In article ,
David wrote:
Did you stand for office to sort out the union you belonged to but didn't
like the way it operated? Attended *all* union meetings - not just the
summoned ones?

No, I didn't stand for office but have been active outside of unions all
my working life, I refuse to be part of a block vote (if you discount
political elections) I never attended the smaller meetings because I
didn't want to be part of something I didn't like the look of so it was
the mass meetings I had direct experience of.

Right. So basically you just don't like unions or the idea of them. Best
to just state that rather than embellishing things.

Do you have trouble believing that there was militant union activity in
the car industry? do you not believe that union "stewards" are capable
of bullying, cajoling, intimidating members who don't offer their full
support (the recent removal of the elderly chap at the Labour Conference
is a mild throwback to the old days)

Yes I do have trouble believing it. And certainly just don't believe the
press on how widespread it was. Or the Tory party. Thatcher brought in
secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action far less likely -
and she was proved totally wrong. Which means bullying - if any - made
absolutely no difference.

It sounds like you have had a good recent experience of union
involvement, good for you, not all unions are as good and it wasn't
always like that.

I've been a union member since the early '60s. Three unions (at different
times) Been to TUC. Talked to many from other unions too. You?

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:07:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
The fact that most of the workforce seems to exist without being in a
union seems to support this alternate view is at least viable.

I'd argue that such workforces depend on unions elsewhere pushing for
legislation that supports all. They are taking a free ride.

You might, but it doesn't really hold water.

Why is it a "free" ride?

A great deal of H&S legislation is sector specific anyway and there
are whole sectors and functional areas which are devoid of the
clutches of unions.


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:07:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
The fact that most of the workforce seems to exist without being in a
union seems to support this alternate view is at least viable.

I'd argue that such workforces depend on unions elsewhere pushing for
legislation that supports all. They are taking a free ride.

You might, but it doesn't really hold water.

I'll accept that you disagree.

Why is it a "free" ride?

If it isn't obvious to you then I'm afraid that you need the full series of
lectures for beginners. That's a chargeable option.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
Thatcher brought in secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action
far less likely - and she was proved totally wrong.

In too many cases it allowed disputes to escalate to confrontation far too
quickly.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

press on how widespread it was. Or the Tory party. Thatcher brought in
secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action far less likely -
and she was proved totally wrong. Which means bullying - if any - made
absolutely no difference.

You will note that Thatcher's reforms have resulted in massive
reductions in the number of days lost each year to industrial action
across the board. Reforms you will note that Phoney Blair and co have
been in no hurry to undo.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:20:01 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:07:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
The fact that most of the workforce seems to exist without being in a
union seems to support this alternate view is at least viable.

I'd argue that such workforces depend on unions elsewhere pushing for
legislation that supports all. They are taking a free ride.

You might, but it doesn't really hold water.

I'll accept that you disagree.

Why is it a "free" ride?

If it isn't obvious to you then I'm afraid that you need the full series of
lectures for beginners. That's a chargeable option.

It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

If one were to start using this argument, I could say that other
members of the population get a free ride from what I pay in taxes
etc.


--

..andy

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Thatcher brought in secret ballots thinking it would make industrial
action far less likely - and she was proved totally wrong.

In too many cases it allowed disputes to escalate to confrontation far
too quickly.

And may have got them sorted more quickly too?

A workforce with a genuine grievance are unlikely to be at their most
efficient while waiting for the disputes procedure to take its course...

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
press on how widespread it was. Or the Tory party. Thatcher brought in
secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action far less
likely - and she was proved totally wrong. Which means bullying - if
any - made absolutely no difference.

You will note that Thatcher's reforms have resulted in massive
reductions in the number of days lost each year to industrial action
across the board. Reforms you will note that Phoney Blair and co have
been in no hurry to undo.

Well, yes. When you shut down the mines that certainly results in better
industrial relations in them. On paper. Same with much of the rest of UK
owned industry. Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker? And the now successful car makers in the UK are owned by
those who have a less cavalier attitude to industrial relations - hence
better productivity, quality and industrial relations despite using the
same workers.

Happy workers simply don't go on strike. The idea that they do is simply
meja hype. Why would a worker want to lose his income for no reason? It
simply doesn't make sense.

Strikes happened because of genuine grievances. And those usually caused
by poor management. Anyone reading the history of BL and its succeeders
would have no difficulty realising this. There were no industrial
relations problems when BMW took over, but even they soon realised the
magnitude of the task to modernise an industry so lacking in investment
for decades was totally beyond them.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

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

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:34:26 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
press on how widespread it was. Or the Tory party. Thatcher brought in
secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action far less
likely - and she was proved totally wrong. Which means bullying - if
any - made absolutely no difference.

You will note that Thatcher's reforms have resulted in massive
reductions in the number of days lost each year to industrial action
across the board. Reforms you will note that Phoney Blair and co have
been in no hurry to undo.

