In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
t took a very brave or stupid man to put his hand up in a no vote at
many meetings.

Which meeting were those, dennis? Ones you attended?

BTW, why are you on and on about this? Thatcher changed the law so secret
ballots are now required. Some 25 years ago.

And the number of strikes fell dramatically.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
What annoyed the government is that secret ballots didn't give the
results
the likes of you passionately believed they would. The types who
believed
all industrial action was caused by a few activists which the rest
following like sheep.

Rubbish, why do you think there are less strikes now?

Firms which have survived realise the importance of good industrial
relations. Those that didn't went under. Prime example being the now
largely foreign owned motor industry - with much the same unions
and workforce that was once at loggerheads with the likes of BL.

Bull**** on the workforce when they get to not employ
the most rabid of the union goons in a hirers market.

Vastly less union membership, due to the way many
are employed these days. Contract and freelance.

And those having enough of a clue to make an obscene gesture in
the general direction of any union that attempts to get them to join.

I bet Adam does that.

Result being the vast numbers now on poverty wages.

Like those 'drivers' of trains that are quite capable
of driving themselves who get paid £50 a week eh ?

Or those working in the oil and gas industrys.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...


Yes but this is about union laws and why they are there and why the
unions shouldn't be free to do what they like.

But an employer should be?

Nope, what they can do is even more regulated.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
The vote for action is always a majority of those that voted, not
those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions don't
like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

Like a vote in the House of Commons, then?

Completely different, you need to know how your MP voted, ****wit.

Suppose it is too much to expect you to read before you answer?

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/07/2015 13:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Dennis, why not just be honest for once and come clean that you'd like
to outlaw all industrial action? After all you obviously think you are
management of some sort who's word should be law and workers grateful
for any crumbs from your table.


Stupid comments again.
I have no problem with industrial action if its for a good reason.
H&S would be one example.
Plain greed is not a good reason.

Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

The most recent tube strike.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
The vote for action is always a majority of those that voted, not
those that voted against + those that didn't vote. The unions don't
like the idea that it should be a majority of those involved.

Like a vote in the House of Commons, then?

Completely different, you need to know how your MP voted, ****wit.

Suppose it is too much to expect you to read before you answer?

You're ****ing into the wind with this one, Dave

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

Can't be too hard if there is a need for more legislation.


Give me a recent one that wasn't.

Again I'd need your definition of greed.

Plenty would call just demanding a perfectly reasonable increase 'greed'.
Except when it's them demanding it.

--
*Beware - animal lover - brakes for pussy*

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

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

I don't think the *show of hands* in the jury system is that close to
either a union decision or parliamentary procedure. The jurors have no
interest in the outcome.

Could you explain your logic behind that comment?

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.


--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

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

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd read in
the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

First parliament now the jury system. Where next in your desperate
attempts to avoid accepting that the changes proposed are reasonable and
proportionate.

Just shows your priorities. Foaming at the mouth over strikes, when there
are far more important ills in the country which need sorting.

Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.

Who is "they" in this context?

You'll do.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

But don't let the fact that this legislation didn't have the hoped for
result influence you.

Just another example of knee jerk legislation designed to get applause
from the Tory press.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

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

In article ,
bert wrote:
Trouble is they didn't have the outcome that the legislators were hoping
for.

Yes they did in the short term until the militants found ways to distort
the system again.

Have you thought about seeking help?

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

The most recent tube strike.

Tell us the facts about this greed, then Wodney?

How much extra money are they demanding? Or whatever?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and
assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

First parliament now the jury system. Where next in your desperate
attempts to avoid accepting that the changes proposed are reasonable and
proportionate.

Just shows your priorities. Foaming at the mouth over strikes,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys...

when there are far more important ills in the country which need sorting.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys...

On Friday, 17 July 2015 16:38:54 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 12:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

I think the *show of hands* at a mass meeting was always open to
intimidation and that the Thatcher changes were in the right
direction.

Every time I read this I ask the individual if they would personally
be intimidated into raising their hand if they didn't want to.

That depends on the individual, I know why as in one situation this
happened to me at a meetign where the collge was askign the technical
staff if they wouldn't mind if they didn;t pay us in the 3rd week of the
month but put it back to the last day of the month to save the college
money. I though it a good idea and wanted to vote for it by rasing my
hand and did, but noticed few others doing it so put my hand down before
it got counted. Then a long term union leader explained why this wasn't
the good idea it seemed, and why I shouldn't vote to accept it. So
intimidation can be good or bad.


I'd also ask why they only ever think a decision to take industrial
action would be influenced in this way, rather than not to take action.

