Ever been a scab or even thought about it?

[AberdeenBud]

Apparently not.

[jock001]

Is such a "big" meeting the correct place to bring a local matter like that up? Maybe the local TU rep should've done more but if there is a safety risk the union is not responsible for the fault. That would lie with the employer. As for strike, if there is a democratic vote, under existing law, then union members should strike regardless of their personal opposition.

As I said, the entire meeting consisted of pretty minor issues but ones which affected the workplaces of senior union members.

If my matter was a local one then the ones from England that were taking up 100% of the time of a meeting in Glasgow definately were too.

The only purpose for joining the PCS is to get the legal cover they offer and some time to skive off now and again by using the time mandated for meetings to do something useful.

[jock001]

Didn't that fucking idiot learn from his humiliation in the Clutha thread?

Apparently not.

You two still deeply upset that I said something you took offence to but couldn't counter in any way, thereby causing you deep seething?

You couldn't contribute a single thing to that discussion rather than the standard namecalling of a 4 year old having a tantrum.

Feel free to contribute to this discussion and prove that in the past year you matured to the level of a 5 year old.

Or were you too busy seething at me to grow up any?

[Sergeant Wilson]

As I said, the entire meeting consisted of pretty minor issues but ones which affected the workplaces of senior union members.

If my matter was a local one then the ones from England that were taking up 100% of the time of a meeting in Glasgow definately were too.

The only purpose for joining the PCS is to get the legal cover they offer and some time to skive off now and again by using the time mandated for meetings to do something useful.

I don't get why local issues of that type were being discussed at an open all members meeting. Did you try bringing it up under aob pointing out that local TU didn't seem able to resolve it with the employer?

[jock001]

I don't get why local issues of that type were being discussed at an open all members meeting. Did you try bringing it up under aob pointing out that local TU didn't seem able to resolve it with the employer?

No, I recognised it was a waste of time but that I was still getting paid to not be at work and I went for chips.

Having to learn the arcane intracacies of trade unionism just to get anything done (and thus make the problem worse by perpetuating it) didn't seem like a decent solution to me. It still doesn't.

For me trade unionism is a lot like communism. It might well be the very best way to do things in theory but in practice the system is always ruined by some corrupt, self important scum who think they're more important than everyone else and thus deserve to be treated as superior by a system that's supposed to treat everyone as equals.

Collective bargaining can help but by the time it has been beurocratised into a trade union, you pretty much know it's already corrupt.

Also, despite the claims here, they achieve very little of our current employment law. Had the trade unions never existed, the party most interested in representing the working class would still have pushed for better regulation. It might not have been called the labour party but it would have done the same job, and without the interference, possibly much better.

[Dee Man]

quote name="effeffsee_the2nd" post="8863676" timestamp="1413310486"]I dont agree with this cnut often but he's right. It actuly pisses me off when i hear so many people refer to essential things like rent, bills tax car insurence etc etc and say "i cant afford that" but can afford to go out and get pished or take day trips or buy a new 500 pound phone after carelessly losing or breaking their old one

Correct. I was on strike for a day a couple of years ago, and despite the fact the average punter is on a very good salary, there was still the selfish dross about "I can't afford to lose a day's pay". Strange... seems you can afford to go on holiday to the Maldives though. Must be cheap flights.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you two are saying but using lazy examples of "a £500 phone" and "a holiday to the Maldives" as examples of folk being minted is playground household economics. People don't generally pay for these luxuries with cash up front. I've got a £500 quid phone but I'm paying for the fucker monthly on a two year contract as I'm sure most folk do. Most folk going on holidays will be paying it up and saving for spending money and will probably be maxed out on their household budget every month. A better standard of argument in future please gents. Thank you.

[broon-loon]

self important scum who think they're more important than everyone else

Maggie Thatcher description IMO.....

[jock001]

self important scum who think they're more important than everyone else

Maggie Thatcher description IMO.....

Yes she was.

She had far more in common with Scargill than either of them would like to admit I suspect.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

You two still deeply upset that I said something you took offence to but couldn't counter in any way, thereby causing you deep seething?

You couldn't contribute a single thing to that discussion rather than the standard namecalling of a 4 year old having a tantrum.

Feel free to contribute to this discussion and prove that in the past year you matured to the level of a 5 year old.

Or were you too busy seething at me to grow up any?

