On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:47:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:27:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's much easier to hide accidents in non-union shops.

Oh, puhleez.....

Are you then suggesting that every accident that is supposed to be
recorded in an accident book is so recorded?

I'm simply suggesting that you are clutching at straws....

It doesn't require a policeman in the form of a union official to achieve
that, and can just as easily be done by any employee.

Your experience is outside that of every normal human of my acquaintance.
I've been chided for suggesting that you are lying - but I'm not willing to
accept an alien genesis for you.

You are suggesting that it can't be right because that is your
experience, you're wrong.

He was denying the truth of my experience.


No I wasn't. Read carefully what I said rather than what your
emotions led you to believe that I said.

I did not deny that the scenarios that you described happened to you.
Hopefully the outcomes were satisfactory for all concerned.

What I did say was that there is no *need* for there to be union
involvement in order for there to be a safe and harmonious working
environment. This is demonstrable from the large number of non-union
businesses.

What I further said, was that I did not believe that union involvement
was the *only* way in which the scenarios you described from your own
experience could have been resolved. That is a natural progression
from the second point, and if one thinks about it logically, would
have needed *all* other options to have been tried. I am not, in
this suggesting that you were not telling the truth, as you have, in
your emotive approach suggested was the case for me; but rather that I
don't believe that all the possibilities could have been explored.




--

..andy