Bob Crowe RMT leader dies.

[l444ry]

He did his job well from what I gather.

Very true. The right-wing media coverage over his death, after criticising his salary and holidays and personality for years,is rank hypocrisy. The Tory Party, and some on here, want working-class people to be "in their place" and be on minimum wage because it is good for the economy. Complete poppycock and crocodile tears as usual.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiUVsky6Obg

[Alf Bentley]

RIP

Obviously a complete parasite who bathed himself in luxury earned by exploiting the left's inability to see beyond immediate consequence to make them think he was all about caring and sharing.

 

Given your second comment, I presume that "RIP" stands for "Rot In Perpetuity", does it, Moose?!

 

Obviously, someone with the sort of views you express is going to hate his politics (they were even a bit too narrow and confrontational for my liking - not enough "caring and sharing").

 

Was he really "a complete parasite who bathed himself in luxury", though? It seems to be generally accepted that he lived in a council house and earned a salary of about £150k plus expenses for doing what was clearly a very responsible job. Obviously, you're not going to like how he did that job, but it also seems to be generally accepted: (a) That he achieved a large increase in RMT membership at a time when union membership generally has been falling; (b) That he achieved very good deals for the workers whom he represented.

 

If that constitutes being "a complete parasite who bathed himself in luxury", then presumably a highly successful businessman who achieved high value for shareholders and earned a salary of £1.5m would be a 10 times bigger parasite, would he? Can't say that I agree with you there, Moose.... 

 

As for him being criticised for living in a council house... Does anyone seriously think that the right-wing press would have praised him if he'd lived in a massive house in a gated community somewhere?! Good on him if he wanted to maintain some connection to his roots - and I'd have no qualms about accepting a £150k salary and a holiday in Brazil for doing a stressful, responsible job successfully. 

[The Doctor]

Didnt  really agree with his politics.

 

However, I do not take any joy in seeing somebody pass away. Take note anti-Thatcher crowd.

Yeah, because people should have been sad that a mass murderer died last April. People may have celebrated but if they felt remorse for even a single second they were far more human that that witch ever was.

[Webbo]

Yeah, because people should have been sad that a mass murderer died last April. People may have celebrated but if they felt remorse for even a single second they were far more human that that witch ever was.

Okay Che, spare us the bullshit.

[MooseBreath]

Given your second comment, I presume that "RIP" stands for "Rot In Perpetuity", does it, Moose?!

Obviously, someone with the sort of views you express is going to hate his politics (they were even a bit too narrow and confrontational for my liking - not enough "caring and sharing").

Was he really "a complete parasite who bathed himself in luxury", though? It seems to be generally accepted that he lived in a council house and earned a salary of about £150k plus expenses for doing what was clearly a very responsible job. Obviously, you're not going to like how he did that job, but it also seems to be generally accepted: (a) That he achieved a large increase in RMT membership at a time when union membership generally has been falling; (b) That he achieved very good deals for the workers whom he represented.

If that constitutes being "a complete parasite who bathed himself in luxury", then presumably a highly successful businessman who achieved high value for shareholders and earned a salary of £1.5m would be a 10 times bigger parasite, would he? Can't say that I agree with you there, Moose....

As for him being criticised for living in a council house... Does anyone seriously think that the right-wing press would have praised him if he'd lived in a massive house in a gated community somewhere?! Good on him if he wanted to maintain some connection to his roots - and I'd have no qualms about accepting a £150k salary and a holiday in Brazil for doing a stressful, responsible job successfully.

Your typical "businessman" achieves wealth by offering a product or service that people are free to choose whether or not to buy. This guy achieved wealth because he did a good job of using the ability to hamstring a region of major economic importance. Not much different to blackmailing really and he and others wouldn't be able to get away with it if their supporters on the left were capable of seeing or willing to see the bigger picture.

[The God Emperor]

did his job well and fulfilled a desire of the market. A man can have no more nobler purpose 

[absolutelegend]

did his job well and fulfilled a desire of the market. A man can have no more nobler purpose 

 

?

 

He acted against the desires of the employment markets by holding the public to ransom, time and time again.

 

Noble is certainly not a word that applied to this man.  Anything but.

[The God Emperor]

?

 

He acted against the desires of the employment markets by holding the public to ransom, time and time again.

 

Noble is certainly not a word that applied to this man.  Anything but.

what about the desires of the members? they are part of the market and he did fulfill their desires. it wasnt his fault london transport is centralised and open to exploitation by unions.

[Guest MattP]

I bet RMT members get significantly better pay and conditions than you do, and even now, have greater job security, so who's the cvnt?! 

