On 15/02/2018 18:00, 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.

A few words: Private Finance Initiative; cartels; land banking; tax
evasion and avoidance; management pay. And the way virtually everything
in our society, from housing to buses, from health to education, has
become monetised over the past 40 years.

Do you (assuming you're from/in the UK) really feel 'respected'?

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.


I have been a part of some of the most ridiculous and ill-planned
disputes known. It happens, rarely. But are you saying that unions take
strike (and action short of a strike) action to deliberately make the
public suffer? And they lose all their pay to do this? All disputes -
that's the prime motivation of industrial action?

Is this some sort of entrenched anecdote or is there evidence?

Previously, the only people who were happy were the unions. Now,
the whole country is happy except for the unions. That's how
democracy works. Though maybe not communism or socialism.


I think the recent Brexit vote and 'debate' pretty much kicks out that
line of thinking.


--
Cheers, Rob