[Closed] Cuts - Union knee jerk response or last line of defence against the Torries?

There is no question that some cuts are needed, lets face it a £700bn deficit is not exactly a healthy thing to have.
However we are as someone else said a comparitively low tax country in comparison to many [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world ]ok I know its a wiki[/url]. Sadly the simple fact is that there is a huge amount of waste in the country particularly public sector (ok ok I know there is some in the private sector but we cover that by buying products they supply). I think the potential 25% cuts would be bonkers but I don't think they would dare go that far, the coalition will collapse. But i think 10% is to be expected, and I think that the unions are going to piss a lot of people off, I work in the private sector and we have had -6% pay cut for the last 18 months. So when I hear people whining about pay freezes etc it gets right on my tits (I know this isn't totally the issue at the moment but still.

We'll at least it'll force the government into another round of curbing the unions power, last time the right to secondary picketing etc. went, be interresting to see wht happens this time, especially as union membership is significantly down on previous levels.

Yeah hopefully there will be no unions left at all soon and we can get back to the nice productive Victorian standards of workers rights etc - can't wait!

A somewhat paraphrased quote from Obama;

"I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity....I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers - that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

You mean like the typical Labour MP, who has kids in private school, or a house in a good catchment area funded for by the taxpayer, but vehemently defends the rights of everyone else's to go to shite comps?

Yep, A typical MP who belonged to a party following tory policies.

I'm not sure I like these unelected lobby groups championing civil disobediance, surely their whole purpose is to look after their members, not try and start riots.

But you are happy with unelected lobby groups who whispering in the ears of MP's and ministers? I find it hilarious that some people here are talking about unions like its the 1970's again. You are targeting the wrong group.

"that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth.

That really should be "thats made SOME of us wealthy in one of the most socially divided nations on earth."

one of the most socially divided nations on earth

Dont talk such complete and utter shite!

I suggest you go and visit India, see the social divisions between Brahmin and Dalit, and then come back with a sense of perspective!

I find it hilarious that some people here are talking about unions like its the 1970's again.

Listening to some of the rhetoric and tub thumping at the TUC today it would appear the unions think it's the 1970's again.

Yeah hopefully there will be no unions left at all soon and we can get back to the nice productive Victorian standards of workers rights etc - can't wait!

That's a load of drivel, give the politicans a little bit of credit, society has changed massively, trying to compare reeling the excesses of a minority (I mean the unions) with Victorian working conditions is just fatuous.

If your salary in 2006 were £20,000 p.a., and your salary in 2010 were £20,000 p.a., would you say that your salary had been "cut"? Of course not, or, rather, you might say that, but you would be talking more nonsense. IF there had been inflation over that period, your purchasing power would have been cut, but not your salary.

lets face it a £700bn deficit is not exactly a healthy thing to have

That's a load of drivel, give the politicans a little bit of credit, society has changed massively, trying to compare reeling the excesses of a minority (I mean the unions) with Victorian working conditions is just fatuous.

No I think you've missed the point, whilst unions have undoubtedly contributed to improved working conditions so have many other people, including shock horror right wing politicians. The unions have no more right to claim to have changed society for the better than many other groups. The downside is the unions have also had some pretty negative effects on society, anyone remember the miners strike, not all Thatchers fault.

What ever happens it'll be interresting to see what pans out. My prediction is the unions will find they aren't anywhere near as powerful as they like to think. Not sure they actually represent that many of their members very well either. That question will be answered though when the calls for strikes get heeded or ignored.

whilst unions have undoubtedly contributed to improved working conditions so have many other people, including shock horror right wing politicians

Not sure they actually represent that many of their members very well either

Dont talk such complete and utter shite!

I suggest you go and visit India, see the social divisions between Brahmin and Dalit, and then come back with a sense of perspective!

Perhaps you should go to india and look at the living conditions of an emerging economic power and compare it with the worlds only "super power". A country that is supposedly so wealthy that while it excludes large sections of its population from prospering from that wealth, feeds them the dream that is the American dream. But I expect nothing less from a country that has been run by right wingers for so long.

What ever happens it'll be interresting to see what pans out. My prediction is the unions will find they aren't anywhere near as powerful as they like to think.

So why the 70's rhetoric? I can't understand why you find unions, the people in the past that fought for your rights, such a threat these days.

