No. I’ll let you strikers strike and I’ll take the rewards cheers
robroy:
M65Chris:
Comparing them to terrorists is a bit much.Not a fan of unions personally, the idea in principle is good but most are more interested in enriching the top dogs.
I’d argue that the very recent history has shown drivers don’t need unions anyway. Most of the payrises have occured because drivers started to say “no” to the very worst jobs and the haulage firms didn’t have their ready made slaves from the East to fill the gaps.
And you really believe that?
Nothing to do with any drivers saying ‘‘no’’, it’s because of the abundance of potential jobs out there now, firns are realising that in order to keep their decent drivers they’ve had to stop taking the ■■■■,.and pay us a decent rate.
Btw…Despite you not being a fan of Unions, the firms that were union recognised were already on better t.s & c.s before all this anyhow.
The unions represent 10% of drivers and they couldn’t even get decent conditions for most drivers, at most of the places they represent. The Heinze deal highlights this perfectly.
The old timers, on 20 year old contracts did have it good, but everyone else had the same issues found throughout the industry. Chances are, Heinze, like many others, with or without union representation, would have out wages up.
I despise the far left wing militant unions, all a bunch of champagne socialists who don’t really give a toss about the workers. It’s just more party politics.
ArcticMonkey:
I despise the far left wing militant unions, all a bunch of champagne socialists who don’t really give a toss about the workers. It’s just more party politics.
Sadly with Unite this is spot on and will lead to more people thinking unions are not for them
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.
Sidevalve:
shullbit:
The thing is, if we all joined UNITE and did ALL go on strike we would get a rise, country would be at a standstillI’ll just say one word.
Miners.
I’ll.say 3 words …‘‘DIVIDE AND CONQUER’’.
A concept well illustrated on this thread.
Educate the young in schools in biased social history, drip feed anti union rhetoric to the rest of the population, via the media. and sit back and hear them repeat the b/s amongst themselves…job done.
A result of a propaganda campaign started in the 80s to ‘‘keep us in our place’’ not helped (but in fact fuelled) by the actions of the Unions themselves when they got far too much power in the late 70s/early 80s.
So they built on this, kept us firmly in our place, implemented things like zero hours contracts, took away most of the rights that had been fought for and won by previous generations, until we have the situation we have today.
I read and hear some stuff today spouted by guys I would label ‘‘working class’’ and just shake my head in disdain,.and feel contempt for their gullibility,…and tbf congratulate the powers that be in their achievements.
They must be laughing their dicks off at us in the parliament bar. 
M65Chris:
robroy:
M65Chris:
Comparing them to terrorists is a bit much.Not a fan of unions personally, the idea in principle is good but most are more interested in enriching the top dogs.
I’d argue that the very recent history has shown drivers don’t need unions anyway. Most of the payrises have occured because drivers started to say “no” to the very worst jobs and the haulage firms didn’t have their ready made slaves from the East to fill the gaps.
And you really believe that?
Nothing to do with any drivers saying ‘‘no’’, it’s because of the abundance of potential jobs out there now, firns are realising that in order to keep their decent drivers they’ve had to stop taking the ■■■■,.and pay us a decent rate.
Btw…Despite you not being a fan of Unions, the firms that were union recognised were already on better t.s & c.s before all this anyhow.The unions represent 10% of drivers and they couldn’t even get decent conditions for most drivers, at most of the places they represent. The Heinze deal highlights this perfectly.
The old timers, on 20 year old contracts did have it good, but everyone else had the same issues found throughout the industry. Chances are, Heinze, like many others, with or without union representation, would have out wages up.
Look mate, as with everything else in this life, I open my eyes and ears, then . I look around,.take note of stuff and make my OWN mind up about things. mostly ignoring the ''official line… and the majority popular belief of stuff,…and I certainly don’t listen to crap spouted by the brainwashed.
(not referring to you personally btw)
I ain’t got a ■■■■ scooby what the ’ Heinze deal’’ is that you are going on about tbh,. 
…what I do know ifir certain that at least 3 different mates working for different firms that are Union based, are all on much better pay, much better pay structure, much better t.s and c.s and have far more perks than I or anybody else in non union firms have,.and do not have to put up with dog ■■■■ like cameras pointing towards them. 
…fact.
Thst observation is good enough for me to decide that union firms are better to work for, and I don’t give a ■■■■ about any random deal, any anti union govt backed b/s or whether or not some driver begrudges Union bosses their salary or not.
If you refute what I say, that’s up to you…but ust ask some of the guys yourself who work in a firm where their interests are looked after by a union.
