DEDICATED TRUCKERS UNION?

[carryfast]

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

Billy:
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

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 ■■?

You really do seem to have some ‘issues’ when it comes to sorting out the difference between high EMPLOYMENT (which is what I actually said) and high UNEMPLOYMENT.

[billybigrig]

Carryfast:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

billybigrig:

Carryfast:

Billy:
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

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 ■■?

You really do seem to have some ‘issues’ when it comes to sorting out the difference between high EMPLOYMENT (which is what I actually said) and high UNEMPLOYMENT.

You are correct I did mis read it. My apologies for that

Days off and brandy are not always a good thing

[caledoniandream]

@ Solly and Carryfast, why do both of you come non stop coming up with the stuff from the sixties and seventies, are there no succes stories for the Unions after that?.
Why o why is constantly brought up “the children up de chimneys” has there been no improvement since?
There must be succes stories after:

• the miners strike? Where are they gone?
• the million and one strike in the car industry, Rover still doing well?
• British steel? World leader ( Das war einmal)
• many other industries? Britain world leader in manufacturing ( but not anymore)

What the both of you preach is communism, and that doesn’t work, see examples in the former USSR, and even China is turning more and more to capitalism.
It’s market working, and communism is one of the reason we are flooded with East Europeens, every country in East Europe was bankrupt when the borders opened, and this will take donkey years to correct.
But these people seen on TV how we lived in luxury, and didn’t mind a piece of the cake, and I cannot even blame them for it.

And yes Harry they would work for a few quid a day, as it was a lot of money for them.
We could and you probaly know that better than anybody else, buy a big house with plenty of ground for money where you wouldn’t buy a garage box for in the UK.

But where was the Union, blocking the borders, marching up to Downing Street, where was everybody?
We had seen it in Western Germany after the wall came down, so we where warned.
But the Union stayed bone idle.

And that’s why, I fight for my own rights, look after myself, because I don’t gone wait till somebody stands up and does it.
That has always been my work ethos and has brought me very far.
But Union men doesn’t like honest hard working people, all the shop Stewart’s I have came acros the last 20 years in the UK where the biggest skivers, and work avoiders in the world, if they worked as hard with their hands as they did with their mouth, the UK industry would have been much healthier.

[spacemonkeypg]

Carryfast:

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 .

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A CARRYFAST FULL HOUSE

[stevieboy308]

Spacemonkeypg:

Carryfast:

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 .

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE HAVE A CARRYFAST FULL HOUSE

i’m going to have to check your card, what’s that, you’ve not got double drive - GAME ON

[stevieboy308]

caledoniandream:
@ Solly and Carryfast, why do both of you come non stop coming up with the stuff from the sixties and seventies, are there no succes stories for the Unions after that?.
Why o why is constantly brought up “the children up de chimneys” has there been no improvement since?
There must be succes stories after:

• the miners strike? Where are they gone?
• the million and one strike in the car industry, Rover still doing well?
• British steel? World leader ( Das war einmal)
• many other industries? Britain world leader in manufacturing ( but not anymore)

What the both of you preach is communism, and that doesn’t work, see examples in the former USSR, and even China is turning more and more to capitalism.
It’s market working, and communism is one of the reason we are flooded with East Europeens, every country in East Europe was bankrupt when the borders opened, and this will take donkey years to correct.
But these people seen on TV how we lived in luxury, and didn’t mind a piece of the cake, and I cannot even blame them for it.

And yes Harry they would work for a few quid a day, as it was a lot of money for them.
We could and you probaly know that better than anybody else, buy a big house with plenty of ground for money where you wouldn’t buy a garage box for in the UK.

But where was the Union, blocking the borders, marching up to Downing Street, where was everybody?
We had seen it in Western Germany after the wall came down, so we where warned.
But the Union stayed bone idle.

And that’s why, I fight for my own rights, look after myself, because I don’t gone wait till somebody stands up and does it.
That has always been my work ethos and has brought me very far.
But Union men doesn’t like honest hard working people, all the shop Stewart’s I have came acros the last 20 years in the UK where the biggest skivers, and work avoiders in the world, if they worked as hard with their hands as they did with their mouth, the UK industry would have been much healthier.

spot on

[wheel_nut]

Solly meet Carryfast

Carryfast meet Solly

Oh I think you probably have met, in the same room

Geoff

Own up, you have two computers don’t you.