The funny thing is that you knew I was talking about you without using your name.

Which part of my previous post made it click for you?

"fucking idiot" or "humiliation"?

I'm genuinely interested.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

quote name="effeffsee_the2nd" post="8863676" timestamp="1413310486"] I dont agree with this cnut often but he's right. It actuly pisses me off when i hear so many people refer to essential things like rent, bills tax car insurence etc etc and say "i cant afford that" but can afford to go out and get pished or take day trips or buy a new 500 pound phone after carelessly losing or breaking their old one

I don't necessarily disagree with what you two are saying but using lazy examples of "a £500 phone" and "a holiday to the Maldives" as examples of folk being minted is playground household economics. People don't generally pay for these luxuries with cash up front. I've got a £500 quid phone but I'm paying for the fucker monthly on a two year contract as I'm sure most folk do. Most folk going on holidays will be paying it up and saving for spending money and will probably be maxed out on their household budget every month. A better standard of argument in future please gents. Thank you.

Monthly or not tho, if you bleat on (not saying you do) about not affording you're rent/ mortgage , youre tax youre bills youre car insurence , to fix youre heating or get new tyres ... you know essential things. then you cant afford a smart phone or a holiday. People my age group (18-32) quite often say they are "skint" when they realy just mean shite at budgeting. they are not always poor or poorly paid but will prioritise instant gratification like nights out and computer games on release over more important things.

[H_B]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you two are saying but using lazy examples of "a £500 phone" and "a holiday to the Maldives" as examples of folk being minted is playground household economics. People don't generally pay for these luxuries with cash up front.

lolwut? What a total moron.

[H_B]

Monthly or not tho, if you bleat on (not saying you do) about not affording you're rent/ mortgage , youre tax youre bills youre car insurence , to fix youre heating or get new tyres ... you know essential things. then you cant afford a smart phone or a holiday. People my age group (18-32) quite often say they are "skint" when they realy just mean shite at budgeting. they are not always poor or poorly paid but will prioritise instant gratification like nights out and computer games on release over more important things.

Well, quite.

If you are claiming that the loss of one day's pay (for the people I am talking about, say £150 for the sake of argument) is a burden too great to bear, whilst you are jetting off some weeks later to the Maldives for a fortnight, your budgeting is so utterly fucked you will be on the street in a year's time.

This is of course utter bollocks. I'm talking about people earning well over the threshold required to pay higher rate tax. The loss of a day's pay is not going to mean their kids can't eat. It's pure selfishness.

We have a sharesave scheme at work, where you can put a portion of your income (up to a max of £250 a month) and buy discounted shares after 3 or 5 years. I've had people bemoan to me how skint they are... whilst they are putting £250 a month into one of these schemes.

When suggested that perhaps they should be reducing that it's "Oh no, I want to double my money in 5 years". Well, that's lovely, but it's your choice to ringfence £250 a month, so stop whining about not having it in your monthly budget.

[Dee Man]

lolwut? What a total moron.

Argue the point then you clown. You've shown yourself up to be a judgemental c**t based on folks material items.

What a shallow and tedious individual you are.

[H_B]

Argue the point then you clown. You've shown yourself up to be a judgemental c**t based on folks material items.

What a shallow and tedious individual you are.

No, what's actually happened is that you have joined jock in the hall of shame for a spectacularly stupid contribution to the thread.

Gutted for you.

That you actually think a household budget capable of paying for a trip to the Maldives couldn't survive the loss of one day's pay for one month of the year shows (well,shows again) what a clueless cretin you are.

[Dee Man]

Well, quite.

If you are claiming that the loss of one day's pay (for the people I am talking about, say £150 for the sake of argument) is a burden too great to bear, whilst you are jetting off some weeks later to the Maldives for a fortnight, your budgeting is so utterly fucked you will be on the street in a year's time.

This is of course utter bollocks. I'm talking about people earning well over the threshold required to pay higher rate tax. The loss of a day's pay is not going to mean their kids can't eat. It's pure selfishness.

We have a sharesave scheme at work, where you can put a portion of your income (up to a max of £250 a month) and buy discounted shares after 3 or 5 years. I've had people bemoan to me how skint they are... whilst they are putting £250 a month into one of these schemes.