I’ll wait and see what happens, make a decision later. Otherwise crack on.
we’ve just been given ANOTHER pay rise 
2nd one in last few months,plus ‘dark’ money,paid for hours worked before 6am,and after 6pm,so i think any chance of us striking has been averted.
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.
Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
Yep. And whatever your views on Thatcher, she nailed it with this comment;
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”.
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
I’m assuming this is a knock at Union top men…
I get all that, but do you think these guys started at the top?
No, like the rest of us they started at rock bottom and worked themselves up to a better lifestyle, maybe after years of getting better terms for their members at ground level…and what is there to object about that,…apart from a bit of jealously.
Look at Bob Crowe the Railway Union guy, …like him or loathe him he strived for (and won )excellent t.s and c s for the guys he represented.
Maybe these guys that you resent so much started off with good and honourable intentions,.saw they were getting no support nor backing from a servile pathetic bend over type work force,.and thought ‘‘F this, I’m looking after no1 from now on’’…and who could blame them.
A conclusion I myself have come to in the past after ■■■■■■■ against the wind with fellow drivers over different issues of ■■■■■■■■ and unfairness, …but as yet have failed to capture the trappings of wealth these guys that you talk about have, …but at least I’ve managed to get myself a steady little number because of that decision.
Bob Crow was a bit different; I detested his politics but even his biggest detractors would admit that he was a man of his word and did a lot for his members. He was also highly respected across the political spectrum as a man of complete integrity; a proper old school union man. He is on record as saying that he would vote Conservative himself if he could guarantee renationalisation of the railways by doing so. For all his perceived faults, I think he was an honest man.
Ms. Graham, on the other hand reminds me of the less desirable side of union bosses; I think she has more in common with Arthur Scargill than Bob Crow.
robroy:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
I’m assuming this is a knock at Union top men…
I get all that, but do you think these guys started at the top?
No, like the rest of us they started at rock bottom and worked themselves up to a better lifestyle, maybe after years of getting better terms for their members at ground level…and what is there to object about that,…apart from a bit of jealously.Look at Bob Crowe the Railway Union guy, …like him or loathe him he strived for (and won
Maybe these guys that you resent so much started off with good and honourable intentions,.saw they were getting no support nor backing from a servile pathetic bend over type work force,.and thought ‘‘F this, I’m looking after no1 from now on’’…and who could blame them.
A conclusion I myself have come to in the past after ■■■■■■■ against the wind with fellow drivers over different issues of ■■■■■■■■ and unfairness, …but as yet have failed to capture the trappings of wealth these guys that you talk about have,
Not a knock at union leaders in particular although some do come into that catagory Bob Crowe for example on his 100+grand salary could have easily afforded to move out of his council allowing a family on benefits or a low salary to move in thereby benefitting someone not as fortunate as him.
The problem with to many UK unions is that they think they are there to change governments rather than look after workers Unite being a classic case their blind support for Corbyn damaged the Labour party to such an extent that it will take them years to recover. Fight for workers rights and better conditions by all means but by being so closely linked to the Labour party you alienate workers who aren’t Labour voters. Were you happy with a percentage of your union fee going to the Labour Party without your consent?
Sidevalve:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
Yep. And whatever your views on Thatcher, she nailed it with this comment;
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”.
Money? Wealth from where?
The taxes paid by “high wealth individuals” were allegedly too high. But where did their wealth actually originate?
They “make” money by shuffling around figures*. The true wealth came from the miners etc in the past and factory workers, creators and (shock) even drivers!
It wasn’t someone else’s money. It was monies that originated with workers.
I’m not against profits for genuine risk takers and entrepreneurs. I’m against those who take a disproportionate amount and are happy enough with their private health, and gated communities to see the rest of us, those who made their wealth, not get properly funded facilities.
*bit like electric companies, that don’t make electricity…
Franglais:
Sidevalve:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
Yep. And whatever your views on Thatcher, she nailed it with this comment;
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”.
Money? Wealth from where?
The taxes paid by “high wealth individuals” were allegedly too high. But where did their wealth actually originate?
They “make” money by shuffling around figures*. The true wealth came from the miners etc in the past and factory workers, creators and (shock) even drivers!
It wasn’t someone else’s money. It was monies that originated with workers.I’m not against profits for genuine risk takers and entrepreneurs. I’m against those who take a disproportionate amount and are happy enough with their private health, and gated communities to see the rest of us, those who made their wealth, not get properly funded facilities.
*bit like electric companies, that don’t make electricity…
Mazzer2:
robroy:
Mazzer2:
Franglais:
Of course…“champagne socialists”…
.
A term used to disparage those who do make a bit of money but still do care about those who are less well off.
Because it is assumed those who have ten quid in their pocket, couldn’t possibly give a toss about those with only ten bob.
.