That sentance confuses me. When we had a vote for other action it was
typically striking during our lunch hour or before or after our working
hours, which I thought was stupid so only mdid it once. The last two
times I've been on stike I told my manager and I didn't come in so they
stoped me a days pay which is fair. I wasn;t prepared to come in and
stanbd on a picket line trying to convince others to not come to work.

But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action have
been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way the are now.
Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise or not raise your hand for any vote.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

The most recent tube strike.

Tell us the facts about this greed

Easy, goons getting paid £50k to 'drive' trains
that are perfectly capable of driving themselves.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way the
are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise or not
raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily intimidated
by a few militants.

Does this ring true to you, dave?

Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Ok. Give one recent example of a strike where greed was the reason.

The most recent tube strike.

Tell us the facts about this greed

Easy, goons getting paid £50k to 'drive' trains
that are perfectly capable of driving themselves.

You've not explained what the greed is they're on strike for Wodney. Is it
another £10k a year or whatever?

But I do realise the question is far too hard for you.

--
*I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.*

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

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

On 21/07/15 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.

My favourite story is from Fords of Dagenham.

There was an issue with a production line for a new model: it would
require half the factory to remain idle whilst it was fixed.

A brown envelope was slipped to a Union rep, and hey presto, the
workforce walked out over some 'demarcation' issue, Ford didn't pay em,
and the line was fixed whilst they were on strike.

Nowt so stupid as a union man, nowt as venal as a union official.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 21/07/15 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty years...

And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

In your dreams


But don't let the fact that this legislation didn't have the hoped for
result influence you.

Just another example of knee jerk legislation designed to get applause
from the Tory press.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 21/07/15 11:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Have you thought about seeking help?


Have you?

Mind you, being a dinosaur is generally terminal.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.

My favourite story is from Fords of Dagenham.

There was an issue with a production line for a new model: it would
require half the factory to remain idle whilst it was fixed.

A brown envelope was slipped to a Union rep, and hey presto, the
workforce walked out over some 'demarcation' issue, Ford didn't pay em,
and the line was fixed whilst they were on strike.

Nowt so stupid as a union man, nowt as venal as a union official.

The other Ford story was management decided to increase production simply
by speeding up the assembly lines. Which resulted in a decrease in
prodcution, as the speed had already been set to as fast as possible.

Nowt as stupid as some suits.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
bert wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty
years...

And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

By the end of the 70s everyone did.

Interesting trait, speaking for others. As it is very obviously a lie.

Why d'ye think that shows like the Rag Trade on TV, and films like that
one with Peter Sellers struck a chord in the 50s/60s? Because, like
with Fawlty Towers, everyone recognised that there was a lot of truth
behind the caricature.

First prize for the most fatuous comment to date.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

On 21/07/15 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

damage was permanent. Now manufacturing and mining have moved to cheaper
places in the world.

Welfare means no one will work for far east wages anymore, and that's that.

Globalisation was inevitable, and only Luddite Lefties couldn't see it.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 21/07/2015 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd read in
the press, etc. And believed every word of it.


While you have ignored every other source and based your beliefs on your
very narrow experience.

On 21/07/2015 12:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way the
are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise or not
raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily intimidated
by a few militants.

I bet it would be easy to intimidate you, all they need do is chuck a
few bricks through your house windows, why would a miner care less about
his family than you (probably) do?

Yes there are press reports that say this sort of thing happened but as
you know everything that you don't agree with is a lie.

On 21/07/2015 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?


The present mess is somewhat better than the 70's.
A lot of it is caused by unions getting too much pension commitment from
previous governments as part of hiding what the real public sector pay
was worth. Just in case you didn't know the pensions in the public
sector are worth about a 20% rise making most public sectors much better
paid than most other workers.

On 21/07/15 14:33, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2015 11:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in
the press, etc. And believed every word of it.


While you have ignored every other source and based your beliefs on your
very narrow experience.

very narrow belief system rather. I dont think experience comes into it.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:20:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?

Sorry, are you suggesting they're even vaguely comparable?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and assembly.
So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with industrial
relations.


Strangely enough, I do know how they worked in the car industry. Very
badly is the best description. The union acted to extort as much money
as possible from the management and the management gave in to them to
keep production moving. The management were terrified of the
shareholders and would do anything to avoid a stoppage. BL finally saw
the light and faced down a strike, but the value of the company had been
destroyed by that time, so it went to the wall. AIUI, some of the
workers were re-employed but at lower wages, which have now improved.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In t,
Tim wrote:
In , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In ,
wrote:
Since show-of-hands ballots have been illegal for over thirty
years...

