absolutelegend Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 I'm just gobsmacked that anybody is defending the man. Honestly, I've lived and worked in London for the majority of the last 10 years, and everybody I know despised him.
DennisNedry Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 I'm just gobsmacked that anybody is defending the man. Honestly, I've lived and worked in London for the majority of the last 10 years, and everybody I know despised him. So you didn't know any tube workers then?
absolutelegend Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 No, just people who use public transport to get to work everyday, many of whom didnt get paid on the many days he told his members to go on strike. at least he was openly honest and said he couldnt care less.
leicsmac Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 You appear to be completely unhinged in what you're prepared to infer from my posts. Over several posts I've expressed that I'm against the idea of a small group of people being able to benefit from their ability to cause problems for a much larger group of people. You're talking about how you want everyone to benefit but that's the exact opposite of what the strikes achieve. Removing the ability for collective bargaining would also lead to exactly that. A small group of people being able to dictate and cause problems to a much larger group of people, if they so wish. I understand that's a semantic argument, though.
absolutelegend Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 The hypocrosy of this man talking about "workers" was gobsmacling. He didn't care less about the millions who rely on transport to get to work/school/wherever, only for the relativly tiny number who ultimately lined his own pocket. Some would call that slfish, but its his own right to make as much money as he can so i don't hold that against him. What annoyed though was the way he put himself out there as a fighter for "workers" rights, when the only people who suffered were the millions of commuters who couldnt get to work, and who saw the cost of their commute to work skyrocket.
MooseBreath Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 Removing the ability for collective bargaining would also lead to exactly that. A small group of people being able to dictate and cause problems to a much larger group of people, if they so wish. I understand that's a semantic argument, though. I don't see how it would, striking isn't a realistic option for pretty much everyone already, and i dont think we all feel like we're being dictated to. A vibrant economy offers choice to the employee and forces employers to offer good pay and conditions in order to attract and retain the best talent. I wonder how much of the historical improvements in worker rights have been down to that mechanism in action rather than a result of striking.
leicsmac Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 I don't see how it would, striking isn't a realistic option for pretty much everyone already, and i dont think we all feel like we're being dictated to. A vibrant economy offers choice to the employee and forces employers to offer good pay and conditions in order to attract and retain the best talent. I wonder how much of the historical improvements in worker rights have been down to that mechanism in action rather than a result of striking. I think that we don't have a vibrant economy though - this has been said before, but thanks to the level of collusion between high-level companies and globalisation the freedom of choice for employees isn't as high as you might think. For niche specialist companies that require employees with specialist skill sets, I'm pretty sure there's competition between employers to scout the best talent and offer good money for it, but for everyone else? Not when a company can make stuff/mine stuff/market stuff overseas for a smaller overhead. It would be an interesting study to see the development of employment laws and worker rights and see how many of them were granted as a result of collective action or market forces.
Alf Bentley Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 You appear to be completely unhinged in what you're prepared to infer from my posts. Oh, I don't know, Moose. There just seems to be something a bit S&M about the way you apparently relish workers getting sacked or having their pay reduced. Maybe I'm just imagining it. I imagine you as a leather-clad S&M Mussolini figure astride a prone worker, his blue overalls clamped firmly between your plump, hairy thighs. You hold your riding crop aloft, then repeatedly bring it down viciously on said worker and said thighs as you urgently and rhythmically chant: "You must accept less pay!"; "It must be good for business!" Is that how things are at Château Moosebreath or am I over-imagining and becoming unhinged?
MooseBreath Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 Ok now I understand. Your perception of the power dynamic is that it's sexual, based on master and slave. Your protests, therefore, are you just playing up to your role as a slave. That's something I've always wondered about lefties, especially in the context of positive racial discrimination - is it because they enjoy the idea that they've been bad little boys and deserve to be punished? But I suppose it works here as well.
Rincewind Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 Oh, I don't know, Moose. There just seems to be something a bit S&M about the way you apparently relish workers getting sacked or having their pay reduced. Maybe I'm just imagining it. I imagine you as a leather-clad S&M Mussolini figure astride a prone worker, his blue overalls clamped firmly between your plump, hairy thighs. You hold your riding crop aloft, then repeatedly bring it down viciously on said worker and said thighs as you urgently and rhythmically chant: "You must accept less pay!"; "It must be good for business!" Is that how things are at Chateau Moosebreath or am I over-imagining and becoming unhinged? What you are describing sounds how the communists worked. Are they not a weeny teeny little too lefty for Moose?
Alf Bentley Posted 13 March 2014 Posted 13 March 2014 Ok now I understand. Your perception of the power dynamic is that it's sexual, based on master and slave. Your protests, therefore, are you just playing up to your role as a slave. That's something I've always wondered about lefties, especially in the context of positive racial discrimination - is it because they enjoy the idea that they've been bad little boys and deserve to be punished? But I suppose it works here as well. I've been ordered to abstain from responding. A three-line whip has been imposed and the only thrashing that I want to see this week is one handed out to Blackpool on Saturday.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.