Trade Unions. Good or bad?

[Andy McGregor]

Again, I agree in principle but i have to be honest, I think an MJDA smacks of trade unionism, something i've never liked by the way.

[snip]

IMO 'unions' as such utilise 'bully boy' tactics. My pal wants to fight you but he's bigger than you, so you go and get your mates and you all take on the big boy. The old 'my dad is bigger than your dad' springs to mind. And also, i find that when these unions get bigger and stronger, they tend to forget about the individual?

The above is a quote from the MJDA thread. It's something I think is worthy of a separate debate.

As a member of the Conservative Party I've seen some unions as being too powerful - and as unions support and vote in the Labour Party I'm not really disposed to like them. But as a Member of a local Council I've seen the union as a useful way of staff being represented fairly.

So, what do you think?

[Dance Demon]

I was brought up in a very strong socialist background. My father was a full time trade union officer. Until very recently I was vice convenor of the Edinburgh Council branch of the T&GWU. I Strongly believe that the Thatcher government totally destroyed trade unionism in the UK along with much of heavy industry and manufacturing. Not to the benefit of the country I may add. I also think that the political party that was born out of trade unionism, ie the Labour Party bears no resemblence to the original party, and can no longer consider itself as being socialist. The likes of Kier Hardy and the Tolpuddle martyrs, must be turning in their graves to think that the sacrifices they made to have a system of equality has been so easily forgotten. I also have no qualms about saying that I agreed all along the line with Arthur Scargill during the miners dispute, and that most of what he predicted would happen has..........( awaits large amonts of negative rep :wink: )

[Andy McGregor]

I also think that the political party that was born out of trade unionism, ie the Labour Party bears no resemblence to the original party, and can no longer consider itself as being socialist. The likes of Kier Hardy and the Tolpuddle martyrs, must be turning in their graves to think that the sacrifices they made to have a system of equality has been so easily forgotten.
:yeah:

At last, a political debate.

I am a realist so I think Socialism is a failed experiment. But, deep down, I wish it had succeeded ... But, as a realist, I'm a Conservative :flower:

And I think that the Labour Party need to change it's name and objectives, even split into two parties, if it's to have any credibility with it's founders and their objectives :angry:

[Gareth]

In my job 98% of all Train Drivers are ASLEF union members. 99% of the time the job the union does is vital.

Some times they get it badly wrong, and I don`t always agree with their stance, but thats where democracy and a vote count.

But for the majority of the time it is vital to have that backup and support.The membership fees are worth it just for the legal cover alone. Especially with incidents like the recent one when the Paddington to Plymouth service was derailed @ Ufton Nervet.

I`m sure I would have been on the dole queue by now without union support.

So my answer is ..........good.

[Graham]

On another forum I frequent there are a number of people who are ardent libertarians and free-marketeers. Even a casual study of 18th and 19th century history reveals the degree to which a completely free market can survive and even thrive on the abject poverty of the workforce, provided the available labour market is larger than the required workforce, something which is bound to happen every so often. (In fact, going back a little further it was only the Black Death which ended serfdom due to a sudden decrease in the available labour market). I therefore firmly believe that the tendency of some employers to make conditions and wages as cheap as possible needs to be countered, either by government or trades unions or a combination of both. In this country the unions became very powerful, but at the same time economic conditions meant that they had achieved most of their original aims. Unfortunately some unions continued to wield their power in pursuit of objectives which were perhaps less admirable than those of the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Keir Hardy. This led to a drop in public support for them which allowed Margaret Thatcher to crush the NUM in retaliation for their previous destruction of the Heath government. I agree Scargill's arguments were valid but he was sadly misguided in the way he went about his campaign, and in my opinion responsibility for his ultimate defeat must rest at his own door.

Currently the balance between employers and workers is very much controlled by the government (eg minimum wage, safety regulations, etc) and the fact that there is not a significant excess in the labour market. I do not see Trades Unions expanding their role again unless there is a change in the labour market.

Having said all that, the relationship between dance organisers and dancers is not regulated by government or any other means, so I think an MJDA could have a role to play.