Well, yes. When you shut down the mines that certainly results in better
industrial relations in them. On paper.

The sad thing there was the belief by anybody that there was a viable
business considering the nature of the world market in coal.
All the time that was wasted on trying to grab larger slices of eve
smaller pies, would have been much better focussed on reinvesting and
retraining to address more viable markets. In that respect, all
concerned can share the blame, including consumers wanting to have
lower prices than could be achieved locally.


Same with much of the rest of UK
owned industry. Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker? And the now successful car makers in the UK are owned by
those who have a less cavalier attitude to industrial relations - hence
better productivity, quality and industrial relations despite using the
same workers.

A coming to reality of all concerned. It takes two parties (at
least) to have an argument, and the confrontational nature of
employer/union behaviour (for which both are to blame) is responsible
for much of this.

The notion that all of this is a class or political struggle as
promoted strongly by the unions a generation ago - less so today, but
it's still there - really has no place in the business environment at
all.

It is a cultural change that can make a difference - a realisation on
the part of all concerned in a business that job security does not
come from having internal disputes about who gets what but realising
that it is from the willingness of the customer to buy the product
being sold and the confidence of the investors to continue their
commitment.



--

..andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strikes happened because of genuine grievances.

Agreed. However massive secondary action in unrelated businesses and
services requires the intervention of a union.

And those usually caused
by poor management.

Frequently. Also caused by restrictive working practices, lack of
flexibility, and low productivity. Both sides can be at fault here.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference? Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad. 'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Well, yes. When you shut down the mines that certainly results in better
industrial relations in them. On paper.

The sad thing there was the belief by anybody that there was a viable
business considering the nature of the world market in coal.

At that time, maybe. Of course many would say that relying purely on world
wide market forces may not be of benefit in the long term for 'us' as a
whole. As the current trend in gas prices may prove.

All the time that was wasted on trying to grab larger slices of eve
smaller pies, would have been much better focussed on reinvesting and
retraining to address more viable markets. In that respect, all
concerned can share the blame, including consumers wanting to have
lower prices than could be achieved locally.

Yes. Yet it's the unions that get the blame - always.


Same with much of the rest of UK
owned industry. Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker? And the now successful car makers in the UK are owned by
those who have a less cavalier attitude to industrial relations - hence
better productivity, quality and industrial relations despite using the
same workers.

A coming to reality of all concerned. It takes two parties (at
least) to have an argument, and the confrontational nature of
employer/union behaviour (for which both are to blame) is responsible
for much of this.

Much of the confrontation in BL was due to the appalling mismanagement.
From the very top downwards. Trying to make poorly production engineered
cars and then blaming the workforce for not building them properly.

The notion that all of this is a class or political struggle as
promoted strongly by the unions a generation ago - less so today, but
it's still there - really has no place in the business environment at
all.

The class struggle consisted of a few thinking they were the ruling class
and that they could do as they wished. And I'm not talking elected
politicians here.

It is a cultural change that can make a difference - a realisation on
the part of all concerned in a business that job security does not
come from having internal disputes about who gets what but realising
that it is from the willingness of the customer to buy the product
being sold and the confidence of the investors to continue their
commitment.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Strikes happened because of genuine grievances.

Agreed. However massive secondary action in unrelated businesses and
services requires the intervention of a union.

Secondary action was designed to shorten the dispute. In just the same way
as management would go through the motions of sacking striking staff.

And those usually caused
by poor management.

Frequently. Also caused by restrictive working practices, lack of
flexibility, and low productivity. Both sides can be at fault here.

'Restrictive' working practices must always have been with the approval of
management. Flexibility? Should a brain surgeon empty bed pans? Perhaps -
but I doubt you'll find they do. Or a managing director cleaning out
toilets when the cleaner is off sick? It tends to be a one sided argument.
Productivity depends upon reasonable goals. And giving the workers the
tools and environment to achieve it - not just some figure plucked from
the air by consultants.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

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

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:32:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Well, yes. When you shut down the mines that certainly results in better
industrial relations in them. On paper.

The sad thing there was the belief by anybody that there was a viable
business considering the nature of the world market in coal.

At that time, maybe. Of course many would say that relying purely on world
wide market forces may not be of benefit in the long term for 'us' as a
whole. As the current trend in gas prices may prove.

Of course. The questions then go full circle. Are we willing to pay
more for something in the short term to achieve a greater long term
control of prices? Do we want to erect trade barriers as Bush did to
attempt to protect the US steel industry?

I don't see large numbers of takers for either.



All the time that was wasted on trying to grab larger slices of eve
smaller pies, would have been much better focussed on reinvesting and
retraining to address more viable markets. In that respect, all
concerned can share the blame, including consumers wanting to have
lower prices than could be achieved locally.