[darren1000]

Yes, definetly need a dedicated union.

[carryfast]

caledoniandream:
@ Solly and Carryfast, why do both of you come non stop coming up with the stuff from the sixties and seventies, are there no succes stories for the Unions after that?.
Why o why is constantly brought up “the children up de chimneys” has there been no improvement since?
There must be succes stories after:

• the miners strike? Where are they gone?
• the million and one strike in the car industry, Rover still doing well?
• British steel? World leader ( Das war einmal)
• many other industries? Britain world leader in manufacturing ( but not anymore)

What the both of you preach is communism, and that doesn’t work, see examples in the former USSR, and even China is turning more and more to capitalism.
It’s market working, and communism is one of the reason we are flooded with East Europeens, every country in East Europe was bankrupt when the borders opened, and this will take donkey years to correct.
But these people seen on TV how we lived in luxury, and didn’t mind a piece of the cake, and I cannot even blame them for it.

And yes Harry they would work for a few quid a day, as it was a lot of money for them.
We could and you probaly know that better than anybody else, buy a big house with plenty of ground for money where you wouldn’t buy a garage box for in the UK.

But where was the Union, blocking the borders, marching up to Downing Street, where was everybody?
We had seen it in Western Germany after the wall came down, so we where warned.
But the Union stayed bone idle.

And that’s why, I fight for my own rights, look after myself, because I don’t gone wait till somebody stands up and does it.
That has always been my work ethos and has brought me very far.
But Union men doesn’t like honest hard working people, all the shop Stewart’s I have came acros the last 20 years in the UK where the biggest skivers, and work avoiders in the world, if they worked as hard with their hands as they did with their mouth, the UK industry would have been much healthier.

The reason why I keep coming up with ‘stuff’ from the 1960’s and early 1970’s is because the British economy at that time,compared to the economy in pre war and years and recently since Thatcher’s ‘reforms’,proves the invalidity of your comments.What I’m preaching is no different to what the US unions during the same period were doing and it’s no surprise that the US economy was stronger then than it had ever been before that time and since 'Reagan’s ‘reforms’ which were very similar to Thatcher’s.

What you’re saying is just the same old hypocritical bs which was used by Thatcher and Reagan about their own countries’ workers when those same workers had already proved that it was the strongly unionised industries of the US and Britain that had created the best combination of general wealth and economic figures those countries had ever experienced and probably will ever experience,before selling their economies out to the Communist countries.So who gained from it and why would they have wanted to do that.The only logical answer is that it was Thatcher and Reagan who were the real communists not their respective countries’ workforces.

Yes you’re right the commies in eastern europe were bankrupt and saw how good things were here and decided that they wanted some of what we had.But,unlike your idea of history,the fact is,the reason why things were so much better in the western economies was because of the hard work of our workers and the unions they created in order to get wage levels up to a point where there was sufficient spending power in those economies to provide the required levels of growth.Which is why those east european workers wouldn’t have been so keen on the western system as it stood pre WW2 which is more or less where it still would have been in real terms in the 1960’s/70’s had it not been for the unions.

It’s no surprise that the western economies of the US and UK have been returning to the typical type of situation which they experienced pre war characterised by low wages relative to prices,high unemployment,low spending power and low growth compared to those days of the 1960’s/early 70’s which were the peak of union power in those western economies.Regardless of how much you try to keep re writing history the facts concerning what actually happened prove you wrong. The only difference being that the Thatcherites have probably finished the job this time by destroying the industrial base that would be required if we were ever to get a government in that works for the interests of British and US workers not those of China and Eastern Europe etc.