[stewart38]

I was a union rep for a financial organisation in the city of london

Given unions were seen as cloth caps and whippets membership was under 20% in london (500 staff)

However national membership was 80% (7,500 staff)

The union did a lot but the 'people in london' just didnt see it.

They lacked teeth in some areas and I wish they had the guts of the train drivers unions etc

power to the unions !

[Jive Brummie]

As much as i'd like to think people act and vote with the thoughts of the masses in mind, i don't think that is the case.

I'm in the armed forces and I'm not allowed to be part of a union and for very obvious reasons. Can you imagine if we decided we were not being payed enough and so went on strike. :really: ..exactly, it just wouldn't happen.

Not so long ago, I and a few thousand other armed forces personnel were sent to Morton-In-Marsh fire training college to get trained up to fight fires. The reason was that the firemen decided they were not being payed enough, the government stepped in and stated they would receive a pay rise if some standards were attained. Some crews in the UK did as they were told and thought fantastic, now pay us. The millitant fire crews in parts of London and Liverpool told the government to 'get stuffed' and refused to change. In respect to this and due to a clause(sp?) written into the agreement, the government said they would not pay out as all the crews in the UK had not towed the line. Result was they threatened to strike again.

The armed forces are stretched to their absolute max in light of hostilities in Afghanistan, the Gulf and various other commitments in the world. We had to provide cover for the firemen. Was that fair? I'm not sure. The union did act, and in effect they acted for the minority rather than the majority. But were they right to do this?

I think unions have there place, but in this instance i think there actions overall were selfish.

I'm personnally the type of bloke that thinks along the lines of, you make your own choices be they good or bad, nobody can enforce their opinions upon you and if they try, it in effect constitutes bullying.....I've never liked bullys.

JB x x

[Andy McGregor]

My own opinion regarding the Firemen's right to strike is that they shouldn't be given that right, just like the armed forces can't strike. The fire service is funded by tax income just like the Armed Forces. It is an emergency service and needs to be on-call at all times. If people were told, like they are when they join the army, "if you become a fireman you will not be able to strike" they can make a choice to become a fireman under those terms or get another job that doesn't make them irrisistable to women :wink:

The firemen held us to ransom by striking - and our only available reaction to this bullying tactic was to leave perfect fire engines in fire stations and use ancient equipment and soldiers who have basic training in fire-fighting. This means that the action of this particular union puts lives at risk. Something I find impossible to support.

On the other hand, there are private businesses who exploit their staff, the unions can hold these guys to ransom to get a fair wage - but it doesn't mean lives are put at risk, only profits :clap:

[Simon r]

The fire service is funded by tax income just like the Armed Forces. It is an emergency service and needs to be on-call at all times. If people were told, like they are when they join the army, "if you become a fireman you will not be able to strike" they can make a choice to become a fireman under those terms or get another job that doesn't make them irrisistable to women :wink:

The firemen held us to ransom by striking - and our only available reaction to this bullying tactic was to leave perfect fire engines in fire stations and use ancient equipment and soldiers who have basic training in fire-fighting. This means that the action of this particular union puts lives at risk. :clap:

I believe the fire service went on strike because of the amazingly low wages that as a group they are paid. As you quite rightly say there action does put lives at risk but i believe there whole argument is that they risk there lives every day and are paid no more than the average supermarket assistant. I think this abuse of pay extends also to the police, hospitals and also the armed services.
Be carefull of sweeping statements this is a fragile subject and i for one hold huge respect for all these services.

[TheTramp]

I believe the fire service went on strike because of the amazingly low wages that as a group they are paid. As you quite rightly say there action does put lives at risk but i believe there whole argument is that they risk there lives every day and are paid no more than the average supermarket assistant. I think this abuse of pay extends also to the police, hospitals and also the armed services.
Be carefull of sweeping statements this is a fragile subject and i for one hold huge respect for all these services.

Whatever the firemen get paid, they applied for the job, at those wages, knowing the conditions of service. No-one forced them to take the job. There are plenty of people earning less than them. And there is no way they earn the same as an average supermarket assistant (I believe that the average fireman earns about £23000 a year - on minimum wage (around £5 an hour) a supermarket assistant would have to work over 88 hours every week to earn that) [Totally agree - be careful of sweeping statements]. If they decide that they don't like the job, at those wages, with the conditions, then they have the right to go and find another job that they prefer.