Yes. Yet it's the unions that get the blame - always.

I think that depends on who is doing the reading and writing.



Same with much of the rest of UK
owned industry. Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker? And the now successful car makers in the UK are owned by
those who have a less cavalier attitude to industrial relations - hence
better productivity, quality and industrial relations despite using the
same workers.

A coming to reality of all concerned. It takes two parties (at
least) to have an argument, and the confrontational nature of
employer/union behaviour (for which both are to blame) is responsible
for much of this.

Much of the confrontation in BL was due to the appalling mismanagement.
From the very top downwards. Trying to make poorly production engineered
cars and then blaming the workforce for not building them properly.

Companies of this size have their own cultures and their fiefdoms.

At one stage I can remember almost everybody in Rover wearing grey and
red uniforms as workwear even if they drove a desk.
I don't think that it changed people's outlooks, though.

TBH, I am very surprised that the company lasted as long as it did.

The notion that all of this is a class or political struggle as
promoted strongly by the unions a generation ago - less so today, but
it's still there - really has no place in the business environment at
all.

The class struggle consisted of a few thinking they were the ruling class
and that they could do as they wished. And I'm not talking elected
politicians here.

That comment could be equally applied to mill owners and union
grandees.



It is a cultural change that can make a difference - a realisation on
the part of all concerned in a business that job security does not
come from having internal disputes about who gets what but realising
that it is from the willingness of the customer to buy the product
being sold and the confidence of the investors to continue their
commitment.

--

..andy

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:24:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference?

Lack of all the baggage.

Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad. 'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

That would be moneymaking and in competition, as opposed to
moneymaking and a monopoly. That's what the government does.

In general, the trend is away from these "mutual" organisations
because they served their purpose at the time but life has moved on.
Unions are one example of that, while mutual building societies are
another.


--

..andy

In article ,
Huge wrote:
And legally enforced closed shops only make sense to a true red Old
Labourite.

There are/were plenty ways around a closed shop. The old ACTT operated one
- called an agency shop. If you had objections to belonging to a union you
simply paid the same dues to a recognised charity of your choice. And at
least the possession of a union ticket said you were competent in that
grade. Nowadays anyone is allowed to 'operate' a camera, etc, and it don't
'alf show...

But perhaps you'd be happy being operated on by an unqualified doctor - or
taking advice from an unqualified solicitor, etc? What are those but
closed shops in all but name?

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Much of the confrontation in BL was due to the appalling mismanagement.
From the very top downwards. Trying to make poorly production engineered
cars and then blaming the workforce for not building them properly.

That's not the whole story. There was also no investment money available
because as a State owned enterprise, that money counted against the PSBR.
So, the Government, the management *and* the unions were all culpable.

The rot started long before it was nationalised. That's *why* it was
nationalised. Would have made more sense to let it fail then and there.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Much of the confrontation in BL was due to the appalling mismanagement.
From the very top downwards. Trying to make poorly production engineered
cars and then blaming the workforce for not building them properly.


No argument there. They were state ('publicly') owned and at the very
top was the PM of the day. Whelk stalls, anyone?

In article ,
Huge wrote:
There are/were plenty ways around a closed shop.

So that makes them OK, does it?

The old ACTT operated one - called an agency shop. If you had
objections to belonging to a union you simply paid the same dues to a
recognised charity of your choice.

Oh, wow! I can still pay the money and get none of the benefits? Excuse
me while I laugh until I puke.

Err, you get the benefits of the wages and conditions negotiated between
union and employer - same as everyone else. Of course I forgot you don't
believe in taxation either but reckon you can make your own way in
everything.

And at least the possession of a union ticket said you were competent
in that grade.

What on Earth is a trades union doing operating an examination system?

And why not? In the present day some trades unions are the only ones
arranging any training - many firms just rely on poaching trained staff
from others.

But perhaps you'd be happy being operated on by an unqualified doctor

Better that than a strawman.

- or taking advice from an unqualified solicitor, etc? What are those
but closed shops in all but name?

What on Earth have trades associations got to do with professional
competency?

In theory members have to be competent before being allowed to join? Same
as closed shops - trainees aren't full members.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker?

Are you sure about this? IIRC the City owns 40% of US industrial
companies and doubtless quite a bit of the remainder of the worlds
capital based industries. The fact that a UK based operation has failed
is not really relevant to UK plc, when the income stream from the City
has exactly the same effect.

Regards
Capitol

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Anyone reading the history of BL and its succeeders
would have no difficulty realising this. There were no industrial
relations problems when BMW took over, but even they soon realised the
magnitude of the task to modernise an industry so lacking in investment
for decades was totally beyond them.

Your facts are incorrect. There was massive injection of taxpayers
money into BL in the 80's. Their problem was that they were incapable of
designing a product which could be made to sell at a profit, in spite of
having all the latest production and cad systems.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned mass car
maker?

