Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TIME TO BAN TRADE UNIONS

1 view
Skip to first unread message

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:03:10 AM1/18/07
to
I see BA staff are planning on striking and now LUL are doing the same, you
can be certain these militant left wing scum will do their best to make life
as miserable as possible for the travellors, and its this government of left
wing tossders who want us to give up our cars are rely on public tramnsport
???, They have got to be joking. Trade unions are a greater threat to
astable society than the idiots of the BNP, its time they were banned.


Mark, Devon

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:04:42 AM1/18/07
to

Do you suffer with sexdyxlia?

jb

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:35:08 AM1/18/07
to

"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y-CdnVtBH4x...@bt.com...

Well done Rifleman, will you be banning the fledgling organisation being set
up as we speak, to protect the Armed Forces and their dependents?
Have you noticed the people working in the fields seven days a week,
fourteen hours a day in high summer?
NO!, why not?
Because they banded together to force their employers to stop exploiting
them.
Do you wish to see those days back again?


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 5:54:57 AM1/18/07
to

"jb" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w3Irh.90713$QY6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> Well done Rifleman, will you be banning the fledgling organisation being
> set
> up as we speak, to protect the Armed Forces and their dependents?
> Have you noticed the people working in the fields seven days a week,
> fourteen hours a day in high summer?
> NO!, why not?
> Because they banded together to force their employers to stop exploiting
> them.
> Do you wish to see those days back again?
>
>
No one forces them to work, no one forces people to join the army, they can
all walk away or get other jobs, there is over 1.68 million vacancies in the
UK , plus the social state so no one is forced to do anything. Unions are
not needed and are a threat to a stable society.


jb

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 6:18:01 AM1/18/07
to

"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HP2dnZpQ2q-...@bt.com...

>
> "jb" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:w3Irh.90713$QY6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > Well done Rifleman, will you be banning the fledgling organisation being
> > set
> > up as we speak, to protect the Armed Forces and their dependents?
> > Have you noticed the people working in the fields seven days a week,
> > fourteen hours a day in high summer?
> > NO!, why not?
> > Because they banded together to force their employers to stop exploiting
> > them.
> > Do you wish to see those days back again?
> >
> >
> No one forces them to work,

Hunger is a great forcer, you should try it sometime!

no one forces people to join the army,

Try saying that when conscription starts again.

they can
> all walk away or get other jobs,

They can but why should they?
I can remember when I walked out of one job and into another and then back
to the first job when the gaffer upped my wages by a two bob and hour/ an
extra four quid a week, it sure made a big difference to my life.

there is over 1.68 million vacancies in the
> UK

Most of them in non jobs or in shit waged jobs or poor working conditions.

, plus the social state so no one is forced to do anything.

Oh! the social state, the big un:-)

No more poor houses for us, we got the social state.
Lord and Lady Rifleman riding by the poor house in their Brougham drawn by
four dappled grays on their way to tiffin with their majesties at Windsor.
Lady rifleman dabs at her pert little nose with her lace handkerchief and
admonishes her coachman Jeffries.
"If you don't want to be living there this time tomorrow, then gee the
'orses up you fat overfed,overpaid lout"

Unions are
> not needed and are a threat to a stable society.

That has got to be the biggest oxymoron of all time.
We only have a stable society because we have trade unions.
We have a five day week with weekends because we have trade unions.
We have an NHS because we have Trade unions.
We have law and order because we have trade unions.
We don't have food riots in the streets because we have trade unions.

If your beef is with trade union bosses then say so.
>
>


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 6:12:03 AM1/18/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y-CdnVtBH4x...@bt.com...
So much for the right's commitment to freedom and liberty then.


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 6:13:26 AM1/18/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HP2dnZpQ2q-...@bt.com...

>
>>
> No one forces them to work, no one forces people to join the army, they
> can all walk away or get other jobs, there is over 1.68 million vacancies
> in the UK , plus the social state so no one is forced to do anything.
> Unions are not needed and are a threat to a stable society.
You should join the Labour party. An authoritarian freedom hater like would
fit in very well.


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 6:35:41 AM1/18/07
to
"jb" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JHIrh.90928$QY6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
>> >
>> No one forces them to work,
>
> Hunger is a great forcer, you should try it sometime!
>
Absolutely correct. Libertarians speak airily of 'choice' in the labour
market, but for many people who have poor skills or just have the misfortune
to work in a line of work where supply of labour outstrips demand, choice is
illusory and you have to take work where you can find it. To say that such
people should have no right to collectively bargain for a better deal from
their employer would be taking us back to the days prior to the reform acts.


