On 13/02/2018 00:34, pamela wrote:
On 23:29 12 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
In those decades, the trade unions would do anything to gain
advantage for their members at any cost whatosever to the rest of
the country.

Perhaps you'd define the job of a trade union? To make life best
for you? Or perhaps the employers?

The Union's dishonest sham when they strike is that they are
protecting services to the public to hide their total self-interest.


Not total. For example, do you know how hard it is to provide a public
service in the face of funding cuts?

Certainly, the interests of members is a part of any action - but what's
wrong with that? Who do you expect to represent workers' interests?

That said, I'm not uncritical of large unions nowadays - they can tend
to act against members to avoid the sorts of actions you're describing.


Countless strikes in monopoly public sector services designed to
cause the public maximum discomfort attest to that.

Takes two sides to cause a strike.

One is enough.


I'd re-read that :-)

Those legions of overpaid unsackable unionised workers plunged
the country into a mess but their game was up when Thatcher
arrived and Blair later built on her work.

Yup. Much better today. With people in work relying on food banks
and handouts. Just what a good tory yearns for.

I doubt unionised workers are relying on food banks and handouts.


If so (and it isn't) that's in part because of union membership, not in
spite of it.

Certainly not union bosses such as Bob Crowe of the RMT who used to
take a holiday in Rio at the very same time as his rail strike was
making life a misery for commuters.


Again, selective statistics ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob