Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Don't Kill Bill said:
Since the closed shop was abolished, no one has to join a Trade Union, which begs the question, why do these people choose to join and pay for union membership if they are not represented by them at all? Union members whatever their political allegiance have the same voting rights within a union. It seems clear to me that people want the extra protection of being in a collective for purposes of bargaining over pay and conditions, whether they vote labour or not. They also have their interests served by the political activities of their union in highlighting and campaigning on issues which affect their areas of employment. They might not like it when another union in another area does likewise but that says more about how self interested conservatives are. What kind of hypocrite joins a union to campaign for them but then refutes the practice when others do likewise? Have you ever been in a union Al?
Click to expand...



I have had close contact with a number of unions in my time, which will remain nameless so I don't get myself sued, and I can assure you that it is very much possible for someone to belong to a union without subscribing to any of their political views.

The reality is that most unions do, on occasion, help the people who work in that industry. There will be all kinds of support that is offered to employees. In that sense, the unions do a good job. Now, those unions that understand their place and merely serve the employees that belong to their organisation are the best ones out there.

You do have to accept, however, that there are a lot of Tories that belong to Unite, for example. If you look at the number of people who vote in union elections, it's minimal. It harks back to university union elections. Where I studied, 25,000 were eligible to vote, and about 900 did.

There is clearly a purpose to unions. Of course the majority of people think that they are generally a force for good, because, for the most part, they at least have the potential to be.

But there must come a point where even the most hardcore socialist must be offended at how Bob Crow, Len McLuskey and co operate. They leech from the system and use the good work done by unions as a whole to propagate their own political agendas.
 
alastair said:
The reality is that most unions do, on occasion, help the people who work in that industry. There will be all kinds of support that is offered to employees. In that sense, the unions do a good job. Now, those unions that understand their place and merely serve the employees that belong to their organisation are the best ones out there.
Click to expand...
:lol: Understand their forelock-tugging place. The unions are not workers' associations trying merely to get good conditions for their members, they a driving force of social change and reversing inequality (see first half of the 20th century), which is why they set up the Labour party to achieve these aims (not that the sellouts seem to have much conception of this either).
 
peterstorey said:
:lol: Understand their forelock-tugging place. The unions are not workers' associations trying merely to get good conditions for their members, they a driving force of social change and reversing inequality (see first half of the 20th century), which is why they set up the Labour party to achieve these aims (not that the sellouts seem to have much conception of this either).
Click to expand...


Yes, first half of twentieth century. Latter part of 19th as well.

The world has changed. People are far more aware of their rights now(probably due to unions) meaning that a lot of the worst things about the working conditions of those times have been virtually eradicated.

They used to be a driving force for social change. They're not any more. Now, far too many of the leaders have joined the elites themselves - proper champagne socialists. They pay themselves huge salaries and preach left-wing politics forgetting the irony of it all. Surely you can see that?
 
Anyway, nice of the Tories to bring forward the next housing crash. Get it out of the way early.

fecking lunatics. Even Fraser Nelson let rip on the sheer madness of it today.
 
alastair said:
I have had close contact with a number of unions in my time, which will remain nameless so I don't get myself sued, and I can assure you that it is very much possible for someone to belong to a union without subscribing to any of their political views.

The reality is that most unions do, on occasion, help the people who work in that industry. There will be all kinds of support that is offered to employees. In that sense, the unions do a good job. Now, those unions that understand their place and merely serve the employees that belong to their organisation are the best ones out there.

You do have to accept, however, that there are a lot of Tories that belong to Unite, for example. If you look at the number of people who vote in union elections, it's minimal. It harks back to university union elections. Where I studied, 25,000 were eligible to vote, and about 900 did.

There is clearly a purpose to unions. Of course the majority of people think that they are generally a force for good, because, for the most part, they at least have the potential to be.

But there must come a point where even the most hardcore socialist must be offended at how Bob Crow, Len McLuskey and co operate. They leech from the system and use the good work done by unions as a whole to propagate their own political agendas.
Click to expand...