M James Hunt

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:07:49 AM1/18/07
to

Harry the Horse wrote:


It is odd. Many who believe that individuals should be free to charge
whatever the market will pay for goods and services, and withold them
from those who are not willing or able to pay seem to be unwilling to
apply this free market principle to workers.

job...@hushmail.com

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:16:53 AM1/18/07
to
M James Hunt wrote:

Moreover, those who are content for employers to group together to fix
prices are completely against workers grouping together to obtain
better rates of pay or better working conditions.

Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:16:23 AM1/18/07
to
"M James Hunt" <mikehu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:1169122069....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's odd that some of those who purport to champion liberty would deny
employees the liberty to act collectively to protect themselves.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:45:03 AM1/18/07
to

> That has got to be the biggest oxymoron of all time.
> We only have a stable society because we have trade unions.
> We have a five day week with weekends because we have trade unions.
> We have an NHS because we have Trade unions.
> We have law and order because we have trade unions.
> We don't have food riots in the streets because we have trade unions.
>
> If your beef is with trade union bosses then say so.
>>
>>

Trade unions are a disruptive socialist waste of time, there recent historuy
shows us Rail Strike, Fire Fighters strikes, works to rule, closed shops,
Postal strikes, Bin mens Strikes, Print workers strikes, Dock workers
strikes, Coal Miners strikes,They are behind the gross overmanning which
lead to the destruction of the car plants, ship yards and coal mines. They
hate democracy, It the TUs who are paying to keep New labour in power yet
its the same TUs who are saying people who join right wing partys should not
be allowed to work in public service. The Army does not need TUs I know cos
I served in the army for 22 years. I dont have a problem with
professional associations to do wage barganing but at the very least it
should be illegal to strike or disrupt public services. Just for your
information re law and order it was the rioting miners who murdered that
taxi driver, it was the rioting print workers who caused 30 million pouinds
worth of damage, It was the Trade unionists who DIRECTLY caused the food
shortages in the 1970s, it was the same unions who caused the power cuts in
the 70s that caused hundreds of premature deaths among the elderly. It was
the unions that caused the public deaths crisis when the bin men struck
leaving the rubbish to rot in the streets in during a hot summer.. Stable
society?? how can they create a stable socieyty when they duisrupt public
service and mail, road and transport systems?. even as I type on the news
the signel men are now balloting for strike action to disrupt the rail
newtwork.
>


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:46:21 AM1/18/07
to

"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:116912014...@iris.uk.clara.net...
They have every right to collective bargaining, they can do that through
professional associations, they dont need TUs, closed shops, work to rules,
strikes and other blackmail systems.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 7:47:52 AM1/18/07
to

"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:116912258...@demeter.uk.clara.net...

> Actring collectively is fine so long as it does not inflict harship or
> danger on others, They can group bargain for wages etc but they should be
> banned from striking.


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 8:09:51 AM1/18/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:H5SdndG81qKG8TLY...@bt.com...
So how do you propose that employees respond collectively to employer
blackmail?


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 8:28:04 AM1/18/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Io2dnbZezu_r8TLY...@bt.com...

>
> Actring collectively is fine so long as it does not inflict harship or
> danger on others, They can group bargain for wages etc but they should be
> banned from striking.
If you deny employees the right to take industrial action, which might not
necessarily be strike action, but could be work to rule, refusal to work
overtime, etc, then you make them powerless. Collective bargaining where
one side has all the power (the employer) and the other (the employees) have
none would be a waste of everyone's time.


Gaz

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 10:12:22 AM1/18/07
to

No, trade unions should not be banned, but maybe we should make them
financially responsible for any costs incurred by their actions (and open to
actions by, in this case, travelling passangers).

Gaz


Fred

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 10:49:47 AM1/18/07
to
Gaz wrote:
> The Rifleman wrote:
>> I see BA staff are planning on striking and now LUL are doing the same,
>> you
>> can be certain these militant left wing scum will do their best to make
>> life
>> as miserable as possible for the travellors, and its this government of
>> left
>> wing tossders who want us to give up our cars are rely on public
>> tramnsport
>> ???, They have got to be joking. Trade unions are a greater threat to
>> astable society than the idiots of the BNP, its time they were banned.
>

It serves as a small reminder of the the crap the general public
had to put up with in the pre Thatcher days.

Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 11:42:09 AM1/18/07
to
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:519h2qF...@mid.individual.net...
Only if employer is also liable for its contribution to the dispute. In
fact, if damages were levied in proportion to the culpability of the
employer or union, that would be a contribution to making both sides behave
reasonably.


Thored

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 12:46:06 PM1/18/07
to

He's an innumerate authoritarian freedom hater too. There are 1.68
million *unemployed*.
Not vacancies.

