|
Replies:
|
|
Steve K
|
Nov 2 2014, 10:17 PM
Post #321
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Nov 2 2014, 07:53 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 1 2014, 11:21 PM
I could name some dodgy plumbers but I'm smart enough and honest to know they're a small minority and some of the mud would stick to the decent guys
Go on let's see your real evidence of that cartel you allege
I've just told you! Those financial institutions fix rates and manipulate stock prices, or am I just imagining previous fines for doing this and just having a WAG that more will be on the way very soon? No you've taken a few cases where the banks didn't manage to control every employee and you've wildly extrapolated it and added a dollop of insinuation
Now about those plumbers . . . . .
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 2 2014, 11:21 PM
Post #322
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 2 2014, 10:17 PM
- Tigger
- Nov 2 2014, 07:53 PM
- Steve K
- Nov 1 2014, 11:21 PM
I could name some dodgy plumbers but I'm smart enough and honest to know they're a small minority and some of the mud would stick to the decent guys
Go on let's see your real evidence of that cartel you allege
I've just told you! Those financial institutions fix rates and manipulate stock prices, or am I just imagining previous fines for doing this and just having a WAG that more will be on the way very soon?
No you've taken a few cases where the banks didn't manage to control every employee and you've wildly extrapolated it and added a dollop of insinuation Now about those plumbers . . . . . Systematic fraud over several years if you don't mind Steve because the sums involved were vast, it was not a few rogue employees taking the pee every once in a while, but the usual and laughably dishonest "lack of oversight".
And there are way to many dodgy plumbers about, you can run a plumbing business with no relevant qualifications and make it up as you go along because apparently that encourages enterprise, of course the customer can literally end up paying the price for shoddy service.
In fact come to think of it some banks seem to operate the same way.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Nov 3 2014, 10:02 AM
Post #323
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 2 2014, 03:29 PM
- somersetli
- Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.
I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job. You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.
You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum. This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble. The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace. It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement. I knew a couple of guys who worked in LAIRDS at the time of the "who twangs the string line" (in the 1960s). As usual the media misrepresented the problem as it was not about who twangs a particular string line, it was about demarcation lines between trades that went much further than chalk lines.
We all know how advanced shipbuilding became across the channel as British ship building continued to do things in the same old ways. Typical of much of British industry, it lacked dynamism, insight and comaparable investment.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 3 2014, 10:34 AM
Post #324
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 2 2014, 05:47 PM
- Marconi
- Nov 2 2014, 03:46 PM
- RJD
- Nov 2 2014, 03:32 PM
There is just zero evidence anywhere in the western world that State run industries benefit customers and/or taxpayers. If it did they would put it up and scream from the roof tops. There is none and the left have scratched over the sand and upturned every stone looking for it. It is a bit like the GAY gene, elusive.
RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB - part-nationalised to save them from themselves.
"Part nationalised", is that like being a little bit pregnant? None of those you name are nationalised, there is a % share holding held by the government, in some cases enough to name a director or two. But they are run as PLC companies. You want a classic nationalised industry story look at British Steel Not even part Nationalised, the State just took a stake in the shares and became a Shareholder. That is the criticism. A majority shareholder who was not calling the tune.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Nov 3 2014, 10:43 AM
Post #325
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Nov 3 2014, 10:02 AM
- RJD
- Nov 2 2014, 03:29 PM
- somersetli
- Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.
I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job. You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.
You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum. This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble. The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace. It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement.
I knew a couple of guys who worked in LAIRDS at the time of the "who twangs the string line" (in the 1960s). As usual the media misrepresented the problem as it was not about who twangs a particular string line, it was about demarcation lines between trades that went much further than chalk lines. We all know how advanced shipbuilding became across the channel as British ship building continued to do things in the same old ways. Typical of much of British industry, it lacked dynamism, insight and comaparable investment. Mainly it required trade Unions who had the interests of members at heart and not driven by a desire to control the State. Trade Unions in those days were political and they were honest enough to state their objectives. The left have used every smoke screen in the book to try and hide the fact that the Trade Unions of those times were culpable in the demise of many UK manufacturing industries. Why would an Investor invest when the chances of a decent return were diminished by such shenanigans. At a later time I also delivered variable speed drive systems to printing machines in Fleet St. What a joke that was, the Unions, the Luddites, were destroying their own jobs and up to every devious, some illegal, trick in the book. Yes the story is a complex one, but the behaviour, bad behaviour of Trade Unions for political rather than membership reasons is one of the major factors. They were an absolute disgrace and no matter how much white-wash is applied the truth is well established in the public domain.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Nov 3 2014, 11:13 AM
Post #326
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 3 2014, 10:43 AM
Mainly it required trade Unions who had the interests of members at heart and not driven by a desire to control the State. Trade Unions in those days were political and they were honest enough to state their objectives. The left have used every smoke screen in the book to try and hide the fact that the Trade Unions of those times were culpable in the demise of many UK manufacturing industries. Why would an Investor invest when the chances of a decent return were diminished by such shenanigans. At a later time I also delivered variable speed drive systems to printing machines in Fleet St. What a joke that was, the Unions, the Luddites, were destroying their own jobs and up to every devious, some illegal, trick in the book. Yes the story is a complex one, but the behaviour, bad behaviour of Trade Unions for political rather than membership reasons is one of the major factors. They were an absolute disgrace and no matter how much white-wash is applied the truth is well established in the public domain. That's a little unfair. You'd have to give the abysmal management that all too often ran complacent companies in the fifties, sixties and seventies a big share of the blame too.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Nov 3 2014, 11:17 AM
Post #327
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 3 2014, 10:43 AM
- C-too
- Nov 3 2014, 10:02 AM
- RJD
- Nov 2 2014, 03:29 PM
- somersetli
- Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.
I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job. You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.
You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum. This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble. The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace. It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement.
I knew a couple of guys who worked in LAIRDS at the time of the "who twangs the string line" (in the 1960s). As usual the media misrepresented the problem as it was not about who twangs a particular string line, it was about demarcation lines between trades that went much further than chalk lines. We all know how advanced shipbuilding became across the channel as British ship building continued to do things in the same old ways. Typical of much of British industry, it lacked dynamism, insight and comaparable investment.
Mainly it required trade Unions who had the interests of members at heart and not driven by a desire to control the State. Trade Unions in those days were political and they were honest enough to state their objectives. The left have used every smoke screen in the book to try and hide the fact that the Trade Unions of those times were culpable in the demise of many UK manufacturing industries. Why would an Investor invest when the chances of a decent return were diminished by such shenanigans. At a later time I also delivered variable speed drive systems to printing machines in Fleet St. What a joke that was, the Unions, the Luddites, were destroying their own jobs and up to every devious, some illegal, trick in the book. Yes the story is a complex one, but the behaviour, bad behaviour of Trade Unions for political rather than membership reasons is one of the major factors. They were an absolute disgrace and no matter how much white-wash is applied the truth is well established in the public domain. One eyed drivel.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|