A term used widely in the Tory press to encourage their readers to divide the opposition.
A rich socialist couldn’t possibly care sbout the workers. So vote Tory, because capitalists do care for the workers.
.Or a term used to describe people who whilst being well off lecture the working class about what they should and shouldn’t do while leading a life that is far from the values that they espouse, remember Emme Thompson’s lecture to us all from the Extinction Rebeliion protests about we must all lead a greener life a fine speech somewhat undermined by her private jet flight from L.A. My take on champagne socialist is a bunch of hypocrites who talk about leading a socialist life as long it’s other people who have to lead it.
I’m assuming this is a knock at Union top men…
I get all that, but do you think these guys started at the top?
No, like the rest of us they started at rock bottom and worked themselves up to a better lifestyle, maybe after years of getting better terms for their members at ground level…and what is there to object about that,…apart from a bit of jealously.Look at Bob Crowe the Railway Union guy, …like him or loathe him he strived for (and won
Maybe these guys that you resent so much started off with good and honourable intentions,.saw they were getting no support nor backing from a servile pathetic bend over type work force,.and thought ‘‘F this, I’m looking after no1 from now on’’…and who could blame them.
A conclusion I myself have come to in the past after ■■■■■■■ against the wind with fellow drivers over different issues of ■■■■■■■■ and unfairness, …but as yet have failed to capture the trappings of wealth these guys that you talk about have,Not a knock at union leaders in particular although some do come into that catagory Bob Crowe for example on his 100+grand salary could have easily afforded to move out of his council allowing a family on benefits or a low salary to move in thereby benefitting someone not as fortunate as him.
The problem with to many UK unions is that they think they are there to change governments rather than look after workers Unite being a classic case their blind support for Corbyn damaged the Labour party to such an extent that it will take them years to recover. Fight for workers rights and better conditions by all means but by being so closely linked to the Labour party you alienate workers who aren’t Labour voters. Were you happy with a percentage of your union fee going to the Labour Party without your consent?
Political contributions are optional. Since 2016 it is necessary to “opt in”.
.
Bob Crow should move out of his council house? So someone can slag him off for being detached and away from ordinary working folk?
Methinks he is damned in whatever he does.
Franglais:
.
Bob Crow should move out of his council house? So someone can slag him off for being detached and away from ordinary working folk?
Methinks he is damned in whatever he does.
So are there no houses for sale in working class areas? No one said he had to move to Islington.
Yes political contributions were made optional in 2016 after a lot of resistance from the unions and more as an attempt to attract new members rather than see that it was wrong to make people contribute to a party that they did not support
Mazzer2:
Not a knock at union leaders in particular although some do come into that catagory Bob Crowe for example on his 100+grand salary could have easily afforded to move out of his council allowing a family on benefits or a low salary to move in thereby benefitting someone not as fortunate as him.
The problem with to many UK unions is that they think they are there to change governments rather than look after workers Unite being a classic case their blind support for Corbyn damaged the Labour party to such an extent that it will take them years to recover. Fight for workers rights and better conditions by all means but by being so closely linked to the Labour party you alienate workers who aren’t Labour voters. Were you happy with a percentage of your union fee going to the Labour Party without your consent?
Firstly Crowe and his council house…
I used to get all that type of crap off a couple of clowns on here who.attempted (and failed) to ■■■■ me, before I bought my council house.
Would you, they, or especially the council not prefer him to diligently pay his rent than have some scum bags, chavs or asylum seekers move in…fair enough maybe somebody a bit more desirable could also be the case to move in if he had left…but you get my drift.
When I was a kid most hard working families lived in council houses, before Thatcher sold them purely as a clever tactic to avoid more strikes…(another divide and conquer example btw) where as nowadays there is almost a stigma attached ,.and mostly coming from an inverted snobbery angle, from people of the same class,.a dark side of human nature…
So basically it was HIS business where he chose to live.
I ain’t a Labour fan in it’s present form, it’s a bit like your favourite pub or chippy being under new ownership and then turning to crap, you don’t carry on using them there on after do you.
Read your history books, if there was no Labour party there would be no Trade Unions, so they come hand in hand, so I reluctantly accept funds going to the Labour Party that has lost it’s way, but continue to support Unions for the good of normal working people…something the present Labour Party don’t do. 
I’m with you on that; despite being a committed Conservative voter I’m also a card-carrying union member and have been for some years.
The two are not incompatible; Norman Tebbit was a union official (BALPA) and like many other Conservatives, it wasn’t the unions per se he was against, but the control which the extreme Left
(largely comprised of people who have never done a day’s real work in their lives) exerted over them in order to subvert the government. That hasn’t changed, witness UNITE today.