[caledoniandream]

Mr. Carryfast, what you write is Union propaganda of the first order, for some reason you step over the FACTS that during and after the Thatcher and Reagan periods both economies boomed too the highest standard ever in history.
After Thatcher privatised a lot of companies, the National disposal income raised enormous, in some cases the sky was the limit.
The companies made big profits and investments where heavy, big part of the Unions power was lifted and without them holding the future up Britain could buy cars and houses etc. (don’t you live in a Thatcher house? Mr Carryfast, must be as a council worker!)
We never had it better, until Labour (what is part of the Unions) did a robbery of the till.
Its very easy to look good by given somebody else’s money away, but they missed the trick to fill the till again, hence the problems we are in now.
No money and no industry anymore, both successful killed off by the Labour Governement and the Unions. And the same happens in the US of A, only keeps floating on Chinese investments.

[spacemonkeypg]

the reason why things were so much better in the western economies was because of the hard work of our workers and the unions they created

Two words for you Londbridge and spanner

[oldsid]

caledoniandream:
Mr. Carryfast, what you write is Union propaganda of the first order, for some reason you step over the FACTS that during and after the Thatcher and Reagan periods both economies boomed too the highest standard ever in history.
After Thatcher privatised a lot of companies, the National disposal income raised enormous, in some cases the sky was the limit.
The companies made big profits and investments where heavy, big part of the Unions power was lifted and without them holding the future up Britain could buy cars and houses etc. (don’t you live in a Thatcher house? Mr Carryfast, must be as a council worker!)
We never had it better, until Labour (what is part of the Unions) did a robbery of the till.
Its very easy to look good by given somebody else’s money away, but they missed the trick to fill the till again, hence the problems we are in now.
No money and no industry anymore, both successful killed off by the Labour Governement and the Unions. And the same happens in the US of A, only keeps floating on Chinese investments.

Sorry but your argument based ona hike in “Disposable income” under the Thatcher person is errronious. She made it easier to borrow and theres the nub of it. People wernt spending what they had left but were borrowing over their ability to repay and it has now come back to bite us after all the stalling time has run out. Mr Brown was the catalist he just saw it coming and took two steps backwards, the first clue was when he cast the bank of england off so he had no ultimate responsibility/

[kr79]

Yes borrowing was easy in later years and the banks must take some responsibility. But people must take personal responsibility.
Me and a friend on mine bought our homes in 2003 he remortgaged his numerous times for holidays cars etc and no has no equity in his home. I plodded away have no debts other than my credit card which I hardly use and pay off every month. I took advantage of low intrest rates and carried on paying the original amount and now have a quite modest mortgage for a couple in our early 30s in London. That’s been through personal choice no one forced either of us to follow a certain path.

[oldsid]

kr79:
Yes borrowing was easy in later years and the banks must take some responsibility. But people must take personal responsibility.
Me and a friend on mine bought our homes in 2003 he remortgaged his numerous times for holidays cars etc and no has no equity in his home. I plodded away have no debts other than my credit card which I hardly use and pay off every month. I took advantage of low intrest rates and carried on paying the original amount and now have a quite modest mortgage for a couple in our early 30s in London. That’s been through personal choice no one forced either of us to follow a certain path.

I didnt say anyone forced anyone. I took pretty much the same route as you, and still have no credit cards or hp, I was stating what the problem was not preaching or blaming The "thinktanks behind government policies know how the public at large will react and exploit these trends, why do you think they have set the system up with all the centralised data that is stored on computers. They know what you spend each week at Tescos what you did and where you went on holiday, and now with the likes of facebook they know your habits and so on and so on. From all this info all manner of control can be metered out. While it sounds you and I dont conform to the norm, most do.

[carryfast]

caledoniandream:
Mr. Carryfast, what you write is Union propaganda of the first order, for some reason you step over the FACTS that during and after the Thatcher and Reagan periods both economies boomed too the highest standard ever in history.
After Thatcher privatised a lot of companies, the National disposal income raised enormous, in some cases the sky was the limit.
The companies made big profits and investments where heavy, big part of the Unions power was lifted and without them holding the future up Britain could buy cars and houses etc. (don’t you live in a Thatcher house? Mr Carryfast, must be as a council worker!)
We never had it better, until Labour (what is part of the Unions) did a robbery of the till.
Its very easy to look good by given somebody else’s money away, but they missed the trick to fill the till again, hence the problems we are in now.
No money and no industry anymore, both successful killed off by the Labour Governement and the Unions. And the same happens in the US of A, only keeps floating on Chinese investments.

