this post

ambrose7 Croydon 15 May 15 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable 26th January 2010 - Enter Administration 2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough 1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds 7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.
Alert a moderator to this post

ambrose7

Croydon 15 May 15 3.58pm

There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable

26th January 2010 - Enter Administration
2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough
1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds
7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 15 May 15 4.05pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Thanks for the recap Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 15 May 15 4.05pm

Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm

There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable

Thanks for the recap

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 15 May 15 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

15 May 15 4.20pm

Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm

There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable

Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%.

Alert a moderator to this post

ambrose7 Croydon 15 May 15 4.27pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. To be a fair comparator though the options would need to be on a spectrum which is more like (1) we are being treated like dogs (2) it's a bit unfair but I don't mind (3) I don't think it's that bad etc. with only option 1 counting as a strike. It is far easier to achieve 40% on a yes/no basis than it is when there are sometimes up to 10 options. With that in mind, that the two figures are so close seems to make it fairly legitimate 26th January 2010 - Enter Administration 2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough 1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds 7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.
Alert a moderator to this post

ambrose7

Croydon 15 May 15 4.27pm

Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm

Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm

There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable

To be a fair comparator though the options would need to be on a spectrum which is more like (1) we are being treated like dogs (2) it's a bit unfair but I don't mind (3) I don't think it's that bad etc. with only option 1 counting as a strike.

It is far easier to achieve 40% on a yes/no basis than it is when there are sometimes up to 10 options. With that in mind, that the two figures are so close seems to make it fairly legitimate

26th January 2010 - Enter Administration
2nd May 2010 - D-Day 1 - Survival at Hillsborough
1st June 2010 - D-Day 2 - Survival at Lloyds
7th June 2010 - CPFC2010 exchange contracts.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Union bashing

Site Map

Sponsors