You keep saying this but so what? I guess they are prepared to sell their political soul and join a union because it pays to, while also bitching and moaning about the unions this and the unions that. I have never heard of any Tory member of any union turning down a pay rise because they disagreed with collective bargaining, they are fecking hypocrites. They don't go to the meetings or vote but they want every penny the unions can get for them come pay day.



Unions are a pressure group and if you think in the era of zero hour contracts and falling living standards they are no longer relevant, then I think you are mistaken.



I take it you aren’t in a union.

 
711 said:
Yes I do care about people who's houses are burning, so I don't think firefighters are justified in striking, so your question is quite an easy one for me really.

I've no problem with striking against private owners or shareholders, it's up to the two sides to find agreement or they both lose out, but I do have a problem with public service workers whose strikes harm the public. In general I look to politicians and organisations to protect the weak and the needy, not harm them. Quixotic maybe, but it's the way I am.

As for the Labour party I agree with you, I support them.
Click to expand...


So do I on occasion but I see no alternative to allowing it to happen where public sector workers are having unacceptable terms forced on them. The fire fighters are being asked to accept the breaking of contract law, a renegotiation of already completed contracted work. It’s a pretty big deal. I guess the pensions issue/pay freezes within the public sector are going to lead to quite a few strikes.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
So do I on occasion but I see no alternative to allowing it to happen where public sector workers are having unacceptable terms forced on them. The fire fighters are being asked to accept the breaking of contract law, a renegotiation of already completed contracted work. It’s a pretty big deal. I guess the pensions issue/pay freezes within the public sector are going to lead to quite a few strikes.
Click to expand...

If contract law is being broken then their recourse should be through the law. The law is either being broken or it isn't. I'm afraid 'unacceptable' is the sort of term that has sadly turned the majority of voters against the unions, with overtones of bullying and refusal to compromise.

Changing the law, and using the law, has been and should be the way forward for unions in the 21st century. The left has won a huge number of battles in so many fields such as health and safety, unfair dismissal, the many forms of anti-discrimination, and more of course. The left can only made a difference in the modern world if it's in power, in parliament; and harming voters and turning voters against them will just rebound on the strikers themselves soon enough.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
You keep saying this but so what? I guess they are prepared to sell their political soul and join a union because it pays to, while also bitching and moaning about the unions this and the unions that. I have never heard of any Tory member of any union turning down a pay rise because they disagreed with collective bargaining, they are fecking hypocrites. They don't go to the meetings or vote but they want every penny the unions can get for them come pay day.



Unions are a pressure group and if you think in the era of zero hour contracts and falling living standards they are no longer relevant, then I think you are mistaken.



I take it you aren’t in a union.
Click to expand...


It's clear they are still relevant, and you're right, a certain level of hypocrisy does take place. I'm not agreeing with it, all I'm trying to say is that just because lots of people belong to a union doesn't mean they vote Labour and agree with all the stuff that the union heads try to achieve.

Many unions are a selective pressure group. There were 50,000 people in Manchester yesterday organised by the unions, protesting about Tory Cuts. Will there be 50,000 in Wales protesting over Labour cuts to the NHS? Of course not.

That's the real hypocrisy. It doesn't matter what Labour policy is, the Tories will always get the stick from the union, as exemplified by Gove's situation.
 
I'm meant to meet an American military man today... but now he's not working.
 
Drifter said:
Wouldn't be surprised if the behind the scenes the tories approve of this,be prepared for one of the dirtiest election campaigns ever.
Click to expand...


Jeremy Hunt refused to criticise the article on BBC News and made some facetious remark about Milliband's father never being a "friend of the free market", presumably because if you're not a friend of the free market it must also mean you hate Britain. Considering the Tories have been quite publicly pushing this Red Ed/Marxist stuff it would be safe to assume that they at least approve of the article and possibly even had a hand in it somewhere down the line.
 
