Solly:
caledoniandream:
The last sentence say it all…Yes my friend. His last sentence does say it all.
It is the basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology. He has repeated exactly what I had said but in a different way. Dear god it’s hard [zb] work on this forum at times.
And yet I was around long before both of them ■■? 
can you see the hole in your theory here ■■?
So… …was… …I…Billly…and …if…there’s . …a…“Hole. …in … …my… …theory”… …then … …there …is…one…in…yours. …also.Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn 
Solly:
caledoniandream:
The last sentence say it all…Yes my friend. His last sentence does say it all.
It is the basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology. He has repeated exactly what I had said but in a different way. Dear god it’s hard [zb] work on this forum at times.
Dear God, cant some people change the record? I noticed in your early posts you had been out of transport a long time, was your heyday in the 70’s with strikes, unrest and trade unions?
You seem to have plenty to say on trade union membership but very little else.
148 posts since you joined on very similar subjects.
Solly
SENIOR MEMBER
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:01 pm
Solly:
So… …was…I… …Billly…and … …if…there’s . …a…“Hole… .in …my…theory”… …then … …there …is… …one…in…yours…also.Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn
No there isn’t. You say my ethos and statement are …
basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology.
but as my ethos and motivations were taught to me by my parents and have been applied by myself long before Thatcher and Reagan even came into politics how can it be anything to do with them ■■
Now if you’re alleging that my grandparents and parents teachings are of this Neo-Con ideology then given the time scales and eras in question that would be impossible as we are talking about an era when Conservatism was full on right wing not “Neo” at all. 
You can wrap it up in any way or name it what you want (however incorrect you are) but I came from a working class family and the values I was taught, have followed and have brought me success are that of a working class grafter, simple.
Now I’m sorry you find those of us who have achieved personal success in this life to be in some way wrong but as you can see from my post earlier I’m happy and therefore confident I made the right choices.
There are loads of members on here who have progressed, made good money and are happy.
There are sadly more disaffected folk who are nothing but bitter at there own circumstances and lack of success, who are easily led by the left wing red tops and over qualified studious types with no real world experience or success to speak of. When life ■■■■■ It’s easier to blame everyone else than look inward for the real cause.
You can roll your eyes and post contemptuously at me but to be honest it matters not.
I’m LMAO here whatever you may think and my results justify my ideals and methods.
caledoniandream:
It makes no difference in the amount of moans if you pay a driver GBP 8,00 or GBP 15,00 per hour, what’s enough? When is it enough?I have been reasonable successfully in Transport, not because I am that great, or that good, but because I worked hard for it, did what was asked from me, would do any job, finish it of and after that I would tell them that I was not keen on it if I didn’t like it.
I wouldn’t run away before I fulfilled the task, how rotten it would be.
I worked for big bucks, and I worked for small money, and learned that the big bucks was not always worth it.
I always made sure that I worked my way up to the biggest money in that company (or at least in line with the biggest earners) relating to my capacity.
Never minded to start at the bottom, but always found the way up.
BUT never looked back, never needed a Union or somebody to talk for me, but always remembered the words my old gaffer whispered in my ears " work here like it is your own business, that will give you the pleasure and the day goes much quicker"
That has brought me where I am now.
And yes please call me selfish, because I am, 100% sure, like I know for 100% sure that a Union never will be a solution to anything.
In Holland there is a saying; if it rains for the boss, it will drip for the employee.
And you can believe that or not, but if companies are successful they will start to pay higher rates, not because the are forced by some Union boff, but because they want the best workforce, and they normally don’t consist of moaners, strikers, and followers, but out of people who can stand up for their own, who have the future in vision and are ready for the next level.
Unions in general are still floating in the 70’s when they where powerful and had a big following.
And if I see from a personal experience what they do for the individual, I will use my most hated word LOL
So you’re saying that the unions did zb all in dragging the economy out of the early 20th century into the more civilised world of the 1960’s and early 1970’s and you’re also saying that the British economy is in much better shape now,since Thatcher zb’d it all up than it was at that time.The fact is Thatcher’s ideas don’t work whereas strong unions do and the facts related to the actual figures concerning the two types of economy of that time compared to now say it all.