The biggest threat to the UK is the financial sector and that oh so unfortunate nasty business of crashing the entire financial system. Now don't you think it's time to realise that they like the unions in the 70's have become just too powerful?

The unions have no more right to claim to have changed society for the better than many other groups.

LOL ! 😀

I'm afraid the drains on my road were blocked when Britain was in recession in the late eighties then blocked again in the boom times of the nineties. They were blocked in the noughties and show no signs of being unblocked in 2010. Floods downhill cause regular chaos.

Public sector cuts fill me with fear.

Satellites, aircraft bits, scientific instruments, lots of cars - and a load more stuff besides. Most of what we make is high tech.

We make cars... Cars for export? And these are british owned companies?

😮

Forget the economy lets bring back TVR 😛 Lets gamble on that instead of futures in the city.

F1 yeah weve got a lot of teams here (mostly foreign owned?)... but will F1 remain a popular sport? Is it popular? Is it declining? A lot motorshports have been hit hard by the recession - sponsorship gone.

In 2003, manufacturing industry accounted for 16% of national output in the UK and for 13% of employment. This is a continuation of the steady decline in the importance of this sector to the British economy since the 1960s, although the sector is still important for overseas trade, accounting for 83% of exports in 2003. Manufacturing is an important sector of the modern British economy and there is a considerable amount of published research on the subject of the factors affecting its growth and performance. After the 2010 Recession it is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy - experiencing a mini-boom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Manufacturing

Yes its wikipedia.. fred might have written it

And these are british owned companies?

No, but so what? Thousands of British people work there, and I'm sure the shareholders come from all over the world.

Unions seem to be run mainly by lunatics clinging to discredited ideologies. I've no problem with organised labour per se, but I do have a problem with them getting involved in politics, funding political parties and demanding to have their interests heard over everyone else's.

As things stand at the moment, Unions effectively exclude all but Communists and charlatans.

Tron get a grip that is just hysterical gibberish
It seems reasonable that if the unelected Queeen can have a weekly meeting with the pm that a group representing 6.5 million people is also allowed a voice/platform in this democracy. Do we really have 6.5 million communists /chrlatans voting for idiots or just 6.5 million people who dont agree with your view of unions?

i fear that my (largely) irrational hatred of unions is about to go into overdrive.

Hurrah, proof if proof were ever needed - even Fidel finally admits that [i]socialism isn't working[/i]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-cuba-economic-model

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/cuba-privatisation-state-job-cuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11291267

as the BBC says - Cuba has announced radical plans to lay off huge numbers of state employees.

The Cuban labour federation said more than a million workers, or one in five Cubans, would eventually lose their jobs. Those laid off will be encouraged to become self-employed or join new private enterprises, on which some of the current restrictions will be eased.

President Raul Castro has said he the state's role in the economy has to be reduced. About 85% of the official workforce is employed by the state. Analysts say it is the biggest private sector shift since the 1959 revolution.

See that, Cuba's reigning in of the state and reduction in spending is [i]more radical[/i] than Britains!

In other news: Retired civil service chief and former permanent secretary to the treasury under Labour, Lord Turnbull says that :

“public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error”

http://network.civilservicelive.com/pg/pages/view/497934/

a group representing 6.5 million people

I don't think they do represent people though. They have their own political aims, and people join them because they think they'll get a few days of now and again and they'll get more from their employers. Whether they deserve it or not.

I like the idea of unions but I don't like what they've turned into. Their members just want want want, and their bosses use this to try and shaft business apparently with some kind of malicious motive. And before you lay into me I am a socialist at heart.

Q.

What will happen to the unemployed people? how will they pay their bills?
Are there jobs for them to go to?

Or just **** 'em???

I don't know the figures but I do know if people lose their jobs what it is like to be unable to support their families etc.

If there was plenty of work in the U.K. then I would say sure! make the cuts and let them do other jobs in the private sector.

But nobody really gives a crap about anyone else unless they are affected themselves.

I hope the private sector is able to provide the jobs for them.

How many union leaders would describe themselves as Communists? How many have worked with far left parties? How many unions could be described as anything but to the left of the Labour party?

The fact is, that unions represent their members interests at the cost of everyone else, and their membership is left leaning, and they have left wing political objectives. As a result, they effectively filter out anyone who isn't left wing from their membership.

If I could be any animal I think I would be a Red Kite.