 

Join a union, Lamby! Improve your working life and feel the solidarity. As an ex-PFA Chairman, I'm sure that Chris Powell would agree with me.

 

I'm sure that Bob Crow used to be able to find his way to a station after dark and would turn up for a pint when he'd promised, too! Mind you, if he'd had fewer pints he might not have had a heart attack in his early 50s....   

 

 

I knew his body was in a mess but 52 really is no age to go, ironic it looks his heart as been let down a dodgy tube as well.

 

The one I saw was along the lines of 'RIP Bob, I liked him - he definitely agreed with UKIP's anti-EU policies...'

 

It's just co-opting a dead man to push his anti-EU agenda. At least wait till the body's cold FFS.

 

I don't see a problem with that, it wasn;t a secret Crow was anti EU. Him and Farage would have been working together on the campaign should it have came around.

[DennisNedry]

From what I can gather, he oversaw obscene and unsustainable pay rises for tube workers, who let's be honest have pretty cushy jobs. And when these enormously privileged conditions were challenged, he brought London to a standstill.

 

So all in all, I'm glad the guy is dead and gone.

[absolutelegend]

This guy had absolutely no care or consideration for the general public that rely on and use public transport.  That man has sanctioned 24 strikes in his time.

All that he cared about was being perceived as a success by his members so they'd keep paying his massive salary.

He's been happy to walk all over the masses (i.e. the public) for years, just to line the coffers of a few, including his own.  Selfish beyond belief.

It's not like the public can shift their business elsewhere, and he knew it.  Nothing more than blackmail.

 

However, I would never be glad anyone is dead, that's just wrong on so many levels.

[Alf Bentley]

Your typical "businessman" achieves wealth by offering a product or service that people are free to choose whether or not to buy. This guy achieved wealth because he did a good job of using the ability to hamstring a region of major economic importance. Not much different to blackmailing really and he and others wouldn't be able to get away with it if their supporters on the left were capable of seeing or willing to see the bigger picture.

 

Like it or not, Crow offered a service that people were free to choose whether or not to buy: membership of the RMT. Apparently increasing numbers of people chose to buy that service and to re-elect Crow as their leader. He brought benefits to thousands of his members - the job that he was employed to do (even if I'd prefer unions to view things more broadly). If pay is to be based on achievement, he has a stronger case for his £150k salary than many (not all) businessmen have for salaries that can be 10-20 times higher than that....

 

As for "hamstringing" London.... I thought you usually claimed that the economy was booming and that London was leading the way!!   

 

Anyway, it takes two to tango....strikes occur when unions and management fail to agree. Sometimes one is at fault, sometimes the other, sometimes both...

 

?

 

He acted against the desires of the employment markets by holding the public to ransom, time and time again.

 

Noble is certainly not a word that applied to this man.  Anything but.

 

So, employment markets have pre-determined "desires", do they?!

 

I thought that the whole point of a market was that price was determined by the balance between supply and demand? 

 

If a supplier jacks up the price of bananas, the buyer may or may not have the choice of buying bananas elsewhere. If no decent bananas are available elsewhere at the right price, the supplier has to either pay the higher price or do without bananas. If a labour supplier jacks up the price of their labour, the buyer/employer has the same range of options. Sometimes, the employer can do without the labour (e.g. management scabbing during short-term strikes). Sometimes, they can bring in alternative suppliers of labour (e.g. non-union labour prepared to work for poorer pay and conditions). Difficult to find thousands of people capable of driving tubes and buses at short notice, though....so the supplier of labour (the workers together in the RMT) was in a strong position vis-a-vis the buyer/employer. That's markets for you...maybe they should be regulated more, eh? 

 

The "free flow of market forces" can work both ways! Much as right-wingers would like it to mean an endless supply of workers whose life's purpose is to work for peanuts so as to maximise profits for their employers, pausing only to tug their forelocks, grovel in the dirt and ask to be trampled on....it doesn't always work like that! 

[Rincewind]

I bet Boris Johnson can't believe his luck. You can bet he'll be trying to push through these ticket office cuts as quick as he can now while the RMT are in disarray.

They'll be in place before Bob has been put in the ground.

[absolutelegend]

I think you are totally missing the point.  The point being that this man held the public to ransom for the benefit of a few, which included himself.

 

Children and teachers couldn't get to school, nurses and doctors not to work, they had no alternative and couldn't take their business elsewhere.  That man didn't care, which he readily admitted.

