In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail etc
thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the country'. Ie,
those in charge.

--
*I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.*

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

On 06/05/2017 16:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail etc
thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the country'. Ie,
those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs
doesn't work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.
They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 06/05/2017 16:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade
Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail etc
thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the country'. Ie,
those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs doesn't
work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.
They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

Dave means they are there to protect their jobs.

Roger Hayter wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
critcher wrote

like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

The 1970s entailed the Labour Party
making the first moves at globalisation

That had nothing to do with any political party,
it happened regardless of any political party.

And had been going on since LONG before Labour had even
been invented anyway. That’s what the empire was about.

and lowering real wages.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
That wasn’t what the 70s were about.

And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this.

Not blaming anyone, pointing out
that that was what they were doing.

Rather successfully, it seems, but that
does not make it the unions' fault.

Corse the strikes and that sort of insanity was.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 06/05/2017 12:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2017 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

True. You flood the country with immigrants willing to to virtually any
job under any conditions. Change from staff jobs to so called self
employment. Zero hours contracts, etc. That is the easy way to keep the
workforce in their place.


The employment rules stop that most of the time.

Employment rules only really apply to the employed. Hence all these self
employed doing jobs once done by staff. And the taxman losing out heavily
from those now not on PAYE, who would have been in older times.

The laws apply to "self employed" too.

Not on the question of what they end up remuneration wise it doesnt.

Its really only sole traders that can avoid the laws.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Partnerships can do anything a sole trader can do laws wise.

Most of them want to avoid the laws.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs.

But most of the time they sink the entire
industry so all the jobs are gone.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail
etc thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the
country'. Ie, those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs
doesn't work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.

Care to give an example?

They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

Tee-hee. Are you trying to say there would still be coal mines in the UK
if Scargill had never existed?

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

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

On 07/05/2017 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail
etc thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the
country'. Ie, those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs
doesn't work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.

Care to give an example?

They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

Tee-hee. Are you trying to say there would still be coal mines in the UK
if Scargill had never existed?


There would have been more chance than with him.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 07/05/2017 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail
etc thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the
country'. Ie, those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs
doesn't work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.

Care to give an example?

They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

Tee-hee. Are you trying to say there would still be coal mines in the UK
if Scargill had never existed?


There would have been more chance than with him.

Don't be so silly. Coal could be imported far more cheaply than mined in
the UK. Which is exactly what happened.

--
*IS THERE ANOTHER WORD FOR SYNONYM?

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

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
No safety ropes, no kick boards nothing and there they were pointing at
the apex down. It made me cringe to just watch them.

That will give the Brexiteers hope. Once we leave the EU and get rid of
all that silly H&S legislation, such things will be the norm.

(I haven't read the rest of this thread which degenerated into yet
another brexit-fest at article _two_ I believe!)

However: ITYF that most of the EU H&S regulations (like much of the
rest of EU legislation) was lifted from British standards, regulations
and recommendations.

The problem with H&S regulations is the person who is charged with
interpreting them.

The problem with interpreting them stems from the likelihood of the firm
(or even the delegated Safety Officer) concerned being sued for damages.

The problem with damages cases is the legal profession, who are always
on the hunt for "blame claims".

And the problem with the legal profession, in this area, is the
judiciary, who consistently make extravagant judgements in favour of
chancers, instead of throwing such claims out of court [or at least:
awarding token damages], and reprimanding the plaintiff, and the legal
firm that brought the case.

The last-mentioned is the main reason why all our insurance goes up so
drastically every year: judges, who encourage chancers.


For a bit more about "H&S" as people so often carelessly love to
disparage it, see http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

John

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/05/2017 19:47, critcher wrote:
On 02/05/2017 21:10, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy


I was in them

In that case you'll recall how industrial relations got so bad that we
had rubbish piling up in the streets, soldiers driving fire engines, and
the three day week.

Compared with that, even bearing in mind the SR thing, we have no real
problems.