Unions seem to be run mainly by lunatics clinging to discredited ideologies. I've no problem with organised labour per se, but I do have a problem with them getting involved in politics

Yes Tron, look at all these nutty pinko policies that the trade unions have lobbied for (and achieved under Labour)

The introduction of statutory trade union recognition

- Health and safety legislation

- The right to fair representation at work

- The right to paid maternity, paternity and adoptive leave

- The Working Time Directive

- The National Minimum Wage

Bastards eh?

As things stand at the moment, Unions effectively exclude all but Communists and charlatans.

😆

Have you ever actually had a job tron?

The fact is, that unions represent their members interests at the cost of everyone else

Yeah, see the list above - all only of benefit to union members obviously. 🙄

You are posting increasingly hysterical nonsense.

Your are a very confused one then molgrips.
As sated the memebre elect their leaders, elect their reps and EVERY strike has to be approved by a ballot so the "leaders" cannot really do what the members dont want ? People keep claiming they dont represent the members but could you cite an example of them ignoring their members? It would be illegal in terms of strike action and the members would just leave and the Union would have no money.

Or alternately:

Distorted member's working conditions and contracts so heavily that many employers use temps for perm roles, to the benefit of recruitment agencies.

As for the Working Time Directive, it's worthless outside of a unionised environment.

Stopped Blair from sorting out public sector pension funding.

Now it seems they're trying to pick a fight with the government. All lovely stuff.

I don't see what relevance it would have, but yes, I've had several jobs.

I like the idea of unions but I don't like what they've turned into. Their members just want want want, and their bosses use this to try and shaft business apparently with some kind of malicious motive. And before you lay into me I am a socialist at heart.

Sounds like you spend too long listening to the right wing press view of unions rather than the reality.

As a result, they effectively filter out anyone who isn't left wing from their membership.

As if I read the right wing press!

My only experience of unions comes from 4 years in a unionised workplace. Where everyone came out on strike against cuts, but most people I talked to only did it because they fancied a day off (seriously).

And you know, sometimes cuts are necessary. Things change, organisations move on, I'm afraid. (this was pre credit crunch btw)

tron - so you are ignoring all the positives - have a problem with the minimum wage?

Is this going to be like in the Ricky Hatton thread where you were proved wrong so just gave up?

What the airline pilot union is full of people to the left of the Labour party

Have a look at the major unions. All pretty left wing...

tron thats rubbish our union, of which im not a member- but i have been to meetings is just full of very dull usually older naturally right leaning people who are bitter about our pension fund going under

So have you ever had a job tron? 😆

have a problem with the minimum wage?

I'm agnostic.

The major trade unions are staffed by people with a political axe to grind. Take Bob Crow as an extreme example. He calls himself a Communist/Socialist 🙄

As for the Working Time Directive, it's worthless outside of a unionised environment

Have a look at the major unions. All pretty left wing...

tron - have you ever had a job?

Seems dreadfull dont we all want law breaking employers evryone knows they are the best.

What I am saying is that unions would be a lot more helpful if they were radically different to the way they are now. Remove the left wing rhetoric and counter-productive attitude problem and they might actually get back to decent membership figures, which would mean they could help a lot more people.

It's perfectly legal to sign out of the WTD as far as I'm aware.

Grum, have you ever been awarded a qualification in English? Because I've mentioned that several posts up...

What is a union for?

to quote King arthur:

...It also has a second function that is not generally understood or accepted by the public at large, and that is to bring an end to the capitalist society in which we live and create a socialist system of society.

Grum, have you ever been awarded a qualification in English? Because I've mentioned that several posts up...

You are failing to point out that was an edit. 🙄

Having a paper round doesn't count however. I just find it pretty funny that a 'scummy student' claims to know so much about the world of work.

Tron I am anjoying watching you change tack, adapt your argument , change position each time you post. Keep going this is fun.
It is indeed legal if voluntarty ...clearly you accept that unions prevent employers forcing employeee to volunteer or do you wish to change that as well now?
So they are not all left wing , you cannot cite an example of them ignoring their members, and accept they stop the excesses of unscrupolous employers. But still sya all they do is ignore their members and pursue a communist agenda.
I agree if they were more servile to their masters they would be more "helpful".
I never realised you were trying to help them increase their memebership with your suggestions ..how thoughtful of you 😉

I suppose you did a stint down the pit then worked your way up to the board of ICI then?