However the only way that you could have ‘personal experience’ of all that would have been by having a working life that was spread over around 100 years.In the absence of that possibility I’ll trust in the next best thing to that in hearing the story as handed down by those that were there at the time.
That Dutch saying has always applied just as much here but that ‘drip’ was (a lot) smaller in the 1920’s than it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s,in real terms,for most workers and the reason for that was all about the strong unions and relatively high employment levels of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.The ironic thing is that you’re arguing in favour of a system that history has proved wrong both during the Victorian era and the early 20th century and for the last 32 years since Thatcher’s ideas took off.
The fact is most working people in the country,regardless of what industry they work/ed in,would have been a lot poorer without union action over the years and the policies since Thatcher have actually reduced living standards and set the economy back in real terms.
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
It makes no difference in the amount of moans if you pay a driver GBP 8,00 or GBP 15,00 per hour, what’s enough? When is it enough?I have been reasonable successfully in Transport, not because I am that great, or that good, but because I worked hard for it, did what was asked from me, would do any job, finish it of and after that I would tell them that I was not keen on it if I didn’t like it.
I wouldn’t run away before I fulfilled the task, how rotten it would be.
I worked for big bucks, and I worked for small money, and learned that the big bucks was not always worth it.
I always made sure that I worked my way up to the biggest money in that company (or at least in line with the biggest earners) relating to my capacity.
Never minded to start at the bottom, but always found the way up.
BUT never looked back, never needed a Union or somebody to talk for me, but always remembered the words my old gaffer whispered in my ears " work here like it is your own business, that will give you the pleasure and the day goes much quicker"
That has brought me where I am now.
And yes please call me selfish, because I am, 100% sure, like I know for 100% sure that a Union never will be a solution to anything.
In Holland there is a saying; if it rains for the boss, it will drip for the employee.
And you can believe that or not, but if companies are successful they will start to pay higher rates, not because the are forced by some Union boff, but because they want the best workforce, and they normally don’t consist of moaners, strikers, and followers, but out of people who can stand up for their own, who have the future in vision and are ready for the next level.
Unions in general are still floating in the 70’s when they where powerful and had a big following.
And if I see from a personal experience what they do for the individual, I will use my most hated word LOLSo you’re saying that the unions did zb all in dragging the economy out of the early 20th century into the more civilised world of the 1960’s and early 1970’s and you’re also saying that the British economy is in much better shape now,since Thatcher zb’d it all up than it was at that time.The fact is Thatcher’s ideas don’t work whereas strong unions do and the facts related to the actual figures concerning the two types of economy of that time compared to now say it all.
However the only way that you could have ‘personal experience’ of all that would have been by having a working life that was spread over around 100 years.In the absence of that possibility I’ll trust in the next best thing to that in hearing the story as handed down by those that were there at the time.
That Dutch saying has always applied just as much here but that ‘drip’ was (a lot) smaller in the 1920’s than it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s,in real terms,for most workers and the reason for that was all about the strong unions and relatively high employment levels of the 1960’s and early **1970’**s.The ironic thing is that you’re arguing in favour of a system that history has proved wrong both during the Victorian era and the early 20th century and for the last 32 years since Thatcher’s ideas took off.
The fact is most working people in the country,regardless of what industry they work/ed in,would have been a lot poorer without union action over the years and the policies since Thatcher have actually reduced living standards and set the economy back in real terms.
It was only a matter of time
1970’
Thatcher
Tardis for Carryfast
Spacemonkeypg:
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
It makes no difference in the amount of moans if you pay a driver GBP 8,00 or GBP 15,00 per hour, what’s enough? When is it enough?I have been reasonable successfully in Transport, not because I am that great, or that good, but because I worked hard for it, did what was asked from me, would do any job, finish it of and after that I would tell them that I was not keen on it if I didn’t like it.
I wouldn’t run away before I fulfilled the task, how rotten it would be.
I worked for big bucks, and I worked for small money, and learned that the big bucks was not always worth it.
I always made sure that I worked my way up to the biggest money in that company (or at least in line with the biggest earners) relating to my capacity.
Never minded to start at the bottom, but always found the way up.
BUT never looked back, never needed a Union or somebody to talk for me, but always remembered the words my old gaffer whispered in my ears " work here like it is your own business, that will give you the pleasure and the day goes much quicker"
That has brought me where I am now.
