Micheal Foot down
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Biker Guinea Pigs wanted!
Next: =A320 fine for leaving your engine=3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?running=3D3F?=3D
From: DozynSleepy on 5 Mar 2010 11:40 On 05/03/2010 16:08, Champ wrote: > I was 21 when the strike started. And I'm probably more > anti-authoritarian now than was then :-) > <fx singalong to Part of the union> Now I'm a Busa man Amazed at what I am I say what I think That the company stinks Yes I'm a Busa man. Oh you don't get me I'm part of the Busa You don't get me I'm part of the Busa You don't get me I'm part of the Busa Till the day I die, till the day I die. As a Busa man I'm wise To the lies of the company spies And I don't get fooled By the road rules 'Cause I always ride between the lines. -- DozynSleepy
From: 'Hog on 5 Mar 2010 11:45 Champ wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:41:50 +0100, Ace <b.rogers(a)ifrance.com> wrote: > >> You have to admit, in the whole history of trades unions, this was >> the single most successful 'establishment' victory. > > That I must concede. > >> Remember how much the country loved her for it? > > Christ no - my recollection is of how dislike of Thatcher hardened > into real hatred. > >> Remember how much we'd suffered in the >> preceeding decade, much of it at the hands of the miner's unions? > > I'm not sure I, or you, suffered that much, to be honest. > >> It was a glorious day for democracy and freedom. > > Hog, is that you? Hey who is the Trade Onion member in this discussion! -- Hog
From: steve auvache on 5 Mar 2010 11:50 In article <jIqdnZZLQZjYjAzWnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, Charlie <nospam(a)all.ta> writes > there was >unlikely to be any covert plan to shut every pit. For once you have actuarially got something right, it was not covert at all. It was the stated aim of the gummint to de industrialise and in order to do that they had to break the Unions. The fact that they were far right Tories in power and this gave them great pleasure is neither here nor there. -- steve auvache VN750 Third gear has scope. SR250 The SpazzTrakka (Improved).
From: Andy Bonwick on 5 Mar 2010 11:59 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:33:56 +0000, Charlie <nospam(a)all.ta> wrote: >On 05/03/2010 09:17, M J Carley wrote: > >> In the referenced article, Charlie<nospam(a)all.ta> writes: > >> Pits had already come out before a ballot could have been called. > >That in no way obviated the requirement to call a ballot. He would have >won it, and that would have strenghtened his hand immeasurably. He was >stupid and arrogant enough not to play by the rules (however partial you >may consider those rules to have been) and thus was on the political >back-foot from the start. So, I stand by my claim that it was >principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with the closure of >virtually every pit in the country, and the inevitable destruction of >the industry. Sweller will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty certain that NUM rules didn't require a ballot if the executive decided on industrial action. The members voted the executive in and when they did so they effectively gave them permission to make decisions for them. Pretty much what we do in a general election yet some people still want a referendum every time the government make an unpopular decision.
From: 'Hog on 5 Mar 2010 12:03
Andy Bonwick wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:33:56 +0000, Charlie <nospam(a)all.ta> wrote: > >> On 05/03/2010 09:17, M J Carley wrote: >> >>> In the referenced article, Charlie<nospam(a)all.ta> writes: >> >>> Pits had already come out before a ballot could have been called. >> >> That in no way obviated the requirement to call a ballot. He would >> have won it, and that would have strenghtened his hand immeasurably. >> He was stupid and arrogant enough not to play by the rules (however >> partial you may consider those rules to have been) and thus was on >> the political back-foot from the start. So, I stand by my claim >> that it was principally Scargill's intransigence that concluded with >> the closure of virtually every pit in the country, and the >> inevitable destruction of the industry. > > Sweller will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty certain that NUM > rules didn't require a ballot if the executive decided on industrial > action. The members voted the executive in and when they did so they > effectively gave them permission to make decisions for them. > > Pretty much what we do in a general election yet some people still > want a referendum every time the government make an unpopular > decision. Wasn't a key element of the dispute new legislation that required a ballot, which the NUM refused to do. I recall significant fines being levied on the Union. -- Hog |