Unions in La La Land?

lostinrates

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Yes, I've heard this non-argument before and it doesn't hold water.

'Aren't I doing all you little people a favour by hailing a cab and letting you move one place up the bus queue..?'

And then we notice that said taxi just happens to be driven by a bus driver moonlighting as a cabbie and owned by the same people who are [STRIKE]running down[/STRIKE] going to such great pains to run an efficient, publicly-owned bus service in competition with their taxis...

Another example would be that my health condition was suficiently rare to be ''uncurable'' by NHS. Had I not gone private I would not be alive today. I think its right my condition, which was very expensive to treat and at time treatment started it was certainly considered I would be incapable of being a really useful member of society again, should NOT drain the public purse, but I wasn't going to sit around and die where there was an alternative. I could have paid foreign doctors of course, taken the money right out of our economy, and would have done were Harley St not there.

The only person I have ever had conversation about taxis with was a leading left ''thinker'' who was complaining about other left thinkers who were not really socialists any more because they owned BMWs. He, n the other hand, he told me, ''always uses public transport, so Dear, if you'd care to call a cab for us we should be going, yes?''.

wageslave

Strangely enough we were talking about workers rights at work today and the word union wasn't mentioned once. We working class oiks have rather given up on the unions.

In the past year (and I am talking solely about the company I work for although I would be amazed to discover it was unique) final salary pensions have been withdrawn, paid sick leave has been withdrawn, overtime is now paid at time rather than time and a half and staffing levels have been reduced by thirty percent although profits have risen.

Workers rights. Your having a laugh........

StevieJ

wageslave wrote: »

Strangely enough we were talking about workers rights at work today and the word union wasn't mentioned once. We working class oiks have rather given up on the unions.

In the past year (and I am talking solely about the company I work for although I would be amazed to discover it was unique) final salary pensions have been withdrawn, paid sick leave has been withdrawn, overtime is now paid at time rather than time and a half and staffing levels have been reduced by thirty percent although profits have risen.

Workers rights. Your having a laugh........

I cannot help but see the irony of your post.

wageslave

StevieJ wrote: »

I cannot help but see the irony of your post.

I can't.

Elucidate.

That's a lie. The pendulum swings and for the past few years it has been swinging in favour of middle class Daily Mail readers. I think I read somewhere today that 35% of all benefits are paid to those of above average income. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Workers rights have been, and are, being continually eroded.

I can't see that changing any time soon

lostinrates

wageslave wrote: »

I can't.

Elucidate.

I think Stevie is saying had unions been more involved then you might not have suffered those changes.

tomterm8

In terms of the NHS, we do actually have to ration service. There comes a point where you can't pay for everything you want, and at that point there is an argument for the individual having the opportunity to pay for services the state can't afford.

wageslave

lostinrates wrote: »

I think Stevie is saying had unions been more involved then you might not have suffered those changes.

Unions have become toothless lions. Maggie started it and Tony didn't help

Everyone loves to have a go at the underclass but the middle classes are as addicted to the benefit culture as anyone.

They fill in the forms for their child tax credits while applauding the removal of the conditions of employment for minimum wage workers that they consider sacrosanct for themselves.

Then they sneer when someone dares to stand up and say enough.......

lostinrates

wageslave wrote: »

Unions have become toothless lions. Maggie started it and Tony didn't help

Everyone loves to have a go at the underclass but the middle classes are as addicted to the benefit culture as anyone.

They fill in the forms for their child tax credits while applauding the removal of the conditions of employment for minimum wage workers that they consider sacrosanct for themselves.

Then they sneer when someone dares to stand up and say enough.......

I agree with this. Wholeheartedly.

I think he thing is, while it was not good when receiving needed benefits was seen as shameful, it is not good that receiving things you don't need is not!

wageslave

lostinrates wrote: »

I agree with this. Wholeheartedly.

I think he thing is, while it was not good when receiving needed benefits was seen as shameful, it is not good that receiving things you don't need is not!

There's the real problem.

It is no longer seen as shameful to cadge of the state irregardless of your income. How many people on this forum are claiming benefits they don't need? They may well be entitled to them but do they need them? Cast out the mote in your own eye and all that tosh.

But woe betide the poor minimum wage worker who does an Oliver and asks for tuppence more

lostinrates

wageslave wrote: »

There's the real problem.

It is no longer seen as shameful to cadge of the state irregardless of your income. How many people on this forum are claiming benefits they don't need? They may well be entitled to them but do they need them? Cast out the mote in your own eye and all that tosh.

But woe betide the poor minimum wage worker who does an Oliver and asks for tuppence more

Need is a funny thing. On ''normalish'' incomes need seems to be able to grow quite quite quickly to absorb payrises etc. In an atmosphere of entitlement then it seems need is less obvious.

I have received quite vehemnet attacks on this forum for saying I don't know whether or not I could recieve benefit for not being able to hold down a normal job due to my health. I don't need it, so I have never investigated it. To other people the ''need'' might feel different as during at least part of this time DH was not a higher tax payer and we did not own a home....so....where is the line, should I have applied then? (need that shruggy smilie, I miss it.)