Do you support the RMT?

[bluethrunthru]

 

[halfmist]

Nurses do something that benefits everyday and they don't even get free car parking at work FFS. The pay doesn't reflect the back breaking work.

Why quote just “nurses”, shouldn’t use emotive words to make your point on this thread so I was told anyway.

 

[halfmist]

With all due respect, your objections to the RMT industrial action appear to be informed by an extremely simplistic and naive world view. You might wish to bow and scrape like some latter-day serf in gratitude for a few crumbs from the master's table. However, with an 89% mandate for strike action, clearly, the rail workers do not.
Before embarking on a Daily Mail inspired union-bashing rant, you might wish to consider what the labour movement has achieved in the last 100 years. Do you really believe that concessions such as a minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights, pension provision, holiday and sickness entitlements and safe working conditions have been freely given by employers? No, they've all had to be fought for and won as a consequence of trade union action.
You're free, of course, to express a view that this dispute is exclusively about pay. However, like the right-wing press, you'd be wrong. With a little effort, it's possible to find plenty of information concerning a much broader set of grievances such as plans to close practically all ticket offices by 2015 as part of a total restructure of station staffing which will result in the loss of almost 1,000 jobs and a significant compromise in safety standards for passengers and employees.
On the issue of Mick Lynch, I certainly don't agree with him on all matters (Brexit being an obvious example) but you'd have to be an imbecile not to acknowledge that he has, thus far, dealt with all-comers in the media very effectively. Admittedly, that job was made easier this week by the likes of Piers Moron who spent around three minutes inferring that Lynch was some kind of master criminal bent on world domination simply because his Twitter image is that of the Hood from Thunderbirds!
So, if you're content to view this dispute through Tory blue coloured spectacles, fill your boots mate.

Can I ask you therefore, if they are are so good why has there been a 70 % decline in Union membership since the 1970’s

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[halfmist]

You are either very naive or playing devil's advocate.
Just one example

Amazon UK outfit pays less than £4m more corporation tax despite £1.9bn sales rise

Amazon’s UK outfit paid just £18.3m in corporation tax in 2020 as company revenues skyrocketed to more than £20bn

www.google.com

How about the 85000 jobs Amazon have created in the U.K. in the last 5 years all subject to the various employment taxes PAYE etc
That has been conveniently omitted from your post.

 

[Scottyboi]

You're talking shite that's why, typical wum who knows someone abusing food banks course you do haha dickhead.

 

[Elbow beards]

How about the 85000 jobs Amazon have created in the U.K. in the last 5 years all subject to the various employment taxes PAYE etc
That has been conveniently omitted from your post.

You've asked me to provide you proof of tax avoidance. I just did. Your whataboutary is on a different level.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

How about the 85000 jobs Amazon have created in the U.K. in the last 5 years all subject to the various employment taxes PAYE etc
That has been conveniently omitted from your post.

I always find it interesting when people think that big companies, particularly retail companies, create jobs. If anything, they redistribute jobs. People will either spend their money on Amazon or at some other retailer. Amazon existing doesn't mean people suddenly have more money to spend, it just changes where they spend it. Either way, staff will be needed to fulfil the order. There's a reason that high streets up and down the country are failing in the face of online shopping, and it's because contrary to their own propaganda, big companies don't create jobs, people spending money on goods and services create jobs.

So if you're going to credit Amazon for "creating" 85,000 jobs, you're going to have to also credit them for removing a similar number of jobs in companies where people also paid their income tax. But in those companies more of the profits were taxed too.

 

[blue for life]

I always find it interesting when people think that big companies, particularly retail companies, create jobs. If anything, they redistribute jobs. People will either spend their money on Amazon or at some other retailer. Amazon existing doesn't mean people suddenly have more money to spend, it just changes where they spend it. Either way, staff will be needed to fulfil the order. There's a reason that high streets up and down the country are failing in a face of online shopping, and it's because contrary to their own propaganda, big companies don't create jobs, people spending money on goods and services create jobs.

So if you're going to credit Amazon for "creating" 85,000 jobs, you're going to have to also credit them for removing a similar number of jobs in companies where people also paid their income tax. But in those companies more of the profits were taxed too.

Correct! On line shopping having a huge negative effect on the high street just like big supermarkets on local traders. How many greengrocers are there these days?

 

[Mike D]

Now that Mick Lynch has become something of a celebrity taring arseholes with every media interview. Could the political parties have bitten off more than they can chew here? The media have certainly under estimated Mick and how he handled all this.

Johnson went all in on this hoping to set an elephant trap for Starmer and failed. Whilst Starmer in avoiding the elephant trap could have shot himself in the foot. Have to say that this is not playing out as expected.