And why were they made illegal? (For the benefit of Dave this is a
rhetorical question)

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

By the end of the 70s everyone did.

Interesting trait, speaking for others. As it is very obviously a lie.

Why d'ye think that shows like the Rag Trade on TV, and films like that
one with Peter Sellers struck a chord in the 50s/60s? Because, like
with Fawlty Towers, everyone recognised that there was a lot of truth
behind the caricature.

First prize for the most fatuous comment to date.

See Drivel is reincarnated!

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?

damage was permanent. Now manufacturing and mining have moved to cheaper
places in the world.

Doesn't quite add up given that the BMW Mini and Jaguar/Land Rover are
made here and very profitable. As well as others. Given they all failed
big time under BL.

Welfare means no one will work for far east wages anymore, and that's
that.

We've had 'welfare' for getting on for 70 years.

Globalisation was inevitable, and only Luddite Lefties couldn't see it.

Right. So nothing whatsoever to do with the unions. Took some time - but
at least we got you there in the end.

--
*My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
By the end of the 70s everyone did.

Interesting trait, speaking for others. As it is very obviously a lie.

Why d'ye think that shows like the Rag Trade on TV, and films like that
one with Peter Sellers struck a chord in the 50s/60s? Because, like
with Fawlty Towers, everyone recognised that there was a lot of truth
behind the caricature.

First prize for the most fatuous comment to date.

Don't be a sap. D'ye think that in the 50s/60s, people were not getting
fed up with unions, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes, picket lines,
flying pickets, closed shops, and possibly other things I have
forgotten?

Some may well have. The same sort who still whinge on about unions, I'd
say.

But that isn't everyone...

Maggie got in because people had had enough. As is often the case in
this country, things have to get very bad before there is enough
political will to improve them. All the things I listed above were
being discussed during the 50s/60s, but if anyone suggested taking
action there was a pursing of lips and remarks like "You'd never get it
through Squire".

And then a few years later, people had had enough of 'Maggie' and her
policies.

It's what tends to happen in the UK. And elsewhere, come to that.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/07/2015 13:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:28:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because Thatcher etc hated unions and what they stood for?

Given the state of the UK economy in the 1970s, who can blame her?

If it was all caused by unions, what accounts for the present mess?
Running out of scapegoats?


The present mess is somewhat better than the 70's.
A lot of it is caused by unions getting too much pension commitment from
previous governments as part of hiding what the real public sector pay
was worth. Just in case you didn't know the pensions in the public
sector are worth about a 20% rise making most public sectors much better
paid than most other workers.

Now let me see. Maggie closed down the mines because they weren't
profitable. All the fault of the unions. More or less the same with much
other heavy industry.

Now you're saying successive governments gave in to public sector demands
for excessive pensions without a murmer?

--
*Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard? *

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

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:03:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
But you do realise secret ballots for any kind of industrial action
have been the law for some 30 years now?

yes and that's why I believe in secret ballots beign done the way the
are now. Because a person can be intimidted either way to raise or not
raise your hand for any vote.

Take the miners. A hard and dangerous job. But they are easily intimidated
by a few militants.

Wouldn't know myself, I've not be a miner.
I remeber this and I would certainly be intimidated by the few or one that did this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2512469.stm



Does this ring true to you, dave?

Does what ring true ?


Would you personally be easy to intimidate by a few when surrounded by
your pals?

That makes little sense if any sense. As it depends on the strenght of your pals too. Not that Hitler being one person could intimidate anyone !

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
The more I read on here, the more I realise very few have much in the
way of actual experience in how unions work.

You certainly don't know how they worked in the motor industry.

Certainly know that BL cut many corners with their car design and
assembly. So not unreasonable to say they did exactly the same with
industrial relations.


Strangely enough, I do know how they worked in the car industry. Very
badly is the best description. The union acted to extort as much money
as possible from the management and the management gave in to them to
keep production moving. The management were terrified of the
shareholders and would do anything to avoid a stoppage. BL finally saw
the light and faced down a strike, but the value of the company had been
destroyed by that time, so it went to the wall. AIUI, some of the
workers were re-employed but at lower wages, which have now improved.

Crikey. And you don't think the crappy design of much of the product
mattered?

I'll give you a clue. The Japanese made their reputation by selling pretty
ordinary cars which were designed to last their service life without
breaking down. Something BL couldn't manage. Most of their products were
sold without the exhaustive testing to produce a reliable design. All
about trying to get the maximum short terms profits for their
shareholders. Easy enough to find out the lack of investment in BL
compared to successful car makers elsewhere.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

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