I've worked in both unionised and non-unionised environments. As I see it, the balance of power can be unhealthy in either.

Not an edit by the way.

This is an edit: 1984. Ballot?

Amusingly - google ads came up with an 'ObamaCare - STOP HIM!' ad on this thread - presumably they could detect a similar kind of rabid right wing hysteria in tron's posts. 😆

I agree if they were more servile to their masters they would be more "helpful".

Aye. The Germans are strike pretty rarely, and employers are queuing to shaft them.

Oh hang on a minute... They've gotten a hell of a lot further than our unions have.

Think Grum may have a point that those of us who have done years in Unionised and non unionised employers may have a little thing called experience and wisdom ...you should learn from us young padawan

As I see it, the balance of power can be unhealthy in either.

Again, I don't see why it's relevant. Where have you worked? Where do you work? Are you working now?

The balance of power is always with the employer, they can sack you at a moments notice, change your T & C with 60 day notices, move premises 200 miles away, give you a new job, wriet the personnell handbook etc whatever they want within the law

well, no, they can't really can they Junky!

[i]sack you at a moments notice[/i] - unfair dismissal unless they've followed the three stage process
[i]change your T & C with 60 day notices[/i] - constructive dismissal
[i]move premises 200 miles away[/i] - redundancy payment
[i]give you a new job [/i]- only with your agreement, otherwise see above
[i]wriet the personnell handbook [/i]- within reason, laid down within legal parameters, have to give you a contract of employment and stick to it.

He is trying to suggest that experience counts and generatees wisdom. He is suggesting you lack this experience/wisdom. Prima Facie he does seem to have a point. Your refusal to discuss your employment history [ despite mentioning it] suggests you realise it weakens rather than strengthens your position.

In France, Germany, and other European countries, socialist parties and democrats played a prominent role in forming and building up trade unions, especially from the 1870s onwards. This stood in contrast to the British experience, where [b]moderate [/b]New Model Unions dominated the union movement from the mid-nineteenth century and where trade unionism was stronger than the political labor movement until the formation and growth of the Labour Party in the early years of the twentieth century

Zulu... but weren't all of those rights only given to the workers due to the effect of the unions?

Also, for the vast majority of people, companies can and do all of those things to their employees, and they seem to get away with it in a lot of cases just because the employees do not know their rights.

He is trying to suggest that experience counts and generatees wisdom.

Oh is he, oh great patronising one. Here's an idea for those of you who are full of experience and wisdom - being a student doesn't necessarily say anything about my age.

Funkynick - actually i reckon the simpsons had it pretty spot on:

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve.... Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Sounds about right to me!

Oh is he, oh great patronising one. Here's an idea for those of you who are full of experience and wisdom - being a student doesn't necessarily say anything about my age.

I just put 2 and 2 together from the fact that:

You are being coy about what work you have actually done
You seem to be very naive about the world of work and the altruism of employers
Your cartoon right wing views bear very little relation to reality - suggesting you don't have much experience of it

😉

but weren't all of those rights only given to the workers due to the effect of the unions?

Here's an idea. There is the present, and there is the past. Whether something is a relevant and correct action depends on the circumstances in the present, not the past.

So saying "X happened 100 odd years ago because of Y", or "But they did all this for us" when they're currently doing something quite different, is irrelevant and illogical.

You are being coy about what work you have actually done

Please forgive me for not wanting to publish my life history for all the world to see for the rest of time, on a website populated by people who don't seem to understand the meaning of "too far".

There is the present, and there is the past. Whether something is a relevant and correct action depends on the circumstances in the present, not the past

tron - Member

It's perfectly legal to sign out of the WTD as far as I'm aware.

Wrong. In the UK you can opt out of the 48 hr working week limit ( no where else in the EU) But you cannot opt out of the other provisions of the wtd.

Do you think it is possible that the past set the conditions for the now? Perhaps we should learn from it olest we repeat the mistakes of the past?

I do, but I don't think we can generalise that if something didn't work in the past, under a different set of circumstances, that it wouldn't work now.

You didn't study History, English or Logic, did you?

European trades unions make ours look like pussies.

I went to one of our plants in Belgium a couple of years back - there were rumours of job cuts in the air, whilst there was still contract labour onsite.

They were hanging effigies of the management from the cooling towers.