So in your world Thatcherism and Reaganomics actually created two booming economies in the US and UK unlike the situation which both countries were in during the 1960’s and early 70’s in which their unionised industries were dragging them down.You really seem to have some issues in your understanding of history and what the actual figures actually show.The years since Thatcher have all been about decline in wage levels in real terms and therefore living standards,unemployment,and dodgy economic book keeping to show boom when in fact it was all bust done on borrowed money.

Any so called ‘boom’ was only of the type which benefitted zb bankers etc not the average worker in the US and British industries most of which have been gradually run down in favour of giving the work to cheap labour economies.Successive governments regardless of wether they are ‘New Labour’ or Tory have followed exactly the same bs idea of the global free market economy ever since and it’s no surprise that the economy is still zb’ed now just as it was during Thatcher’s time in office.Because the only way that you will ever make an economy work,without the wealth creating industry,and well paid workers,with the disposable income needed to buy the products it turns out,to back it,is on borrowed or printed money regardless of wether it’s Thatcher,Blair,or Cam and Clegg who are running the show.

You also seem to have some stereotypical ideas of union supporters.It might come as a shock to you to realise that a lot of the motivation for many union members over the years was so that they could afford a mortgage to buy a decent house and not have to rely on the socialist bs idea of state funding of low wage employment in the form of zb council housing.The only difference under Thatcher was that people on low wages then had to pay the full market value for flogged off council housing in the private market while the original council tenants,in many cases those who were against the idea of strikes to get better living standards,walked off with the a load of taxpayer provided profit when they flogged their state funded housing.The amount of people who now can’t afford their housing costs is the result because Thatcher’s world is the worst of all worlds one of low wage employment together with high cost housing.

But as for me no thanks I’ve always lived and grown up in private housing payed for by decent union won wages over the years and a zb council house,on a zb council estate,will always be a zb council house,on a zb council estate,regardless of wether it’s been flogged off by Thatcher and her supporters onto the prvate market or not.

[kr79]

I’m a Lorry driver not a professor of economics and the 60s is a bit before my time but was the good times of the 60s an artificial boom created by the austere years after ww2 easing off and the fact so much needed rebuilding after the war.

[carryfast]

kr79:
Yes borrowing was easy in later years and the banks must take some responsibility. But people must take personal responsibility.
Me and a friend on mine bought our homes in 2003 he remortgaged his numerous times for holidays cars etc and no has no equity in his home. I plodded away have no debts other than my credit card which I hardly use and pay off every month. I took advantage of low intrest rates and carried on paying the original amount and now have a quite modest mortgage for a couple in our early 30s in London. That’s been through personal choice no one forced either of us to follow a certain path.

Maybe things wouldn’t look quite so rosy or be so easy for those like you if it wasn’t for those like me being paid zb all on our savings which we rely on for income to subsidise low interest rates.I’d be happy with 8%-10% which means about 12-14% for borrowers.Subsidised mortgage interest rates are just another form of subsidy for low wage employment.I’d bet that your situation would have looked a bit different if interest rates had been kept at that type of figure.

[kr79]

You cant please everyone all the time.
I still wouldn’t be as badly off as some as my mortgage is relatively modest. But I do agree about savings I took most of mine out and invested in premium bonds as the return was dire in the bank.
Couldn’t we just print more money that worked in Zimbabwe and in Weimar Germany.

[carryfast]

kr79:
I’m a Lorry driver not a professor of economics and the 60s is a bit before my time but was the good times of the 60s an artificial boom created by the austere years after ww2 easing off and the fact so much needed rebuilding after the war.

The ‘good times’ of the 1960’s and early 1970’s were actually just sustainable economic growth and improving living standards mostly provided by the actions of the unions during the post war years in making sure that wages stayed ahead of prices in real terms while we still had plenty of wealth creating industry to pay for it.Which is exactly the opposite of what we’ve got now.

[kr79]

Totally agree about the lack of industurys you do need a mix to be successful.