 

This man had been despised by the majority of Londoners for years.  It's hard to think well of a man who's only goal was to line the pockets of a few, with a total disregard for the millions who have no choice but to use London transport.

[ADK]

Do you feel the same way about the banks?

[absolutelegend]

Do you feel the same way about the banks?

 

? not sure i understand.

 

bank customers can go elsewhere

bank workers don't go on strike

[MooseBreath]

Like it or not, Crow offered a service that people were free to choose whether or not to buy: membership of the RMT. Apparently increasing numbers of people chose to buy that service and to re-elect Crow as their leader. He brought benefits to thousands of his members - the job that he was employed to do (even if I'd prefer unions to view things more broadly). If pay is to be based on achievement, he has a stronger case for his £150k salary than many (not all) businessmen have for salaries that can be 10-20 times higher than that....

As for "hamstringing" London.... I thought you usually claimed that the economy was booming and that London was leading the way!!

Anyway, it takes two to tango....strikes occur when unions and management fail to agree. Sometimes one is at fault, sometimes the other, sometimes both...

So, employment markets have pre-determined "desires", do they?!

I thought that the whole point of a market was that price was determined by the balance between supply and demand?

If a supplier jacks up the price of bananas, the buyer may or may not have the choice of buying bananas elsewhere. If no decent bananas are available elsewhere at the right price, the supplier has to either pay the higher price or do without bananas. If a labour supplier jacks up the price of their labour, the buyer/employer has the same range of options. Sometimes, the employer can do without the labour (e.g. management scabbing during short-term strikes). Sometimes, they can bring in alternative suppliers of labour (e.g. non-union labour prepared to work for poorer pay and conditions). Difficult to find thousands of people capable of driving tubes and buses at short notice, though....so the supplier of labour (the workers together in the RMT) was in a strong position vis-a-vis the buyer/employer. That's markets for you...maybe they should be regulated more, eh?

The "free flow of market forces" can work both ways! Much as right-wingers would like it to mean an endless supply of workers whose life's purpose is to work for peanuts so as to maximise profits for their employers, pausing only to tug their forelocks, grovel in the dirt and ask to be trampled on....it doesn't always work like that!

A true free market would just sack the workers who went on strike. But you can't do that because it's not a true free market. Less employment regulation would mean fairer pay for train drivers and better value tickets for consumers.

Your businessman analogy doesn't work for me, just because people were happy to profit from what he did doesn't make it right. If I had the key to the country's electricity supply and could turn it off whenever I wanted and just force people to pay me more before I turned it back on again there would be lots of people happy to buy shares in my business. Doesn't make it a morally aacceptable way to make money.

[ADK]

? not sure i understand.

 

bank customers can go elsewhere

bank workers don't go on strike

 

How many people don't have a bank account?

Banks have lost huge sums of money.

 

I feel the same way about the banking system as people who can't get to work due to strike action on the tube.

[absolutelegend]

How many people don't have a bank account?

Banks have lost huge sums of money.

 

I feel the same way about the banking system as people who can't get to work due to strike action on the tube.

 

Not all banks have lost money.  Shop around, chose one that you like.  Maybe a building society or a mutual?

 

I would agree with you if all banks, building societies, and financial service providers were forced to close for a few days because their staff were striking for better pay and conditions.  However, that wouldn't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't be the banks fault.

[Alf Bentley]

A true free market would just sack the workers who went on strike. But you can't do that because it's not a true free market. Less employment regulation would mean fairer pay for train drivers and better value tickets for consumers.

Your businessman analogy doesn't work for me, just because people were happy to profit from what he did doesn't make it right. If I had the key to the country's electricity supply and could turn it off whenever I wanted and just force people to pay me more before I turned it back on again there would be lots of people happy to buy shares in my business. Doesn't make it a morally aacceptable way to make money.

 

Can't respond too seriously because: (a) We're polar opposites and you are a less talented, flexible and charming rhetorician than your ally MattP (it's OK, Matt, I don't expect you to fall for the flattery - that's the point!); (b) I'm in a good mood after yet another 3-0 win so don't feel like arguing, even with you; © I've been drinking some beer.