In saying this, I do have a total respect for anyone who works in any of the services named above.

I don't think that they (or anyone else) has the right to strike - and definitely not to hold the country to ransom. And I don't believe in trade unions. I've never been a member of one, and I never will. Maybe I've just been lucky in the jobs I've had so far (though I'm not so sure about that :what: ).

[stewart38]

I don't think that they (or anyone else) has the right to strike - and definitely not to hold the country to ransom. And I don't believe in trade unions. I've never been a member of one, and I never will. Maybe I've just been lucky in the jobs I've had so far (though I'm not so sure about that :what: ).


Someone mention in the paper look at what train/tube drivers staff get etc their terms and conditions all 'great'

Its the union that got them that

[Simon r]

Whatever the firemen get paid, they applied for the job, at those wages, knowing the conditions of service. No-one forced them to take the job. There are plenty of people earning less than them. And there is no way they earn the same as an average supermarket assistant (I believe that the average fireman earns about £23000 a year - on minimum wage (around £5 an hour) a supermarket assistant would have to work over 88 hours every week to earn that) [Totally agree - be careful of sweeping statements]. If they decide that they don't like the job, at those wages, with the conditions, then they have the right to go and find another job that they prefer.

In saying this, I do have a total respect for anyone who works in any of the services named above.

I don't think that they (or anyone else) has the right to strike - and definitely not to hold the country to ransom. And I don't believe in trade unions. I've never been a member of one, and I never will. Maybe I've just been lucky in the jobs I've had so far (though I'm not so sure about that :what: ).
The average is 23,000 correct the starting wage for a fire officer is 17,000 increasing on yearly passing but in the first year you are still expected to risk your life in your normal day to day job.
Those that had been in the service for ten to fifteen years had recieved a much lower year to year increase than the rest of the country. So when they started to work for the fire service they were on par with what they felt was a reasonable wage. The union helped to get there wage increased to what is now an average of 23,000. Without the union this would be much less.
Tramp if you had worked in one job for say ten years built your life and pension around that job would you find it so hard to leave , i dont think it is that easy for most as most have wives and children to think about.
Most shop assistant get paid £7.00 per hour in this area with ample overtime alowances and weekend working but even for a stright 36 hour week that puts them on 13,000 a week.
So do you think to risk your life on a daily basis is equal to 4,000 a year?

[TheTramp]

The average is 23,000 correct the starting wage for a fire officer is 17,000 increasing on yearly passing but in the first year you are still expected to risk your life in your normal day to day job.
Those that had been in the service for ten to fifteen years had recieved a much lower year to year increase than the rest of the country. So when they started to work for the fire service they were on par with what they felt was a reasonable wage. The union helped to get there wage increased to what is now an average of 23,000. Without the union this would be much less.
Tramp if you had worked in one job for say ten years built your life and pension around that job would you find it so hard to leave , i dont think it is that easy for most as most have wives and children to think about.
Most shop assistant get paid £7.00 per hour in this area with ample overtime alowances and weekend working but even for a stright 36 hour week that puts them on 13,000 a week.
So do you think to risk your life on a daily basis is equal to 4,000 a year?

Sorry Simon. Still can't agree with you. And your figures are somewhat mixed.

If a starting fireman gets 17000, and the average is 23000, then the people who've been working for 10 years are probably earning more than 23000. Which is well above the national average wage. And well above what the shop assistants, even in your area get paid.

Those people starting new, on 17000, know exactly what risks they are taking, and what the salary is. You're right. I wouldn't risk my life on a daily basis, and hence, my respect for those people that do. However, those new people do know what they are taking on.

I find it hard to believe that the firemen are receiving less than at least an inflation matching pay rise. Although, I will grant that some things - like housing in the south east for example, have risen in price at a much faster rate than inflation. However, they are still earning a lot more than a hell of a lot of people who work in that area anyhow.