And yes please call me selfish, because I am, 100% sure, like I know for 100% sure that a Union never will be a solution to anything.
In Holland there is a saying; if it rains for the boss, it will drip for the employee.
And you can believe that or not, but if companies are successful they will start to pay higher rates, not because the are forced by some Union boff, but because they want the best workforce, and they normally don’t consist of moaners, strikers, and followers, but out of people who can stand up for their own, who have the future in vision and are ready for the next level.
Unions in general are still floating in the 70’s when they where powerful and had a big following.
And if I see from a personal experience what they do for the individual, I will use my most hated word LOLSo you’re saying that the unions did zb all in dragging the economy out of the early 20th century into the more civilised world of the 1960’s and early 1970’s and you’re also saying that the British economy is in much better shape now,since Thatcher zb’d it all up than it was at that time.The fact is Thatcher’s ideas don’t work whereas strong unions do and the facts related to the actual figures concerning the two types of economy of that time compared to now say it all.
However the only way that you could have ‘personal experience’ of all that would have been by having a working life that was spread over around 100 years.In the absence of that possibility I’ll trust in the next best thing to that in hearing the story as handed down by those that were there at the time.
That Dutch saying has always applied just as much here but that ‘drip’ was (a lot) smaller in the 1920’s than it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s,in real terms,for most workers and the reason for that was all about the strong unions and relatively high employment levels of the 1960’s and early **1970’**s.The ironic thing is that you’re arguing in favour of a system that history has proved wrong both during the Victorian era and the early 20th century and for the last 32 years since Thatcher’s ideas took off.
The fact is most working people in the country,regardless of what industry they work/ed in,would have been a lot poorer without union action over the years and the policies since Thatcher have actually reduced living standards and set the economy back in real terms.
It was only a matter of time
1970’
ThatcherTardis for Carryfast
Come on now Spacemonkey tha knows life were better wi ricketts, an out house an brother Scargill. Get them kiddies oop the chimneys an all
billybigrig:
Solly:
So…was…I…Billly…and …if…there’s …a…“Hole…in …my…theory”…then …there …is…one…in…yours…also.YawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnNo there isn’t. You say my ethos and statement are …
basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology.
but as my ethos and motivations were taught to me by my parents and have been applied by myself long before Thatcher and Reagan even came into politics how can it be anything to do with them ■■
Now if you’re alleging that my grandparents and parents teachings are of this Neo-Con ideology then given the time scales and eras in question that would be impossible as we are talking about an era when Conservatism was full on right wing not “Neo” at all.
You can wrap it up in any way or name it what you want (however incorrect you are) but I came from a working class family and the values I was taught, have followed and have brought me success are that of a working class grafter, simple.
Now I’m sorry you find those of us who have achieved personal success in this life to be in some way wrong but as you can see from my post earlier I’m happy and therefore confident I made the right choices.There are loads of members on here who have progressed, made good money and are happy.
There are sadly more disaffected folk who are nothing but bitter at there own circumstances and lack of success, who are easily led by the left wing red tops and over qualified studious types with no real world experience or success to speak of. When life ■■■■■ It’s easier to blame everyone else than look inward for the real cause.You can roll your eyes and post contemptuously at me but to be honest it matters not.
I’m LMAO here whatever you may think and my results justify my ideals and methods.
I came from a working class family in which I was brought up to understand what life was like for my Grandparents and the living standards that my Parents grew up in.I also know that the reason why it was all a lot different for me was mostly because of union action over the post war years.It’s got nothing to do with bitterness or not progreesing it’s just a difference in understanding the reasons for the difference between the living standards of my own and my parents generation compared to those of my grandparents’ generation.The way I was told the story of my Grandparents time being a ‘working class grafter’ was a pre requisite in having and keeping a job,it certainly didn’t make you ‘good money’.
The fact is every part of the economy is interdependependent on all the other parts and there’s no way that the economy can provide most people with decent living standards in the long term without the type of high employment levels and strong unions of the 1960’s/early 70’s. As we’re seeing now.Not surprisingly I think there’s probably more people in the industry,just as in the economy as a whole,who aren’t making good money now,than those who are.Most of which can be blamed on Thatcher’s ideas over the last 32 years.