 

However...you seem to make the same error as absolutenobend, or whoever it was, in not seeing workers as players in the (labour) market. An extraordinary misjudgment on your part, Moose! A market cannot sack suppliers! Buyers (the demand side - employers, in a labour market) can reject its suppliers (workers, represented by the RMT here), but only if they're in a strong enough position to do so.... There are many industries where employers have done what you hoped for and boosted profits by downgrading workers' pay and conditions (the Wapping print workers, the seamen's union on the ferries, the dock workers), just as there are others (e.g. the miners) where industries in decline have been closed down more quickly and brutally than necessary, despite the social consequences, for reasons of political expediency... However, it seems that transport workers, at least in the London area, are in a particularly strong position in the labour market. Know a few thousand competent tube drivers? Thought not! Though, I'm sure there are a few FoxesTalkers desperate to offer their services at £2 per hour ("don't want any of these Labour abominations like the minimum wage! I'm the one who'll grovel the most! Please choose me, Boss!") . 

 

Your reference to "true free markets" is relevant, but we're living in advanced/late stage capitalism (select the adjective to suit your political perspective) so there are very few truly free markets. Nearly all major markets are dominated by large, often global corporations with very little competition except one another - and the way that they manipulate governments certainly does not represent a "free market"! True, there is still plenty of competition between small businesses bottom-feeding like plankton between the bones or operating like barnacles on the capitalist shipwreck (I run such a (very!) small business myself!).

 

Honestly, you have the gall to metaphorically cite "the key to the country's electricity supply", when this is controlled by a cartel of 6 massively profitable corporations run by executives on salaries ten times higher than Bob Crow who plead poverty while pocketing multi-million-pound bonuses and distort their income by only including their retail arm and ignoring their generating arm?! I'm off for another beer before I start taking you seriously! Have a good night! 0-3 

[MooseBreath]

Get a bit testy when you've had a few beers, do you alf? That wrist it starts a straightenin'. I like it.

In respect of your typically long winded yet very basic points, I offer the following:

- workers aint gonna strike, if dey know dey gonn get fired. That's how it works in almost every other industry. Can't see why train drivers should be any different.

What other relevant points did you make? Oh none.

[Alf Bentley]

Get a bit testy when you've had a few beers, do you alf? That wrist it starts a straightenin'. I like it.

In respect of your typically long winded yet very basic points, I offer the following:

- workers aint gonna strike, if dey know dey gonn get fired. That's how it works in almost every other industry. Can't see why train drivers should be any different.

What other relevant points did you make? Oh none.

 

Testy? Nah! Just pleasantly mellow and basking in the glow of yet another great win....and a few beers, I admit. Not doing very well at my twin New Year's resolutions of drinking less and being less of a gasbag on FT, am I?!

 

"Every other industry" must be breaking the law, then, as even under restrictive Tory legislation, the right of employees to strike is recognised in law, provided that it is a dispute with their employer, proper consultation has taken place and due notice has been given. It's even a legal right for non-union members: https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment-rights-during-industrial-action

 

The thought of all those top executives sacking all their workers and having to drive their own trains to earn a living instead of exploiting the surplus value of their employees' labour is an amusing one, though...

 

Perhaps you could go the whole hog and ban strikes and unions like Hitler, Mussolini and Franco did, eh, Moose?!

[MooseBreath]

Yes I can see that working out well for everyone else. I might not turn up to work tomorrow and refuse to return until they give me a payrise, claiming I'm in dispute with my employer. See how long I last.

Obviously you would never have to actually sack all of the train drivers because the threat of the sack would cause them to back down. That's the natural state of things in my opinion. You accept a job as a train driver, you accept the pay and conditions. If sometime down the line you don't like it, you can leave. Plenty of people will be happy to take your place.

[leicsmac]

Yes I can see that working out well for everyone else. I might not turn up to work tomorrow and refuse to return until they give me a payrise, claiming I'm in dispute with my employer. See how long I last.

Obviously you would never have to actually sack all of the train drivers because the threat of the sack would cause them to back down. That's the natural state of things in my opinion. You accept a job as a train driver, you accept the pay and conditions. If sometime down the line you don't like it, you can leave. Plenty of people will be happy to take your place.

 

I'm sure that makes for an engaging, constructive, productive and not at all fearful working environment.

 

I wonder if happy workers or scared workers are actually more productive for their bosses in terms of making money for a company? I'm betting there have been some studies done on the topic. I guess fear or contentment being the best motivator varies from person to person.

[MooseBreath]

I'm sure that makes for an engaging, constructive, productive and not at all fearful working environment.

I wonder if happy workers or scared workers are actually more productive for their bosses in terms of making money for a company? I'm betting there have been some studies done on the topic. I guess fear or contentment being the best motivator varies from person to person.

It would be no different to 99% of other jobs where if you simply stop turning up to work you would soon be out of job. That's what a job is. You do something and someone pays you for it. If you don't do anything then you can't expect to get paid. I don't think that concept is likely to cause any fear to be honest.