That'll teach Ed for derailing the Syria gravy train.
 
alastair said:
Now, far too many of the leaders have joined the elites themselves - proper champagne socialists. They pay themselves huge salaries and preach left-wing politics forgetting the irony of it all. Surely you can see that?
Click to expand...
More bollocks - Mark Sewotka, head of one of the biggest unions, earns £86K a year - he could earn far more in private industry.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The only hope for zero hour contract reform is a Labour victory at the next election and that means a labour election campaign fund provided by union members one way or another.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise what a huge issue these zero-hour contracts are until recently. I've been working with a group of youngsters trying to get into work, and the demoralising effect these ludicrous one-sided contracts have is huge. It's impossible for people to plan their lives, even day to day.
 
peterstorey said:
More bollocks - Mark Sewotka, head of one of the biggest unions, earns £86K a year - he could earn far more in private industry.
Click to expand...


Of course. Plenty of examples like that. Plenty of examples not like that. McCluskey is on £122k, for example.

Another interesting fact - only 37.5% of Unite members normally vote for the Labour Party. So much for the 'representing millions of people' line.
 
£122K is a fairly modest salary for such an important job compared to private industry. Willie Walsh at BA/IAG picked up £1M despite presiding over an appalling set of numbers that would have had a public enquiry in session if it happened in the public sector.
 
peterstorey said:
£122K is a fairly modest salary for such an important job compared to private industry. Willie Walsh at BA/IAG picked up £1M despite presiding over an appalling set of numbers that would have had a public enquiry in session if it happened in the public sector.
Click to expand...


Well obviously you earn more money in the private sector. They're not pretending to be socialists, that's the point. £122k when there are people going to use food-banks isn't really acceptable, is it? Clearly it's OK for Red Len.
 
I wish we could deport the Daily Mail.
 
I know it's wrong to give their website hits but I couldn't resist having a quick read of the comments on the Mail's piece. A load of ex-pats who'll tell anyone unfortunate enough to listen how the UK 'went to hell in a handcart' accusing someone of hating Britain...
 
alastair said:
Of course. Plenty of examples like that. Plenty of examples not like that. McCluskey is on £122k, for example.

Another interesting fact - only 37.5% of Unite members normally vote for the Labour Party. So much for the 'representing millions of people' line.
Click to expand...



That is more than voted Tory at the last election.

In terms of industrial action in support of terms and conditions of employment Unite has every right to claim to represent it members. Whether they vote Tory or Labour isn't a factor. They will have to ballot their membership and when they get a majority of members supporting action then they can quite correctly point out that on the issue at hand they do represent millions of people.

 
Superb speech from Lindsay Johns at the Tory conference. Without doubt the best speech of the conference for me.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Superb speech from Lindsay Johns at the Tory conference. Without doubt the best speech of the conference for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah right: ‘That there is a positive correlation between an academically rigorous canonical curriculum and enabling young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to truly achieve their potential in a highly competitive, modern world is frankly so blindingly obvious that even Stevie Wonder could see it.’
 
peterstorey said:
... so blindingly obvious that even Stevie Wonder could see it.’
Click to expand...

Jesus F. Christ...

Besides, there is a place for updating Shakespeare; Welles often did this, and brilliantly.
 
I even enjoyed Titus by Julie Taymor.
 
Silva said:
Because any indication that masses of people don't agree with you means that the BBC purposefully brought in a biased audience?
Click to expand...


It's supposed to be half and half. Neither of the Tories got any applause whilst Hasan's agenda basically got a standing ovation.
 
I would imagine that just means the audience is predominantly left wing, or at least the locations they go are predominantly left wing. I mean, they do host a lot of their shows at Universities. I can see why you'd complain, but the left wing audiences are a coincidence rather than anything else.
 
Silva said:
I would imagine that just means the audience is predominantly left wing, or at least the locations they go are predominantly left wing. I mean, they do host a lot of their shows at Universities. I can see why you'd complain, but the left wing audiences are a coincidence rather than anything else.
Click to expand...


I've worked for the BBC. They have to source a 50/50 crowd for these things, even if they're in Scotland or somewhere. It seems efforts are slipping.

As an aside, Quentin Letts is very articulate and interesting. Grant Shapps is a bit creepy. The Lib Dem looks like she's going to cry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.