ISTR John Hutton giving the figures out late December and vacancies
were 600000. Leaves a shortfall of a million jobs. Or 300000 jobs if
you take only those signing on for benefits which I understand have
gone down by about 26000 this month.

Thored

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 12:50:14 PM1/18/07
to
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:46:21 -0000, "The Rifleman"
<surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote:

>

>They have every right to collective bargaining, they can do that through
>professional associations, they dont need TUs,

You're either trolling or stupid

Paul Hyett

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:18:52 PM1/18/07
to
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 18 Jan 2007, The Rifleman
<surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote :
You are Maggie Thatcher AICMFP. :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:27:49 PM1/18/07
to

"Paul Hyett" <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:61smdmWn...@blueyonder.co.uk...

>>
> You are Maggie Thatcher AICMFP. :)
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Saint Margret if you dont mind, The Greatest women politician the world has
ever seen and only second best to Winston :o)


Joe

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:28:46 PM1/18/07
to
If any individual or company causes loss or inconvenience, it can be
sued for restitution or compensation. So the employers' liability you
mention already exists.

I think what Gaz was suggesting was the removal of the legal immunity
of official trades unions from such civil action, to reach the situation
you seem to be describing.

Baroness Edwina Frogbucket

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 1:54:23 PM1/18/07
to

"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y-CdnVtBH4x...@bt.com...

> Trade unions are a greater threat to astable society than the idiots of
> the BNP, its time they were banned.

Not a chance. If anything they should be stronger. As things stand, they
are like guards dogs with no teeth.

--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket


Gaz

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:21:41 PM1/18/07
to

Yes, Trade Unions have special rights in regard to this, but only if they
follow the proper procedures (which is essentially what Thatcher forced them
to do)....

Gaz


Gaz

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 3:23:56 PM1/18/07
to

I dont think Maggie ever wanted to ban trade unions, just for them to
represent their members, not use their position to bring about the socialist
paradise through industrial unrest.

Gaz


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 4:27:51 AM1/19/07
to
"Joe" <j...@jretrading.com> wrote in message
news:eooe8v$inb$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Quite. So what is Trifleman complaining about.

> I think what Gaz was suggesting was the removal of the legal immunity
> of official trades unions from such civil action, to reach the situation
> you seem to be describing.
>

Which would be tantamount to making official strikes illegal.

Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 4:32:33 AM1/19/07
to
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:51a36oF...@mid.individual.net...

>>
>> I think what Gaz was suggesting was the removal of the legal immunity
>> of official trades unions from such civil action, to reach the situation
>> you seem to be describing.
>
> Yes, Trade Unions have special rights in regard to this, but only if they
> follow the proper procedures (which is essentially what Thatcher forced
> them to do)....
>
If you were to make official strikes effectively illegal by removing all
immunity to civil action then you would simply see a massive increase in
unofficial and wildcat action. If a sufficient number of employees think
they have a grievance then they will take action whether or not the union
sanctions it.

Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 4:33:55 AM1/19/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pMCdnbrj2pK-ITLY...@bt.com...
Clink! That's the sound of my bottle of Krug when the evil slug Thatcher
snuffs it :)


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 4:38:00 AM1/19/07
to

"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5g0sh.73987$%8.7...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> She will at least die of old age, in peace with a clear conscience, where
> as Blair will hopefully face a long drop.


Paul Hyett

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 5:16:12 AM1/19/07
to
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
<edwinafr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote :

I don't know about you, but if I see a viciously barking Alsatian, I
wouldn't hang around to see if it was dentally challenged!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 5:16:12 AM1/19/07
to
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 18 Jan 2007, The Rifleman
<surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote :
>
>>>
>> You are Maggie Thatcher AICMFP. :)
>
>Saint Margret if you dont mind, The Greatest women politician the world has
>ever seen and only second best to Winston :o)

You may think so, but when she finally kicks the bucket, the queue to
piss on her grave will probably be miles long... :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Mark, Devon

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 6:02:53 AM1/19/07
to

Did you attend the same grammar school as Mark T?

Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 7:21:51 AM1/19/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BJWdnbf_CvToDC3Y...@bt.com...
No arguments from me on where I'd like to see Blair end up. But as I oppose
the death penalty, I'd rather that he spent the rest of his miserable life
in a tiny cell in near the Hague.


The Rifleman

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 7:27:30 AM1/19/07
to

"Paul Hyett" <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dacfWGZ6...@blueyonder.co.uk...

Yup all those idle closed shop, union only work to rule, militant, three day
week lefties will celebrate I have no doubt.


Harry the Horse

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 7:45:54 AM1/19/07
to
"The Rifleman" <surv...@northland.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vPednZgAJ-q...@bt.com...
No just those of us who despise parasites.


0 new messages