The evil of the unions: remember those absurd mimes on TOTP?

On 01/03/2013 23:36, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:09:05 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

I was employed for 35 weeks. That was it. I was made to join a union. I
was so glad when I became self-employed and thus represented myself,
instead of having some useless union gob****e to pretend to do it.

If it wasn't for those 'useless gob****es' you'd still be hacking coal
out of a two-foot thick seam you ignorant yob.


If it wasn't for those useless gob****es and their control of
restrictive practices Britain may have more of a manufacturing industry.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:14:02 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

So you see, the unions were not responsible for me being able to avoid a
life spent on my side hewing a narrow seam. It was sheer talent that got
my family out of the mines. That's the thing the unions don't like. They
want everyone to be held down to the level of the slowest, thickest,
most idle worker. They don't understand about talent or dedication or
hard work. I don't blame the unions for supporting the halt and the lame
and the thick, but I object to them promoting the interests of the bone
idle at the expense of those who are prepared to work hard.

That's the biggest load of bull**** I've ever read and by ****, that's
something coming from you.

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:35:05 +0000, alan
wrote:

If it wasn't for those 'useless gob****es' you'd still be hacking coal
out of a two-foot thick seam you ignorant yob.


If it wasn't for those useless gob****es and their control of
restrictive practices Britain may have more of a manufacturing industry.

Oh aye, nothing to do with useless gob****es on the office and
governmental side, then?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

That's the biggest load of bull**** I've ever read and by ****, that's
something coming from you.
That isn't a contrary argument. It's just meaningless abuse.

Bill

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:46:57 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 02:14:02 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

So you see, the unions were not responsible for me being able to avoid a
life spent on my side hewing a narrow seam. It was sheer talent that got
my family out of the mines. That's the thing the unions don't like. They
want everyone to be held down to the level of the slowest, thickest,
most idle worker. They don't understand about talent or dedication or
hard work. I don't blame the unions for supporting the halt and the lame
and the thick, but I object to them promoting the interests of the bone
idle at the expense of those who are prepared to work hard.

That's the biggest load of bull**** I've ever read and by ****, that's
something coming from you.

I must congratulate you on your choice of posting name. It is
certainly most apposite,

alan wrote:

On 01/03/2013 21:15, CD wrote:

The point I was trying to make was the underhand tactics/lies to
get you to join the union. Why not try to sell it to us explaining
the benefits?

In my place of work, where 95%+ are not union members, the union
representatives distribute union joining forms. Along with a
description of all the benefits of being a member there is a direct
debit mandate to pay for the service. Nowhere do they state the
actual amount to be paid. Do they really expect people to sign a
blank cheque?

If I remember correctly some union dues were based on your salary so
they couldn't give a figure on the form.

--

On 02/03/2013 19:48, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 17:35:05 +0000, alan
wrote:

If it wasn't for those 'useless gob****es' you'd still be hacking coal
out of a two-foot thick seam you ignorant yob.


If it wasn't for those useless gob****es and their control of
restrictive practices Britain may have more of a manufacturing industry.

Oh aye, nothing to do with useless gob****es on the office and
governmental side, then?


Perhaps it's a good move that the unions wreaked the chances of Britain
having a manufacturing capacity of note, for if the wicked management
were to continue in their ways, we'd have the working conditions of
Chinese workers. Foxconn anyone?

Pass me the spade, I think there is coal deep in my back garden...

--
Adrian C

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 13:40:38 -0600, "Ashley Booth"
wrote:


In my place of work, where 95%+ are not union members, the union
representatives distribute union joining forms. Along with a
description of all the benefits of being a member there is a direct
debit mandate to pay for the service. Nowhere do they state the
actual amount to be paid. Do they really expect people to sign a
blank cheque?

If I remember correctly some union dues were based on your salary so
they couldn't give a figure on the form.

That's true, and if you want to know what your own subscription would
be, you should only have to ask your local representative, who will be
somebody you know in your own workplace, quite possibly the same
person who handed you the form.

Rod.

In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
If I remember correctly some union dues were based on your salary so
they couldn't give a figure on the form.

Usually a percentage, but often with a cap at the upper end.

Obviously, the actual cost of union membership is pretty uniform
regardless of salary, so just a way of the better paid subsidising the
costs of the lowest paid.

IMHO, most of those who object to union membership - often quoting
'principle' - simply are too mean to pay the subscription, while happily
accepting any benefits the union may negotiate. Give them the choice of
not belonging to the union but paying the equivalent to a recognised
charity, and those 'principles' miraculously disappear.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

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

On 04/03/2013 11:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ashley Booth wrote:
If I remember correctly some union dues were based on your salary so
they couldn't give a figure on the form.

Usually a percentage, but often with a cap at the upper end.

Obviously, the actual cost of union membership is pretty uniform
regardless of salary, so just a way of the better paid subsidising the
costs of the lowest paid.

IMHO, most of those who object to union membership - often quoting
'principle' - simply are too mean to pay the subscription, while happily
accepting any benefits the union may negotiate. Give them the choice of
not belonging to the union but paying the equivalent to a recognised
charity, and those 'principles' miraculously disappear.




personally i've always thought there should be a specific law saying
that unions must be politically unbiased.
trade union members vote for every party under the sun, yet the unions
are all labour lovers and openly expect to influence government policy -
and yet complain that companies that donate to other parties are trying
to do the same.
they should try to be proper worker representing unions instead and keep
their nose out of politics.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.