Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

On 15:15 13 Feb 2018, Martin wrote:

Even the millions with no job security on minimum legal salaries?

Even those with poor job security are no longer the victims of union
disruption. Often those who had the least good jobs were the most
affected by the disruption. They couldn't afford expensive
alternative transport, alternative heating or whatever the unions
were depriving them of.

I do believe there's a place for labour unions because commercial
companies can be very aggressive in their pursuit of profit and fail
to treat their workers as well as we might expect.

However, many unions accumulated significant power and then misused
it. They tested the patience of the authorities and public to the
very limit and then some more. Of course there was a pushback.

And those of us old enough will remember the strikes of the 50s and
60s. We also remember that every one knew that something needed doing,
but any suggestion of doing anything was met by that whistling through
the teeth and "You'll never get that through, Squire".

I think you are remembering a film comedy about trade unions rather than
real life.


What it took was for things to get really, really, bad. And for enough
people to say "**** *that* for a game of soldiers".


--

Roger Hayter