Do you support the RMT?

[halfmist]

Without wishing to patronise you with a history lesson, I'd say the following.
It is undeniable that trade unions have seen falling membership in not just the UK but across most advanced economies in the last 25 years though this isn't as true in the public sector. In part, this is attributable to a decline in large-scale manufacturing since the Thatcher administration. More significant, however, is the fact that employers have been far less likely to recognise unions - particularly in relation to collective bargaining - since the introduction of legislation by various conservative governments intended to constrain and frustrate trade union activities. Between 1980 and 1993, there were six Acts of Parliament which increasingly restricted unions' ability to undertake lawful industrial action. Employers suddenly found they could gain injunctions from the High Court to stop unions undertaking strikes if there was even the remotest doubt as to their legality. Legislation also interfered with the running of unions' internal affairs by compelling certain forms of election for executive committees and general secretaries, irrespective of the traditions of individual unions. We'll, you did ask.
Notwithstanding this, TU membership has seen a year on year rise recently with in excess of 200,000 new members since 2017. I've no idea what sources you're using but you may find the following extract taken from a government study published in May 2021 interesting.
UK trade union membership levels among employees have risen in each of the past four years (by 17,000 in 2017, 103,000 in 2018, 91,000 in 2019 and 118,000 in 2020) to reach 6.56 million in 2020. Employee membership levels have therefore fully recovered from the large drop of 267,000 in the year to 2016 when membership levels among employees fell to a record low of 6.23 million.

I wondered when Thatcher would get a mention on this thread.
I have not spent all day researching numbers , it was one of the academics on the radio that I was quoting from
He has gone for a 6% settlement so time will tell.
Now I am all for a level playing field.
If the workers want to withdraw their labour so be it.
What about this.
The Unions always leave a gap between strike days.
This is obviously not done to benefit those affected by the strikes, God forbid, that their needs should be taken it to account.
Fair doo’s, but to ensure a level playing field and obviously tax payers money do you think it would be fair to lay off :-
a) all workers who work in the industry on strike days rather than leave them to do nothing fully paid when a service cannot be provided and :-
b) on the none strike days RMT I assume just turn up for work but as no trains can run, rather than just leave them to just sit around all day and get paid for doing nothing lay them off as a service cannot be provided.
Just think it may lead to quicker conclusions and a bit of pressure from their colleagues who are unpaid because of their actions.
May just give them a bit of an insight as to how their customers feel with the inconvenience.

 

[halfmist]

They are greedy bastards. Selfish vermin. They have had a good run, it’s time we went after them. It’s time the people demanded it. It’s not as if the cunts will be living on pot noodles and beans. They might need to cut down on buying super yachts with helipads, the poor bastards. How with they cope?

Who are “the people”.
According to some on here the majority of the population are too thick to make logical decisions at voting time so who are you taking with you on your conquest.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

I’ll go with him.

 

[west didsblue]

I wondered when Thatcher would get a mention on this thread.
I have not spent all day researching numbers , it was one of the academics on the radio that I was quoting from
He has gone for a 6% settlement so time will tell.
Now I am all for a level playing field.
If the workers want to withdraw their labour so be it.
What about this.
The Unions always leave a gap between strike days.
This is obviously not done to benefit those affected by the strikes, God forbid, that their needs should be taken it to account.
Fair doo’s, but to ensure a level playing field and obviously tax payers money do you think it would be fair to lay off :-
a) all workers who work in the industry on strike days rather than leave them to do nothing fully paid when a service cannot be provided and :-
b) on the none strike days RMT I assume just turn up for work but as no trains can run, rather than just leave them to just sit around all day and get paid for doing nothing lay them off as a service cannot be provided.
Just think it may lead to quicker conclusions and a bit of pressure from their colleagues who are unpaid because of their actions.
May just give them a bit of an insight as to how their customers feel with the inconvenience.

So you were wondering when Thatcher would get a mention after asking about the decline in union membership since the 1970s.

It's like wondering if Geoff Hurst would get a mention after asking about the 1966 world cup.

You don't half post some shite.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I wondered when Thatcher would get a mention on this thread.
I have not spent all day researching numbers , it was one of the academics on the radio that I was quoting from
He has gone for a 6% settlement so time will tell.
Now I am all for a level playing field.
If the workers want to withdraw their labour so be it.
What about this.
The Unions always leave a gap between strike days.
This is obviously not done to benefit those affected by the strikes, God forbid, that their needs should be taken it to account.
Fair doo’s, but to ensure a level playing field and obviously tax payers money do you think it would be fair to lay off :-
a) all workers who work in the industry on strike days rather than leave them to do nothing fully paid when a service cannot be provided and :-
b) on the none strike days RMT I assume just turn up for work but as no trains can run, rather than just leave them to just sit around all day and get paid for doing nothing lay them off as a service cannot be provided.
Just think it may lead to quicker conclusions and a bit of pressure from their colleagues who are unpaid because of their actions.
May just give them a bit of an insight as to how their customers feel with the inconvenience.

Yep. He has lost it. The kind of shit that only right wing nutters come out with.

 

[meltonblue]

Tax evasion isn’t as much a problem as people think … same with benefit fraud. Eradicating them won’t make a shit of difference in the overall scheme of things…but it plays to the audience so politicians on either side of the spectrum aren’t fussed about the actual facts of it all.

Since IR35 I pay about 52% of my income in tax as I am treated as both an employee and employer (probably a bit more since the NI hike). Don’t get sick pay or holiday pay, have no job security or benefits. 50% is about fair I’d say, so I’m content with what I currently pay.

No I agree, but I’m sure evasion accounts for more than avoidance, that’s all I was checking.

 

[Postman Pep]

Not sure if already shared and couldn't be arsed peering through the half mist.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Not sure if already shared and couldn't be arsed peering through the half mist.

there is a reason why people have warmed to him. He knows what he is doing, he knows his brief and he gets to the point. Furthermore be believes in what he is doing and most importantly can come back at you with a straight answer not ummmm and ahhhhh all over the shop because he isn't desperately trying not to trip up over previous lies and bullshit he may have said because unlike others he hasn't been telling lies

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[metalblue]

It looks like the Tories are blocking any of us reaching a solution.

*shakes head*

They are like back seat drivers mate.