[djtrev]

I was a member of a trade union for 46 years and its thanks to them and their negotiating skills that I managed to keep a fairly high standard of living.
Unfortunately I am now in a job with no union and believe me I know which one I prefer.They have only just recognised that even though I am classed as casual/temporary I am still entitled to paid holidays!!Minimum wage,no holidays ,no sick pay.Give me the strength of a union anyday.
As for the firemen.I currently work with 3 retired firemen(one was a fireman the other two were officers).Their pensions range from £20000 to £40000 a year(allegedly).Hard done by ?My arse!! And they retired in their 50's.You will probably find the same applies to policemen.
One thing is for sure,if I was lucky enough to have a £20000 pension I sure as hell wouldnt be working.

[stewart38]

I was a member of a trade union for 46 years and its thanks to them and their negotiating skills that I managed to keep a fairly high standard of living.
Unfortunately I am now in a job with no union and believe me I know which one I prefer.They have only just recognised that even though I am classed as casual/temporary I am still entitled to paid holidays!!Minimum wage,no holidays ,no sick pay.Give me the strength of a union anyday.
As for the firemen.I currently work with 3 retired firemen(one was a fireman the other two were officers).Their pensions range from £20000 to £40000 a year(allegedly).Hard done by ?My arse!! And they retired in their 50's.You will probably find the same applies to policemen.
One thing is for sure,if I was lucky enough to have a £20000 pension I sure as hell wouldnt be working.


46yrs ?? didnt they negotiate a hansom retirement after that ??

re other point i risk my life on the underground everyday and am paid accordingly

[Dreadful Scathe]

Be carefull of sweeping statements ..

Was that tongue in cheek ? :)

Oh dear. Bad Simon R - I've told you a million times before not to exaggerate:)

Firefighters get paid Amazingly Low Wages...wow, such nonsense from one normally so sensible.
Tell that to my wife who as a Nursery Nurse of 17 years experience - teaches teachers how to integrate special needs children into classrooms and travels round schools in the Edinburgh area to advise on integration and has an ever growing caseload as the government insist that as many children as possible are integrated into mainstream schools.
Its not the same job it used to be because of government changes. All jobs do that of course, but in the case of nursery nurses a lot of them now do what teachers used to do.
Their last pay rise was in 1983 and when forced to strike by years of pitiful negotiations the top level salary for a nursery nurse NOW works out at the truly wonderful £14,000 a year. Nursery Nurses got a bad rep during the strike because they 'only look after children' - yeah right. Newspapers (and forums) are especially good at propagating stupid assumptions :).

Some facts about pay scales ...


Heres some recent pay information (http://www.kellyservices.co.uk/eprise/main/web/uk/services/en/pay_gap_widens%20) on office workers, it shows that even an office manager in 2003 could get paid anywhere between £15,000 and £25,000 and the pay gap is widening.
Supermarket assistant are likely to be on minimum wage or maybe
as much as £6 an hour (woo), full-time for £12,000 a year-ish.

Heres some info on how much firefighters get paid (http://www.southwales-fire.gov.uk/recruitment/information_pack/rates_of_pay.htm). The BASIC annual salary for a TRAINEE is £18,756 a year. Hardly 'no more than the average supermarket assistant' that Simon mentions. I'd consider £6,000 a year to be substantially 'more', not to mention other benefits, career options and overtime rates. (I can see a supermarket worker gettinga a 40k pension..not)
This is a brand new, no training, firefighter we are talking about here remember.

I still think there is a place for Unions, assuming they are any good. Not all Unions are good ones, but they also have a lot less power than they used to have. Councils and the government don't seem to have to bow to any pressure from any Unions i.e. the firefighters held out and got nowhere near what they wanted but they were withholding a valuable service so it did get resolved. Nursery Nurses weren't so lucky, they withheld a valuable service too but it was less high profile in the publics perception so the leverage was much less. Who holds all the cards? Not the Unions, its the government and the media!

[Andy McGregor]

Their last pay rise was in 1983 and when forced to strike by years of pitiful negotiations the top level salary for a nursery nurse NOW works out at the truly wonderful £14,000 a year. Nursery Nurses got a bad rep during the strike because they 'only look after children' - yeah right. Newspapers (and forums) are especially good at propagating stupid assumptions :).

