On 19/02/2017 18:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
BTW, love to have an example of a union fighting a 'political battle'

Southern Rail. That's pure politics. Not party politics, sure, but it's
about who runs the railways. It sure as **** doesn't have anything to
do with two man operation.

You don't consider it to be protecting existing jobs?

Unless you consider them fighting to protect jobs and conditions
political.

It can be.

Of course many think their job is to just lie down and accept any ****
a government decides to shovel on them - in 'the interests of the
country'. But that wasn't what I paid a union subscription for.

Me neither. But then, neither do I imagine that union bosses are pure as
the driven snow motivated by nothing more than their member's interests.

I'm one of those who know union bosses don't have that much power. There
is no chance they can go against the views of their union, as expressed by
the members at annual conference etc. They'd be out on their arse. Of
course the meja far prefer to have an individual they can hate.

In an actual dispute, they may have to take some decisions on the fly. But
at the end of the day they'd not last five minutes without the backing of
those who pay their wages - the members.

And who pays the members wages?





--
Adam