When suggested that perhaps they should be reducing that it's "Oh no, I want to double my money in 5 years". Well, that's lovely, but it's your choice to ringfence £250 a month, so stop whining about not having it in your monthly budget.

You don't have a scooby about other folks household budgets, but I'm sure that knowing they can go to HB in their office for financial lectures will be of great comfort to them.

[jock001]

The funny thing is that you knew I was talking about you without using your name.

Which part of my previous post made it click for you?

"fucking idiot" or "humiliation"?

I'm genuinely interested.

Your previous habit of ducking into threads, throwing up some random abuse towards me then running away when I actually ask what your own opinion is told me you were referring to me.

Your obsession with what I said on the clutha thread, despite, the seethe it has caused you for a whole year now but most importantly the fact you couldn't counter any of it make me think it was me you were referring to.

So, did you have a contrivution to make to this thread or are you still stuck with the debating skills of a 4 year old?

After an entire year seething about it, can you counter any of my arguments in the clutha thread, or this one, or any I post in?

[jock001]

lolwut? What a total moron.

Well, quite.

If you are claiming that the loss of one day's pay (for the people I am talking about, say £150 for the sake of argument) is a burden too great to bear, whilst you are jetting off some weeks later to the Maldives for a fortnight, your budgeting is so utterly fucked you will be on the street in a year's time.

This is of course utter bollocks. I'm talking about people earning well over the threshold required to pay higher rate tax. The loss of a day's pay is not going to mean their kids can't eat. It's pure selfishness.

We have a sharesave scheme at work, where you can put a portion of your income (up to a max of £250 a month) and buy discounted shares after 3 or 5 years. I've had people bemoan to me how skint they are... whilst they are putting £250 a month into one of these schemes.

When suggested that perhaps they should be reducing that it's "Oh no, I want to double my money in 5 years". Well, that's lovely, but it's your choice to ringfence £250 a month, so stop whining about not having it in your monthly budget.

LOl, you call someone a moron for questioning your grasp on personal finance and in your very next post you go on to explain how you don't just dislike people who spend beyond their means but you also don't like people who invest their money either.

How should us mere mortals be allowed to spend our money by such an expert such as yourself?

Do we get free choice in spending as long as we turn up on picket lines exactly when you order us?

Are people allowed to go to the maldives at all or should they just give all their wages straight to you.

After all, it's entirely up to you how everyone spends their own money as well as whether they are allowed to go into work or not, right?

Thanks for proving my point about unions always being taken over by self important scum who are only out for themselves.

(cue more abuse and name calling but noithing which actually justifies the exstence of unions)

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Your previous habit of ducking into threads, throwing up some random abuse towards me then running away when I actually ask what your own opinion is told me you were referring to me.

Your obsession with what I said on the clutha thread, despite, the seethe it has caused you for a whole year now but most importantly the fact you couldn't counter any of it make me think it was me you were referring to.

So, did you have a contrivution to make to this thread or are you still stuck with the debating skills of a 4 year old?

After an entire year seething about it, can you counter any of my arguments in the clutha thread, or this one, or any I post in?

The only person "seething" on the Clutha thread was you, as all and sundry pished themselves laughing at your pretence of authority on the subject. Your tear-stained reference to taxpayer's money being spent on a cop's funeral was one of many highlights.

[true_rover]

LOl, you call someone a moron for questioning your grasp on personal finance and in your very next post you go on to explain how you don't just dislike people who spend beyond their means but you also don't like people who invest their money either.

How should us mere mortals be allowed to spend our money by such an expert such as yourself?

Do we get free choice in spending as long as we turn up on picket lines exactly when you order us?

Are people allowed to go to the maldives at all or should they just give all their wages straight to you.

After all, it's entirely up to you how everyone spends their own money as well as whether they are allowed to go into work or not, right?

Thanks for proving my point about unions always being taken over by self important scum who are only out for themselves.

(cue more abuse and name calling but noithing which actually justifies the exstence of unions)

Except that isn't what he's saying. It's clearly people who complain about having no money (or not being able to afford to lose a small proportion of a monthly wage) but choose to spend on non-essential, nice to have items that are attracting his ire.

[Dee Man]

I think I would like HB to create a graphic to illustrate his point about family holidays. Ideally it will be a flat world map consisting of concentric circles at 100 mile intervals showing where it is acceptable to go on your travels before your peers start analysing your disposable income.