Did we see soldiers being trained up to replace Nursery Nurses? And that is because, although their services are essential, we can do without their services for a few hours - we need firemen to be available 24/7 and that is why they shouldn't be allowed to strike. I think the risk that the firemen's strike posed to the public was criminal and we should make striking by firemen an offence in the same way as it would be for the army - consider this, how would you feel about the firemens low wages if your mother or child had died in a fire during the firemens strike?

[jockey]

Trade unions have a vital role to play in a class society: they are organised to defend the legitimate rights and interests of the working classes and, more recently, of the middle classes against the legitimate rights and interests of the ruling class (on whose behalf the middle classes do the managing). That's one theory.
The trade unions in a (capitalist) class society represent the intelectual vanguard of the proletariat whose historical role is to force a revolution (peaceful or otherwise) whereby both competing classes (the boigoisie and the proletariat) come into conflict; such conflict is seen dialectically: the clash of thesis with its opposite or antithesis (in this case worker and boss) is said to result in a new and better world which contains the best bits of both (as in a discussion where a new position is reached after an argument). In the new world (communism) there is no need for trade unions as understood in Capitalist society as there is no conflict of interests or rights in a classless society. That's another theory - Historical Materialism (Marxist - Leninist).

Many on the left argue that most people's understanding of what has come to be called 'Communism' (Soviet Union) is the intermediate (Iknew I could get dancing in this somehow :clap: ) stage in the historical sequence capitalism>communism i.e., dictatorship of the proletariat; i.e, the necessary bit where everybody has to be told what to do aand all vestiges of the Bourgois ideology (culture) removed before moving on (upwards or downwards depending on your political persuasion!). So the failure of the Soviet Union is not a 'failed experiment' of communism. It got stuck in a dictatorship.Communism never happened. We can all see that they are better of in Russia with 'Capitalism' and the Free Market Economy (where is that irony symbol...?)

The best scheme for coming up with a fair distribution system in a capitalist system with genuine liberal tendencies has been penned by John Rawls in his seminal work 'A Theory Of Justice'. This work alone saved politrical philosophy
from being moribund. The central idea is that a fair distribution system is one where a given number of the right people (I'm painting with a broad brush here) choose which groups and individuals should receive what goods and services without knowing which group they would belong to! So it's an attempt to achieve an interest-free result in an interest-bound society.
Of course its an academic book so it is completely inaccessible and given rise to acres of debate about what it all means (that irony symbol again please..) Whers's that white wine I was given for Xmas.. b...dy hell its all but finished :cheers:

[Dreadful Scathe]

Did we see soldiers being trained up to replace Nursery Nurses? ..[snip]


This what I was getting at in my last paragraph of that post :) Nursery Nurses do a 'less important' job i.e. NOT doing it is unlikely to cost lives, than Firefighters do.

I didnt have a lot of sympathy for the Firefighters strike because, like you say, people could be killed because of it BUT stories like this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2510365.stm) demonstrate that deaths were unlikely to be caused by striking firefighters when they still came off strike to help. This post on a military forum (http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7365) from a temporary forces fireman takes a different tone and paints the firefighters in a very selfish light indeed.
I didnt have a lot of sympathy based on their pay either, its a very well paid job. I certainly don't have any sympathy based on it being a dangerous job, lots of jobs are dangerous....

Firefighter deaths in the UK

1990: Six
1991: Four
1992: Three
1993: Four
1994: Two
1995: Five
1996: Three
1997: One
1998: ?
1999: One
2000: None
2001: None

UK's most dangerous Jobs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm)

1. Fishermen
2. Merchant seafarers
3. Aircraft flight deck officers
4. Railway lengthmen
5. Scaffolders
6. Roofers and glaziers
7. Forestry workers
8. Quarry and other mine workers
9. Dockers and stevedores
10. Lorry drivers

Not even in the top ten.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I just had a thought :) - I may think Firefighters get a decent salary, as do Teachers, Police etc.. and many other public sector workers don't get nearly enough but there is a huge gap in some types of job between public and private sector. Some people get paid way too much for what they do in the private sector.
I'm wondering now what firefighters would earn if they worked as private fire consultants ? :)

[Andy McGregor]

This what I was getting at in my last paragraph of that post :) Nursery Nurses do a 'less important' job i.e. NOT doing it is unlikely to cost lives, than Firefighters do.