Spacemonkeypg:
caledoniandream:
Unions in general are still floating in the 70’s when they where powerful and had a big following.
And if I see from a personal experience what they do for the individual, I will use my most hated word LOLIt was only a matter of time
1970’
Tardis for Carryfast
Carryfast:
billybigrig:
Solly:
So…was…I…Billly…and …if…there’s …a…“Hole…in …my…theory”…then …there …is…one…in…yours…also.YawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnNo there isn’t. You say my ethos and statement are …
basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology.
but as my ethos and motivations were taught to me by my parents and have been applied by myself long before Thatcher and Reagan even came into politics how can it be anything to do with them ■■
Now if you’re alleging that my grandparents and parents teachings are of this Neo-Con ideology then given the time scales and eras in question that would be impossible as we are talking about an era when Conservatism was full on right wing not “Neo” at all.
You can wrap it up in any way or name it what you want (however incorrect you are) but I came from a working class family and the values I was taught, have followed and have brought me success are that of a working class grafter, simple.
Now I’m sorry you find those of us who have achieved personal success in this life to be in some way wrong but as you can see from my post earlier I’m happy and therefore confident I made the right choices.There are loads of members on here who have progressed, made good money and are happy.
There are sadly more disaffected folk who are nothing but bitter at there own circumstances and lack of success, who are easily led by the left wing red tops and over qualified studious types with no real world experience or success to speak of. When life ■■■■■ It’s easier to blame everyone else than look inward for the real cause.You can roll your eyes and post contemptuously at me but to be honest it matters not.
I’m LMAO here whatever you may think and my results justify my ideals and methods.
I came from a working class family in which I was brought up to understand what life was like for my Grandparents and the living standards that my Parents grew up in.I also know that the reason why it was all a lot different for me was mostly because of union action over the post war years.It’s got nothing to do with bitterness or not progreesing it’s just a difference in understanding the reasons for the difference between the living standards of my own and my parents generation compared to those of my grandparents’ generation.The way I was told the story of my Grandparents time being a ‘working class grafter’ was a pre requisite in having and keeping a job,it certainly didn’t make you ‘good money’.
The fact is every part of the economy is interdependependent on all the other parts and there’s no way that the economy can provide most people with decent living standards in the long term without the type of high employment levels and strong unions of the 1960’s/early 70’s. As we’re seeing now.Not surprisingly I think there’s probably more people in the industry,just as in the economy as a whole,who aren’t making good money now,than those who are.Most of which can be blamed on Thatcher’s ideas over the last 32 years.
Kerching and again
You’re nonsensical ravings and inevitable Thatcher mentions never fail to appear and amuse
The fact is every part of the economy is interdependependent on all the other parts and there’s no way that the economy can provide most people with decent living standards in the long term without the type of high employment levels and strong unions of the 1960’s/early 70’s. As we’re seeing now
So you’re saying that high unemployment coincides with eras of strong unions. Well surely then if Thatcher destroyed the unions you should applaude this
You’re so cracked you’re arguing with yourself here fella
billybigrig:
Carryfast:
billybigrig:
Solly:
So…was…I…Billly…and …if…there’s …a…“Hole…in …my…theory”…then …there …is…one…in…yours…also.YawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnNo there isn’t. You say my ethos and statement are …
basis of Thatcher and Reagans most worshipped ideology. Neo- Liberalism. Or more commonly known as Neo-Con ideology.
but as my ethos and motivations were taught to me by my parents and have been applied by myself long before Thatcher and Reagan even came into politics how can it be anything to do with them ■■
Now if you’re alleging that my grandparents and parents teachings are of this Neo-Con ideology then given the time scales and eras in question that would be impossible as we are talking about an era when Conservatism was full on right wing not “Neo” at all.
You can wrap it up in any way or name it what you want (however incorrect you are) but I came from a working class family and the values I was taught, have followed and have brought me success are that of a working class grafter, simple.
Now I’m sorry you find those of us who have achieved personal success in this life to be in some way wrong but as you can see from my post earlier I’m happy and therefore confident I made the right choices.There are loads of members on here who have progressed, made good money and are happy.
