On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:38:41 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Just annoyed that I took the time to address Andy's misunderstanding and
he dismissed it like the right-wing bigot he pretends not to be.

I don't think he is a bigot. As yet I have seen no personal abuse from him,
merely some very well stated facts.

Such as his reply to this?
"Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is about the minor
stuff that means nothing to the outside world and everything to the
individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer, happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that
people who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers
that there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be
heading for a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems
before someone is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my
personal experience) insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed
section with half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they
misrepresent company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much
needed) promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on
storing chemicals in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed
and the company heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed
for the future) by union involvement at little cost. Little things."

Just to remind you his reply was:

"None of which require involvement of unions or any other group constituted
organisation."

Hardly abusive, was it?



His reply shows total ignorance of reality and a failure to want to accept the
truth of what I wrote.

What you have written represents something that you may have read or
possibly experienced. At no point did I question whether or not that
happened, or to imply that you were not telling the truth as you saw
it.


In my previous point, and in my reply, I was making the point that
none of this *requires* involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.

In other words, I do not see in what you wrote a case that unions must
be involved or bad things happen. That patently isn't true because
many businesses get along perfectly well without them.

The reality of the situation is that you don't like it when somebody
suggests that there can be an alternative to your notion that a union
is a requirement to maintain balance in the workplace and to prevent
bad things happening to employees. Rather than thinking laterally,
you choose to suggest that anybody disagreeing with you is a liar.
This is hardly a morally high stance is it?






On the other hand, you seem to find it difficult to have a civilized
conversation when someone suggests an alternative to your blinkered "us and
them" attitude.

You seem to be suffering from the same problem. Read again what I have written
and you will see that I'm talking about people working together and sorting
out one another's errors in a non-conflict way. Andy doesn't think that's
needed and would rather the law stepped in to put right management
deficiencies - or at least that's the result of his view even if his hasn't
thought it through properly.

There is one thing in an employee or employees approaching their
managers as individuals to discuss concerns. It is quite another
when an externally constituted organisation claiming to act on behalf
of the employees does so. That is the unnecessary part, and in the
final analysis creates an adversarial situation. I was not
particularly advocating that the law should be invoked at all, but
rather that their should be an independent party dealing with matters
of health and safety.



--

..andy