I wasn't really commenting on the importance of either job. Just the urgency with which each is required to do their job. We could go a day or two without Nursery Nurses and they could probably catch up later. Two days without a fire service and we could have serious problems.

[stewart38]

I just had a thought :) - Some people get paid way too much for what they do in the private sector.
I'm wondering now what firefighters would earn if they worked as private fire consultants ? :)

More proabably. Its supply and demand

[Dance Demon]

UK's most dangerous Jobs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm)

1. Fishermen
2. Merchant seafarers
3. Aircraft flight deck officers
4. Railway lengthmen
5. Scaffolders
6. Roofers and glaziers
7. Forestry workers
8. Quarry and other mine workers
9. Dockers and stevedores
10. Lorry drivers

Not even in the top ten.


:eek: :eek: ...I'm in the top ten...............Right then....I demand more money, and I want it NOW...in fact I want it yesterday, and I don't want any strings attached.......... :wink:

[Bangers & Mash]

I had a whole spiel in response to this thread but I decided that I wanted to comment on some of the side issues instead - since they are particularly close to home.

To comment on the main thread first - I think unions are a necessary evil. In an ideal world they wouldn't be needed - but unfortunately we do. So long as they remember they are representing the workforce and so long as employers and government alike remember the same - they are a vehicle to a brighter future for all.


Whatever the firemen get paid, they applied for the job, at those wages, knowing the conditions of service. No-one forced them to take the job

I have friends in the fire service, health service and the armed forces and I have friends from each who have died doing their duty - trapped in fires, legionnaires disease and MRSA, and caught in the line of fire.

I chose my career in IT because I wanted money for little effort and largely in the past I have not been disappointed. That was my choice. The greatest risk for me is heart disease through lack of exercise, or being strangled on site

Many of the people in these services joined because they wanted to make a difference. They knew people who died or lost their homes in fires and wanted to join the fire service; they lost friends or family to cancer, accident or illness and wanted to join the health service; or they believed that freedom was a cause worth fighting for and joined to armed services.

Everybody knows you don't join the services for money - but what is wrong with giving a little more thought and respect to those people who do join - with pay, conditions and equipment.: instead of cheating them because they can't or won't strike through legal or moral obligation.

In my eyes, these people will never be paid enough!

Bangers

[TheTramp]

Everybody knows you don't join the services for money - but what is wrong with giving a little more thought and respect to those people who do join - with pay, conditions and equipment.: instead of cheating them because they can't or won't strike through legal or moral obligation.

In my eyes, these people will never be paid enough!


Looking at the figures quoted in previous posts - and I'll restrict this answer to the fire-service, since I don't have the time (or energy) to look into the other services - it seems that people who work in these services currently earn more than the average wage. And for those people who reach the 'top' of the fire-service tree, it seems a large amount more. I certainly wouldn't mind a £40,000, or even a £20,000 a year pension when I'm mid 50's. My father retired at the age of 64 last year, after working in the same job for nearly 30 years (I think), and his pension isn't even close to that figure.

So, I really don't think that they are being that cheated on the pay front.

I'm sure that some of the people working in the services have joined because it is their vocation. I'm equally sure that some have joined because they wouldn't be able to earn above the average wage in any other job, or for a variety of other reasons. Either way, it is still their choice, and it doesn't seem that bad a pay scheme to me.

I still respect the people who do the job. And of course, your opinion.

[Bangers & Mash]

Looking at the figures quoted in previous posts - and I'll restrict this answer to the fire-service, since I don't have the time (or energy) to look into the other services - it seems that people who work in these services currently earn more than the average wage. And for those people who reach the 'top' of the fire-service tree, it seems a large amount more. I certainly wouldn't mind a £40,000, or even a £20,000 a year pension when I'm mid 50's. My father retired at the age of 64 last year, after working in the same job for nearly 30 years (I think), and his pension isn't even close to that figure.