There are sadly more disaffected folk who are nothing but bitter at there own circumstances and lack of success, who are easily led by the left wing red tops and over qualified studious types with no real world experience or success to speak of. When life ■■■■■ It’s easier to blame everyone else than look inward for the real cause.You can roll your eyes and post contemptuously at me but to be honest it matters not.
I’m LMAO here whatever you may think and my results justify my ideals and methods.
I came from a working class family in which I was brought up to understand what life was like for my Grandparents and the living standards that my Parents grew up in.I also know that the reason why it was all a lot different for me was mostly because of union action over the post war years.It’s got nothing to do with bitterness or not progreesing it’s just a difference in understanding the reasons for the difference between the living standards of my own and my parents generation compared to those of my grandparents’ generation.The way I was told the story of my Grandparents time being a ‘working class grafter’ was a pre requisite in having and keeping a job,it certainly didn’t make you ‘good money’.
The fact is every part of the economy is interdependependent on all the other parts and there’s no way that the economy can provide most people with decent living standards in the long term without the type of high employment levels and strong unions of the 1960’s/early 70’s. As we’re seeing now.Not surprisingly I think there’s probably more people in the industry,just as in the economy as a whole,who aren’t making good money now,than those who are.Most of which can be blamed on Thatcher’s ideas over the last 32 years.
Kerching and again
You’re nonsensical ravings and inevitable Thatcher mentions never fail to appear and amuse
The fact is every part of the economy is interdependependent on all the other parts and there’s no way that the economy can provide most people with decent living standards in the long term without the type of high employment levels and strong unions of the 1960’s/early 70’s. As we’re seeing now
So you’re saying that high unemployment coincides with eras of strong unions.
You’re so cracked you’re arguing with yourself here fella
Not really more like you seem to have some reading difficulties.I said 1960’s and early 1970’s.Both were periods of relatively high ‘employment’ ‘and’ strong unions and no surprise a much stronger economy than the Thatcherite zb up we’ve had since the start of the 1980’s.
It’s the raving anti union lot who are trying to argue with the facts by trying to re write history to show that the economy is better now after 32 years of the Thatcher dream than it was in those so called ‘bad old days’ when the unions were stronger and wages were higher in real terms so more spending power in the economy as a whole and therefore more employment.
Carryfast:
Billy:
So you’re saying that high unemployment coincides with eras of strong unions.You’re so cracked you’re arguing with yourself here fella
Not really more like you seem to have some reading difficulties.I said 1960’s and early 1970’s.Both were periods of relatively high ‘employment’ ‘and’ strong unions and no surprise a much stronger economy than the Thatcherite zb up we’ve had since the start of the 1980’s.
It’s the raving anti union lot who are trying to argue with the facts by trying to re write history to show that the economy is better now after 32 years of the Thatcher dream than it was in those so called ‘bad old days’ when the unions were stronger and wages were higher in real terms so more spending power in the economy as a whole and therefore more employment.
No reading problems here as highlighted but kudos on getting a couple more “Thatchers” in there and yet another mention of the 60’s and 70’s
You are familiar with “History” and “present day” and understand the difference ■■?
Personally I think it’s all gone to hell in a handbasket and was much better in Henry viii’s day. 
We should give thanks to Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for their tireless efforts to bring about the end of Communism- without their splendid efforts we would not have Bulgarians doing the work which once was ours, but for £25 a day, and then where would we be?
Sometimes it would be more fun sitting in an RDC and listening to tall tales, than reading some of the ■■■■■ on here.
For the record, I avoid any drivers who favour unions because they are generally bone idle pricks. No offence intended.
billybigrig:
Carryfast:
Billy:
So you’re saying that high unemployment coincides with eras of strong unions.You’re so cracked you’re arguing with yourself here fella
Not really more like you seem to have some reading difficulties.I said 1960’s and early 1970’s.Both were periods of relatively high ‘employment’ ‘and’ strong unions and no surprise a much stronger economy than the Thatcherite zb up we’ve had since the start of the 1980’s.
It’s the raving anti union lot who are trying to argue with the facts by trying to re write history to show that the economy is better now after 32 years of the Thatcher dream than it was in those so called ‘bad old days’ when the unions were stronger and wages were higher in real terms so more spending power in the economy as a whole and therefore more employment.