Are you sure about this? IIRC the City owns 40% of US industrial
companies and doubtless quite a bit of the remainder of the worlds
capital based industries.

This is a worry given that most of the US car makers are in deep do-do too.

--
*I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Anyone reading the history of BL and its succeeders would have no
difficulty realising this. There were no industrial relations problems
when BMW took over, but even they soon realised the magnitude of the
task to modernise an industry so lacking in investment for decades was
totally beyond them.

Your facts are incorrect. There was massive injection of taxpayers
money into BL in the 80's. Their problem was that they were incapable of
designing a product which could be made to sell at a profit, in spite of
having all the latest production and cad systems.

This isn't so - most of the models were sold at a profit. The Mini was the
main example of the one which didn't until near the end of its life.

There may well have been a massive injection of taxpayer's money, but it
wasn't massive enough - none of the models were sufficiently developed to
be reliable from the off. Nor were they well production engineered as
there were far too many assembly problems. And that's before they started
rusting through poor paint and lack of wax injection.

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference? Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad. 'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

...or an idiot.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference? Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad.

You got that bit right.

'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

And legally enforced closed shops only make sense to a true red Old
Labourite.

Closed shops? Accountancy, medical and law come to mid.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:24:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference?

Lack of all the baggage.

Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad. 'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

That would be moneymaking and in competition, as opposed to
moneymaking and a monopoly.

Like the private monopolies created by Thatcher you mean?

"David" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I used the expression "track record" as an indicator that they did
not, in the past behave in an apolitical manner or one without a
number of other agendas.

Fortunately, most of this activity is now illegal, as you say.
However, were it not, I wonder how long it would be before there was a
return to the bad old days.

I wonder how long it would take employers to return to the bad old days
without laws to control them *and* unions to monitor them? Actually I
don't
wonder, I know. About 10 seconds.

There are lots of companies that run very well without any interference
from unions so your 10 second claim is a nonsense also given a
slackening of laws governing union activity it would take about 10
seconds for them to return to the bad old days, the reds are still under
the beds just waiting for the revolution.

Bertie, you are madman.

You have more faith in union activity than I have but that doesn't mean
you're right,

Bertie, he is right.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
Did you stand for office to sort out the union you belonged to but didn't
like the way it operated? Attended *all* union meetings - not just the
summoned ones?

No, I didn't stand for office but have been active outside of unions all
my working life, I refuse to be part of a block vote (if you discount
political elections) I never attended the smaller meetings because I
didn't want to be part of something I didn't like the look of so it was
the mass meetings I had direct experience of.

Right. So basically you just don't like unions or the idea of them. Best
to just state that rather than embellishing things.

The fact that I don't like unions should have been obvious from my
posts, sorry to have not stated the obvious, I believe in union type
activity but not in the festering stinking mess that unions became

Do you have trouble believing that there was militant union activity in
the car industry? do you not believe that union "stewards" are capable
of bullying, cajoling, intimidating members who don't offer their full
support (the recent removal of the elderly chap at the Labour Conference
is a mild throwback to the old days)

Yes I do have trouble believing it. And certainly just don't believe the
press on how widespread it was. Or the Tory party. Thatcher brought in
secret ballots thinking it would make industrial action far less likely -
and she was proved totally wrong. Which means bullying - if any - made
absolutely no difference.

How widespread it was, I don't know, I am talking about my own
experience which is what most of us base our opinions on, I have
experience of one particular car plant.

You are missing the point here, either deliberately or ignorantly,
secret balloting wouldn't have made any difference as its the majority
who would have voted the same way secret or otherwise, its not the
majority that were bullied.

I have trouble believing that you have no knowledge of any union
militant activity unless you mean only direct knowledge, its possible
that the unions you have belonged to do not a have a militant history in
which case you can only judge on the experiences of others.

It sounds like you have had a good recent experience of union
involvement, good for you, not all unions are as good and it wasn't
always like that.

I've been a union member since the early '60s. Three unions (at different
times) Been to TUC. Talked to many from other unions too. You?

Apart from the dallying in my early days I have never been in a union,
again my early experience made me want to stay out of one.
--
David

"David" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
through a haze of senile flatulence writes
In article ,
David wrote:
Did you stand for office to sort out the union you belonged to but
didn't
like the way it operated? Attended *all* union meetings - not just the
summoned ones?

No, I didn't stand for office but have been active outside of unions all
my working life, I refuse to be part of a block vote (if you discount
political elections) I never attended the smaller meetings because I
didn't want to be part of something I didn't like the look of so it was
the mass meetings I had direct experience of.

Right. So basically you just don't like unions or the idea of them. Best
to just state that rather than embellishing things.

The fact that I don't like unions should have been obvious from my
posts,

Bertie, when hear that I always think, how naive.