Several sources point to tens of millions of work days being lost to
strikes in the 70s, compared to hundreds of thousands now.

True. You flood the country with immigrants willing to to virtually any
job under any conditions.
So you know support control of immigration, the opposite of Labour who
had/have a deliberate policy of encouraging it because they thought that
most would ultimately vote Labour.
Change from staff jobs to so called self
employment. Zero hours contracts, etc. That is the easy way to keep the
workforce in their place.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2017 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

True. You flood the country with immigrants willing to to virtually any
job under any conditions. Change from staff jobs to so called self
employment. Zero hours contracts, etc. That is the easy way to keep the
workforce in their place.


The employment rules stop that most of the time.

Employment rules only really apply to the employed. Hence all these self
employed doing jobs once done by staff. And the taxman losing out heavily
from those now not on PAYE, who would have been in older times.
Interesting that Labour opposed the Chancellors attempt to increase NI
for the better paid self-employed to fund their increased state
pensions.


Its only the racists that exploit the illegal immigrants that make them
work below the legal levels.

Plenty UK born seem to prefer living off benefits than working for a
minimum wage. And you don't have to be a racist to exploit workers. Just
the average capitalist. ;-)
How do you exploit workers who aren't working but living off benefits?


--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!
You don't remember the 1970s do you.
Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

They regard it as their prime responsibility.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

On 02/05/2017 19:18, critcher wrote:
like we don't have strikes now !!!

You don't remember the 1970s do you.

Andy
The 1970s entailed the Labour Party making the first moves at
globalisation and lowering real wages. And then blaming the Trade Union
movement for trying to resist this. Rather successfully, it seems, but
that does not make it the unions' fault.

The unions have always been keen on trying to have employers retain
jobs that don't exist any more.

It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs.
Then someone else, e.g. government has to make sure their power is not
abused.
Much as the Mail etc
thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the country'. Ie,
those in charge.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect member's jobs. Much as the Mail
etc thinks they should be doing things 'for the benefit of the
country'. Ie, those in charge.


Someone needs to explain to them that protecting their members jobs
doesn't work when you drive the company to bankruptcy.

Care to give an example?

They should have worked out by now that they can't try to overthrow the
government and protect jobs like Scargill thought he could.

Tee-hee. Are you trying to say there would still be coal mines in the UK
if Scargill had never existed?

The closure would have been much more orderly, as it had been
pre-Scargill.
--
bert

In message
Another John wrote:


[snip]

However: ITYF that most of the EU H&S regulations (like much of the
rest of EU legislation) was lifted from British standards, regulations
and recommendations.

The problem with H&S regulations is the person who is charged with
interpreting them.

[snip]

BS7036, which covers automatic doors, was written by a NHS 'Safety
Officer'. Mostly arse-covering bollox. The Automatic Door Suppliers
Association jumped on it as an excuse to implement a 'Gas Safe' exercise
in regulating approved installers.

--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not torment the emotionally frail

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect members' jobs.

Should this still be the case when those jobs no longer exist? As in
the UK coal industry? Or pipes, given that no-one smokes pipes any
more?

Perhaps you could explain just how a union protects a job that no longer
exists? Or have you been reading the Mail again?

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect members' jobs.

Should this still be the case when those jobs no longer exist? As in
the UK coal industry? Or pipes, given that no-one smokes pipes any
more?

Perhaps you could explain just how a union protects a job that no longer
exists? Or have you been reading the Mail again?

The recent strikes over driver operated doors.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It is the job of a union to protect members' jobs.

Should this still be the case when those jobs no longer exist? As in
the UK coal industry? Or pipes, given that no-one smokes pipes any
more?

Perhaps you could explain just how a union protects a job that no longer
exists? Or have you been reading the Mail again?

You should really see the quack about your short-term memory: I don't
read the Mail.

Sorry. So which other of the gutter press is responsible for your nonsense?

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

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