Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

You will not allow them on the premises because they are irrelevant. But if they are irrelevant why discourage them?

Discourage isn't the word. Completely ignore, eschew and reject such that they cease to exist may perhaps cover it. I want nothing to do with unions or the type of people that join them.

If someone wants to spunk some money on enriching some union boss, well more the fool them. I try and weed out fools at interview time so despite 30 years of managing very skilled engineers this hasn't happened yet.

if people want unions to represent them

Then go and get a deadend job elsewhere rather than embarking on a demanding career.

BobQ

gadgetmind wrote: »

Discourage isn't the word. Completely ignore, eschew and reject such that they cease to exist may perhaps cover it. I want nothing to do with unions or the type of people that join them.

If someone wants to spunk some money on enriching some union boss, well more the fool them. I try and weed out fools at interview time so despite 30 years of managing very skilled engineers this hasn't happened yet.



Then go and get a deadend job elsewhere rather than embarking on a demanding career.

I note your rejection of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

How many people do you employ?

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

I note your rejection of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I note your putting words into my mouth.

How many people do you employ?

Many dozens across four continents. To my knowledge, none are in a union. That some have a right to join one is fine, but if anyone did, I would ignore said union to the absolute limit that the law allows.

And yes, we do employ more than 21 people, and no the unions won't be able to get 10% membership (0.1% if that!) so statutory recognition will never happen.

If I ever did find myself having no alternatives other than work with some union or resign, then I would resign. Hmmm, maybe I could argue constructive dismissal?

Mistermeaner

Our next prime minster people. 1980 will be a great year for coal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-36750069

[Deleted User]

The situation for the Labour Party is really quite sad.

My mother and father were Labour Party voters; although I was very young at the time, IIRIC my father was an office holder in the local branch of the Fabian Society. I know very little about what the Society did, but the wikipedia entry says -

"The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of Democratic Socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow."

That last part will be why the lefties aren't too keen on it, I suppose.

Thinking about the current "Crisis? What crisis?" attitude of the Corbyn brigade led me to conclude that there is another example of a society dominated by a personality cult, where loyalty to the party is not simply hoped for, or worked for, or even encouraged - no, it's actually demanded. (Sound familiar? Well, not in all respects. Interesting that the Corbyn supporters are demanding a level of loyalty to "the Party" that Corbyn himself was unable to deliver in his own voting recored. Ah! The joys of double standards!)

Do the Corbyn supporters expect Corbyn to be replaced as leader by one of his sons, as was the case in their role model in North Korea? As I understand it, he has three sons; surely one of them is being groomed for the succession?

The delusional cult of the personality surrounding Corbyn is really quite worrying. I have no idea what Eagle's chances are in a leadership contest, or even if Corbyn will be allowed to stand, but maybe with her, Labour might have a chance; with Corbyn in charge, they have no chance at all. We keep on hearing about the new members who are joining the party. It will be interesting to see what the numbers of long standing members failing to renew membership will be like . There will be folk all over the country who have been Labour Party members for years who think Corbyn is an eejit (unless the delusional Corbyn fans think it's only some disloyal MPs who think that!) and won't be members much longer. Thousands "in", but how many "out"? Still if the Labour Party splits, as I think it will, for the lefties it will all have been worth it ...... a long awaited party of ideological purity! No chance of power, of course, but so, so pure. :j

All IMO, of course. I don't claim infallibility, but it probably won't be long before the brothers and sisters are claiming at attribute for their very own Dear Leader :rotfl:

Prime Minister? I wouldn't send Corbyn for a loaf.

WR

Mistermeaner

The pandering to the mining union is truly pathetic.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

we can wait until Moby reports back from his discussion with Corbyn

you could of course provide a creditble source where Corbyn explicitly condemns the IRA
or repremands McDonnell for disgraceful



http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/what-did-jeremy-corbyn-s-new-shadow-chancellor-really-say-about-ira



and

Still waiting Clapton. You are the accuser ..............where is the evidence. Or are you just a troll?

Moby

gadgetmind wrote: »

I note your putting words into my mouth.

Many dozens across four continents. To my knowledge, none are in a union. That some have a right to join one is fine, but if anyone did, I would ignore said union to the absolute limit that the law allows.

And yes, we do employ more than 21 people, and no the unions won't be able to get 10% membership (0.1% if that!) so statutory recognition will never happen.

If I ever did find myself having no alternatives other than work with some union or resign, then I would resign. Hmmm, maybe I could argue constructive dismissal?

Your type of views are the reasons unions exist. People like you would still have kids going up chimneys if they could. :rotfl:

Mistermeaner

Moby is corbyns plans for the miners of Durham? Is it to reopen the pits run them at a loss and accept the environmental damage (and keep drax burning coal)?

Increase benefits so the region can be permanently subsidised by productive areas of the uk so the community can sit around doing nothing but talking about the good old days?

Encourage an entrepreneurial society that embraces the realities of globalisation and basic economics and facilities the movement of people and capital to enable market forces to prevail? How many people from that community have moved say to London for example?

Moby

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Moby is corbyns plans for the miners of Durham? Is it to reopen the pits run them at a loss and accept the environmental damage (and keep drax burning coal)?

Increase benefits so the region can be permanently subsidised by productive areas of the uk so the community can sit around doing nothing but talking about the good old days?

Encourage an entrepreneurial society that embraces the realities of globalisation and basic economics and facilities the movement of people and capital to enable market forces to prevail? How many people from that community have moved say to London for example?

No idea mate. I'm not Corbyn's greatest fan. I will say this though the term 'entrepreneurial society' is an overused cliche that offers little by way of dealing with other realities such as poverty, exploitation, discrimination etc. For instance I'd think we'd agree the USA is an entrepreneurial society........do you therefore think if you are black and live in Louisiana, Texas etc you participate in that society in the same way that a white person in New England does? I suppose it could be said as a good entrepreneur you could set yourself up a gun store and make loads of dollars;)