So, I really don't think that they are being cheated on the pay front.

I'm sure that some of the people working in the services have joined because it is their vocation. I'm equally sure that some have joined because they wouldn't be able to earn above the average wage in any other job. Either way, it is still their choice, and it doesn't seem that bad a pay scheme to me.

I still respect the people who do the job. And of course, your opinion.

:cheers:

[Dance Demon]

Re the Fireman thing..........Up here in Edinburgh, we have the Scottish Parlaiment, and a large number of MSPs who are paid obscene amounts of money for doing not very much. many of them can't even find the time to make it along to represent their constituents at the daily First Ministers question time. They receive all sorts of freebies, and expect to be exempt from things like the road tolls, that they are trying to push through. If you compare the salaries of these fat cats, to the salaries of the guys who put their lifes on the line to carry out their duties, it kinda puts it into perspective I think. I find it quite offensive when some sweaty money grabbing MP come s on TV , telling us how greedy these firemen are ...then pops out for a free lunch somewhere... :devil: :devil:

[Bangers & Mash]

Re the Fireman thing..........Up here in Edinburgh, we have the Scottish Parlaiment, and a large number of MSPs who are paid obscene amounts of money for doing not very much. many of them can't even find the time to make it along to represent their constituents at the daily First Ministers question time. They receive all sorts of freebies, and expect to be exempt from things like the road tolls, that they are trying to push through. If you compare the salaries of these fat cats, to the salaries of the guys who put their lifes on the line to carry out their duties, it kinda puts it into perspective I think. I find it quite offensive when some sweaty money grabbing MP come s on TV , telling us how greedy these firemen are ...then pops out for a free lunch somewhere... :devil: :devil:

I threatened to report our local MP back home as a missing person. He got really upset and snotty about it until I offered to publish the lengths I had gone to to try and get hold of him (including asking party HQ to get hold of him - they came back to me 3 days later and said they couldn't find him).

Since then, one of the local papers has threatened to do the same and ran an article on how crap he was.

This guy gets a salary and massive expenses which he uses to employ his wife!

I think we all know how crap this lot up here are - and their attitude to spending other peoples money.

All MPs and Council Executives should be forced to accept financial liability for their actions and decisions (bit like a lloyds name) such that if incompetence, fraud, theft, etc. are identified, they should be penalised financially.

(sorry - off thread but worth a rant! )

:rolleyes:

Anyway, back to thread...

I have a friend who remains now very active in the miners' union. I used to regard this union and Arthur Scargill as disruptive and politically motivated - more recently I have come to understand more that the miners' union

1. provides a sense of identity and community for the miners with miners travelling the length and breadth of the country to meet up
2. provides a whole set of packages to its members including pensions, assistance with medi-claims, negotiating damages, etc
3. Was pretty much right about pit closures at a time when the goverment was importing cheap(?) coal from south africa
4. funded the miners' union on south africa to give them a voice (and more conveniently force up the price of their coal)

In this respect I fully support the unions and applaud their efforts. I don't like people who persecute others who feel the need to continue working through disputes tho and was disappointed by the divisions caused by and that still exist because of the miners' strikes before.

The firemen had a very much more relaxed attitude - they were on strike, but they still went out and attended RTAs and Fires etc. The government saw this as weakness and division. I think moral dilemma better describes it.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If you compare the salaries of these fat cats, to the salaries of the guys who put their lifes on the line to carry out their duties, it kinda puts it into perspective I think.

It certainly does. Hypocrisy is rife. Another example of that was during the Nursery Nurses strike. The local councillors were the ones who did not want to give in and grant the Nursery nurses the pay rise they were looking for, but they managed in that time to vote themselves an increase on their own salaries, from £7,000 to £21,000 (for what amounts to a very part time job). Yes, tripled! The money spent on their pay rise for a hundred or so councillors would have covered the full increase wanted by all 6,000 nursery nurses. Hilarious :).

[bigdjiver]

It should be mentioned that firemen work shifts, and it plays havoc with their dancing.