In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 17:06 15 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Terry Casey wrote:


Err, if you are going to have a dispute, best to have it when
the effects are minimal? Really?

The strikes were aimed at their respective employers - what good
did it do to deliberately target their employers' customers who
were nothing whatsoever to do with the disputes?

Because the money a customer pays for that service or goods goes
to the employer. Taking strike action when the trains aren't
running to avoid inconveniencing the public would be as much use
as a chocolate teapot.

The British public deserves more respect than to be treated as
plaything by the unions and held hostage whenever they needed to
exert pressure on management.

Really? And when utility companies etc make excessive profits that's OK?

The public had no part in the disputes but was deliberately made to
suffer. No wonder there was little public outcry when the unions
were tamed.

Think what you may mean is there was little outcry in the meja. A rather
different matter.

Previously, the only people who were happy were the unions. Now,
the whole country is happy except for the unions.

Yes, of course. Whole areas of the country with little or no decent jobs
or prospects. Hence so many voting Brexit.


That's how
democracy works. Though maybe not communism or socialism.

You really think the country as it is now a shining example of how one
should be run?

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.