I was allowed onsite because I am an employee, the contractors were being shown the pave.

As for the bit of nonsense above about Germany and the unions. In germany the relationship between the unions and management is far less confrontational - mainly because the unions have far more recognition ad there is not the macho management idiocy that we get here.

Unions are legally entitled to representation on the board - so that confrontation is rare - co operation is the key. Its a completely different way of organising industrial relations - co operative not confrontational.

workforces also have far more legal rights than they do here.

tron - Member

I agree if they were more servile to their masters they would be more "helpful".

Aye. The Germans are strike pretty rarely, and employers are queuing to shaft them.

Oh hang on a minute... They've gotten a hell of a lot further than our unions have.

Don't you mean that their unions have got a hell of a lot further than our unions have?

I think you'll find that the reason they have such strong labour laws is due to the strength of their unions. It certainly wouldn't be due to the philanthropy of the employers!

*Predicts tron will give up on this thread having been proved to be talking bollox again. 😆

Don't you mean that their unions have got a hell of a lot further than our unions have?

That's exactly my point. Line 2 was sarcastic. Should I have added a smiley? The Germans have a much more collaborative attitude, higher labour productivity, less strikes, better conditions etc. Everyone wins.

I think the most likely European equivalent in industrial relations we'll be witnessing will be the french one.

Just look at the scenes when the management threatened to stop the free 3 course gourmet lunch (washed down with chateau neuf de pape) and cancelled the hourly coffee, cakes and blow jobs break at the Renault factory

[img] [/img]

Tandem Jeremey, I think you are confusing Workers Councils (which are a legal requirement in a German company with more than a certain number of employees and do indeed sit on company boards) and "Unions" which still exist and can be as militant as British unions if they see fit.

The benefit of workers councils is that they are legally required to sign off a companies accounts so there is no possibility for a company to paint an artificially positive or negative view of the state of the company

Policitians! Stop arguing over who got us into this. We are here. Fact. Stop wasting time (and money) pushing blame around.

Cancel Trident, pull out of Afghanistan, cancel the Pope's visit (£12m saved) - or make him pay for his own protection, after all the Vatican is tremendously wealthy.

Slash out a layer of middle management.

I could afford £1 a week extra tax for a year. I'm sure lots of other people could too. That would surely make a big difference?

Ah -maybe country gent.

You didn't study History, English or Logic, did you

I could afford £1 a week extra tax for a year. I'm sure lots of other people could too. That would surely make a big difference?

£52 from each of the 30M or so working people is about £1.5bn. I think we need about £150bn this year...

I'll chip in £2 a week to help then.

tron - Member

I've no problem with organised labour per se, but I do have a problem with them getting involved in politics, funding political parties .......

Oh that is a little beauty .......... specially coming from you tron ! 😀

So you disapprove of unions using the democratic processes and parliament to achieve political change in the interests of their members and the working classes in general do you ?

You are however perfectly happy for them to be organised in the workplace and for them to concentrate on industrial activities ?

Well let me tell you something tron, that puts you very firmly in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists, who make up a minority which passionately argues that trade unions should not in any way be involved in the parliamentary process, and should instead only concentrate on organising in the workplace.

So whilst you have repeatedly denounced the left on this thread, you have somehow managed to put forward the argument that trade unions should abandon the parliamentary road to change......the one issue which [u]above all else[/u] separates the ultra-leftists from the rest of the trade union movement.

Well done mate.........I'm well impressed 😀

If loads of people lose their jobs in areas where there are no jobs then they will go on benefits. The UK taxpayer will have to pay for that.

They won't be able to afford hair cuts, meals out, nail bars, bike parts, gym memberships and so on, so those businesses may also go to the wall and their former owners may go on benefits. The UK taxpayer will pay for that too.

If they get depressed because of low-esteem from no job and no money, they may require medication, UK taxpayer step forward, they may try to kill themselves requiring hospitalisation and counselling, UK taxpayer step forward.

They may turn to crime, get caught and go to prison, UK taxpayer... you know this now.

Wouldn't it be better to just pay a bit more tax now and keep people in work and happy?

tron, that puts you very firmly in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists

That's a very basic failure of logic. The Soviets and the Nazis had some similar opinions - both were keen on death camps, for example, but you can't say that one thing put them in the same ideological pigeonhole.