No reading problems here as highlighted but kudos on getting a couple more “Thatchers” in there and yet another mention of the 60’s and 70’s
You are familiar with “History” and “present day” and understand the difference ■■?
Personally I think it’s all gone to hell in a handbasket and was much better in Henry viii’s day.
So where the zb did I ever say that the 1960’s/early 70’s was a period of ‘high unemployment’ which ‘coincided’ with a period of strong unions.As I said it was actually a period of relatively high employment that co incided with strong unions as opposed to the Thatcher zb’d up idea of weak unions and relatively high unemployment used as a way to keep wages down.The result of that is where we are now because not enough people have enough money to spend,less tax revenues,more dole benefits,and a high trade deficit.
Unlike the raving union bashers I’m familiar enough with history to know that the economy as it stood then,compared to where it is now and has been since around the start of the 1980’s,was/is the inconvenient truth which shows that strong unions are a good thing not a bad one. 
del949:
You would never get all the truck drivers on strike at the same time, and it would be ilegal as well.
why would it be illegal?
Because you can’t go out on strike through sympathy anymore.
Thats one of the reasons why they privatised the london bus industry.
Harry Monk:
We should give thanks to Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for their tireless efforts to bring about the end of Communism- without their splendid efforts we would not have Bulgarians doing the work which once was ours, but for £25 a day, and then where would we be?
It’s China that’s gained most from their policies and they’re as Communist as they’ve ever been.Who better than Thatcher and Reagan if the commies were going to infiltrate the western governments with two moles that no one would suspect 
. 
rambo19:
del949:
You would never get all the truck drivers on strike at the same time, and it would be ilegal as well.
why would it be illegal?
Because you can’t go out on strike through sympathy anymore.
Thats one of the reasons why they privatised the london bus industry.
Secondary action is illegal but there’s no law that says that seperate union actions can’t be arranged to take place all at the same time.
Carryfast:
billybigrig:
Carryfast:
Billy:
So you’re saying that high unemployment coincides with eras of strong unions.You’re so cracked you’re arguing with yourself here fella
Not really more like you seem to have some reading difficulties.I said 1960’s and early 1970’s.Both were periods of relatively high ‘employment’ ‘and’ strong unions and no surprise a much stronger economy than the Thatcherite zb up we’ve had since the start of the 1980’s.
It’s the raving anti union lot who are trying to argue with the facts by trying to re write history to show that the economy is better now after 32 years of the Thatcher dream than it was in those so called ‘bad old days’ when the unions were stronger and wages were higher in real terms so more spending power in the economy as a whole and therefore more employment.
No reading problems here as highlighted but kudos on getting a couple more “Thatchers” in there and yet another mention of the 60’s and 70’s
You are familiar with “History” and “present day” and understand the difference ■■?
Personally I think it’s all gone to hell in a handbasket and was much better in Henry viii’s day.
So where the zb did I ever say that the 1960’s/early 70’s was a period of ‘high unemployment’ which ‘coincided’ with a period of strong unions.
Really you cannot see it in the post above even though I enlarged it for you ■■ Well no matter simply carry on and read the sentence immediately below this
As I said it was actually a period of relatively high employment that co incided with strong unions
You see it now ^^^^^^^^ surely ■■?
as opposed to the Thatcher zb’d up idea of weak unions and relatively high unemployment used as a way to keep wages down.The result of that is where we are now because not enough people have enough money to spend,less tax revenues,more dole benefits,and a high trade deficit.
Unlike the raving union bashers I’m familiar enough with history to know that the economy as it stood then,compared to where it is now and has been since around the start of the 1980’s,was/is the inconvenient truth which shows that strong unions are a good thing not a bad one.
Sheer comedy genius you are my friend 
I really don’t have the time or inclination to pee all over the rest of your nonsensical tosh and I fear it would be a waste of my valuable time as you wouldn’t understand or acknowledge your errors. You are a brainwashed relic with a ■■■■■ for the good old days of the 60’s and 70’s coupled with an axe to grind over a leader whose party have been out of power for well over a decade.
At the end of the day none of this is even relevant to the formation of a “union” in the confines of the present day and it’s very different sociological and financial circumstances. We are dealing with the present day here not history. Still, congratulations once more for your repeatedly posting the same old tosh time and time again in the usual blinkered numb and clueless fashion once more trashing a good debate.
