On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:02:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


It may disappoint you to hear this, but generally people are able to think
for and look after themselves and don't need to be nannied by a union or
anyone else.

You're saying that someone whose job is designing, making or selling widgets
should be as competent in employment law and conditions as someone whose job
is employment law and conditions and that when the two disagree about matters
of employment law and conditions relating to the employment of the former then
they are debating at equal strength. You're either a fool or a rogue if that's
what you are saying - and that *is* what you are saying.

I didn't say or even imply that at all.

It's interesting that when people are arguing a weak point based on
what amounts to a religious conviction, they see everything in black
and white as you are doing.

Very obviously there are shades of grey.


It suits the union ideology to believe that he average member is not
able to look after himself and needs to have his hand held by the
union rep and hierarchy.

You are suggesting that somebody whose job is designing making or
selling widgets would need to be as competent as a legal professional
in matters of employment law.

A small amount of thought would make one realise that this is a
nonsense - of course people are able to think and act for themselves.
They are also perfectly capable of knowing when to seek professional
legal help when required.

Do people go to a union rep. when they are buying and selling a house
or having a barney with the neighbours? Of course not. They are
perfectly able to seek out the appropriate professional assistance
from a conveyancer or solicitor.

There is nothing in employment law which requires the mediation of the
union priest in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome for the
employee and for that matter the employer.


--

..andy