Too soon, too deep, say majority of voters as coalition loses cuts debate is not a Times headline that will raise spirits in Downing Street.

The newspaper reports three pieces of bad news for the government in a Populus poll.

[b]* the government’s deficit reduction strategy is rejected by three out of four voters.[/b]

* the public is more gloomy about the economy than at any point since the summer of 2009 – with those expecting things to get worse up 8 points since June, to 33%.

[b]* most people reject the idea that the Labour government is most to blame for the deficit.[/b]

The Times report suggests that the Coalition would be more likely to persuade the public that their cuts were necessary if they supported Labour’s approach to the timing and scale of deficit reduction:

Populus asked the public to identify which of three deficit reduction plans they agree with most, without identifying which party or group was advocating each position. [b]Over a third of voters, 37 per cent, say they prefer Labour’s position to halve the deficit by the next election and deal with it over ten years.

The same number [37 per cent] say that protecting the vulnerable and keeping unemployment as low as possible should be bigger priorities than reducing the budget deficit.[/b]

Only one in five voters, 22 per cent, agree with the coalition plan to deal with the deficit by the next general election, in five years’ time.

[b]The poll finds that 51 per cent of Conservative voters prefer the Labour deficit policy to that of the Coalition, which wins the support of 31 per cent of Tories.[/b]

Only 23 per cent of LibDem supporters back the government’s deficit reduction plan. Their most popular choice – with 42 per cent of LibDems – is prioritising unemployment and the vulnerable over deficit reduction, the argument of the TUC.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/14/three-quarters-think-the-cuts-are-too-deep-and-too-fast/

Can't link to the Times article as their site is pay only now but it's widely quoted elsewhere if you don't believe the lefty propaganda site I linked to.

So the government which received no mandate is taking drastic action completely against the wishes of the majority of the public. Even Conservative voters prefer the Labour proposals.

So, ask yourself why the ConDems are so committed to such a drastic course of action? Is it really because they believe it's the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

That's a very basic failure of logic

Tron thinks that the unions should only be involved in labour issues and not politics
The ultra leftists think that the unions should only be involved in labour issues and not politics
Tron and the ultra leftists agree on the role of the unions in the workplace.
I await you pointing out the error in logic of this argument.

So, ask yourself why the ConDems are so committed to such a drastic course of action? Is it really because they believe it's the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8003478/The-trouble-with-the-public-sector-is-bone-idle-staff.html
[i]
Tony McGuirk, the chief officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, said there was an "epidemic of failure to deal with poor attendance" in the public sector. He said managers should be brave enough to root out lazy staff rather than sacrifice key infrastructure such as fire engines or stations. Mr McGuirk said the key was having "the muscle" to sack lazy workers. At his Merseyside branch,[b] he said he had managed to become more efficient by cutting the number of firemen from 1,550 to 850 since 1991. At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent [/b]as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts. He told a seminar: "We've got some bone-idle people in the public sector – there I said it, bone-idle people." He said: "Front line is fire engines and fire stations, not fire fighters. There is no need to close a fire station, we haven't touched a single fire station. "We provide a far better service with those 850 [firemen]; more with less."[/i]

Agreeing with someone on one point does not put you "in step" with them, as per Mr Lynch's post.

I hope that everyone posting on this thread believes that night follows day and the sky is blue, but the amount of arguing on here proves that we aren't "in step". 🙄

As for your little sequence, the trots & maoists probably think a few other things about the role of the union in the workplace - most likely that it involves seizing the means of production. Of course, it may be fair to say that we both believe that unions should bugger off out of politics (I don't any Maoist or Trot trade union members to canvas their opinions. Although, if I did, I doubt I'd need to ask.), but agreeing on one point cannot be extrapolated out to a general agreement via the widening of definitions.

agreeing on one point cannot be extrapolated out to a general agreement

it may be fair to say that we both believe that unions should bugger off out of politics (

a very basic failure of logic

(

You are now quoting things I've said and placing them in an entirely different context. Either you're deliberately being a tosser, or you're deserving of pity.

Ernie Lynch said one thing, which was not logical. I explain how it isn't logical in sentences one and two of my above post.

As for your post - agreeing that unions should bugger off out of politics does not equate to having the same views on the "role of unions".

Zulu

Fire chief Tony McGuirk sorry for 'bone idle' claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11310942