Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Excuse me? What are you trying to say?
    I just wrote 650 words in response to you about striking, which clearly stated my support of the right to strike, and why I think that state-owned monopolies cause the majority of the problems. You dismissed this with 2 lines of nothing and then asked me, again, whether I would ban striking. You're either incapable of reading, or chosing to withhold that ability. Eitherway, I've no inclination to waste any more time on you, given the obvious disdain you afford the time I spend writing considered replies to you.

    In other words, knob off you dopey, cack-eating monkey, and get back to knocking one out over your favourite copy of the Morning Star whilst reciting "The State is my dad. Can we play football, dad? What do you mean you're too busy smoking and beating mum? I want to play football with you daddy, please, please, no, don't hit me, please, OW. Ok, I know you had my interests in mind when you took me into the woods that time with Uncle Gary and bummed me til I prolapsed and your penis looked like a ketchup-covered poorly cooked BBQ sausage. I accept your will is always divine and my "bun" is ready for you any time, dad."

    I think it's probably time for you to go to bed now mevidek, let the adults talk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Then what's the point of striking if the government would "never negotiate with unions"? Surely that's just as bad as the way workers in Colombia are treated by their corrupt government.
    Exactly there would be no point in striking thus striking is no longer a problem. This is hardly similar to Columbia, we are not repressing the people or forcing them to live in poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That be true but i would ask why Labour opted not to pass such a law during one of their many terms in power.
    In 1945, the Labour government set out to nationalise large parts of the industrial sector ensuring that wage rates were set at a national level. Not quite a national minimum wage but given how many people worked in those industries in the 1940s and 1950s, it was a good way going towards it. Since the rise of the service sector to dominance didn't really take place until the late-1970s - by which point Labour were truly struggling as a government - it's hard to denounce Labour for not having introduced a national minimum wage during their 17 years of office between 1945 and 1979. For many workers - particularly male workers - they did improve wage settlements in comparison to the privatised industries of the pre-Second World War period. Given that between 1918 and 1945 Labour were in office for 30 months or so ... you can hardly blame them then either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I just wrote 650 words in response to you about striking, which clearly stated my support of the right to strike, and why I think that state-owned monopolies cause the majority of the problems. You dismissed this with 2 lines of nothing and then asked me, again, whether I would ban striking. You're either incapable of reading, or chosing to withhold that ability. Eitherway, I've no inclination to waste any more time on you, given the obvious disdain you afford the time I spend writing considered replies to you.

    In other words, knob off you dopey, cack-eating monkey, and get back to knocking one out over your favourite copy of the Morning Star whilst reciting "The State is my dad. Can we play football, dad? What do you mean you're too busy smoking and beating mum? I want to play football with you daddy, please, please, no, don't hit me, please, OW. Ok, I know you had my interests in mind when you took me into the woods that time with Uncle Gary and bummed me til I prolapsed and your penis looked like a ketchup-covered poorly cooked BBQ sausage. I accept your will is always divine and my "bun" is ready for you any time, dad."

    I think it's probably time for you to go to bed now mevidek, let the adults talk.
    Grow up. I read what you said. You provided to me no evidence that unions have "exploited" the government. If provided suitable evidence, I would then understand where you are coming from. But you have not. Once again, grow up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Never said there was anything wrong with people standing up for the rights of the workers.

    Private sector "workers", do you ever hear them standing up for their rights often? No, as there employers will just sack them and find somebody else. Having the unions allows workers to exploit the government, whereas private sector employees have to get on with it or leave. The government should have more power to be able to just sack troublemakers without getting sued for every penny they have.
    Well that's just plain wrong. Unions exist in the private sector, and do go on strike from the private sector.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I think Libertarians are against most "crushings" generally!!
    Hmmm. There's your problem. Crushings are the keystone for all good policy platforms.

    I'm not entirely sure if MacCuishy opposes the right to withdraw labour, but if he does this quote from his sig becomes ironic: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Anyway, what's "the list"? Sounds ominous.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We have no objection to collective bargaining or voluntary political association, we just have a problem with an unelected body making threats.
    So you don't oppose collective bargaining as long as the people trying to bargain don't have anything to bargain with! The right to withdraw labour is fundamental, as is the right to do so as a group. Unions are people, they are the collective voice of those that compose them - to limit a union is to limit a person, an individual. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Exactly there would be no point in striking thus striking is no longer a problem. This is hardly similar to Columbia, we are not repressing the people or forcing them to live in poverty.
    No. Striking is illegal in Colombia. Trade Unions are illegal in Colombia. It would be exactly like Colombia in that the government could and would exploit workers and therefore force them into poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    No. Striking is illegal in Colombia. Trade Unions are illegal in Colombia. It would be exactly like Colombia in that the government could and would exploit workers and therefore force them into poverty.
    Exactly like Columbia except trade unions would be legal, striking would be legal and the government won't exploit workers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Exactly like Columbia except trade unions would be legal, striking would be legal and the government won't exploit workers.
    What? Unless I misread what you previously said, you said that you don't think the government should negotiate with unions. This means that they can't fight for the rights of their workers. The government can, therefore, exploit workers.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Well that's just plain wrong. Unions exist in the private sector, and do go on strike from the private sector.
    They risk losing their job, is it really a risk worth taking? In a modern wealthy country like here, it simply just isn't.

    Did I say that they didn't exist and that private sector employees don't strike, no I didn't/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    Grow up. I read what you said. You provided to me no evidence that unions have "exploited" the government. If provided suitable evidence, I would then understand where you are coming from. But you have not. Once again, grow up.
    Have some rep and head to bed, son. When we want the opinion of an angry child, we'll give teh France a call. If he's busy, someone can rouse you from Gary's shed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    What? Unless I misread what you previously said, you said that you don't think striking should be legal.
    No I said the government should refuse to negotiate with them. They can strike all day long but it will serve no purpose.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by JPKC)
    I'm not entirely sure if MacCuishy opposes the right to withdraw labour, but if he does this quote from his sig becomes ironic: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Of course I do. When have I said that I want to outlaw striking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Have some rep and head to bed, son. When we want the opinion of an angry child, we'll give teh France a call. If he's busy, someone can rouse you from Gary's shed.
    Wow, you're pathetic. I'm prepared to continue debate, but you obviously are not. I urge you to stop patronising me and engage in discussion.

    (Original post by internetguru)
    No I said the government should refuse to negotiate with them. They can strike all day long but it will serve no purpose.
    I ammended my post. Please re-read it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    What you mean like bankers threatening to go elsewhere if they don't have huge bonuses? You mean like company bosses threatening to move elsewhere if they don't have low tax rates? You mean like higher-rate tax payers avoiding tax and simultaneously complaining they pay too much and threatenin to move to Zanzibar? Oh yes, unelected bodies making threats which governments cave into are not exclusively a left-wing problem. Now, given that trades unions have internal democracy and bankers do not... I don't quite get why you despise the former but **** over rights of the latter?
    Whilst it is true that there are such examples you make the mistake of assuming that i, leader of the TSR Tories would pander to such demands.

    I agree with low tax rates out of principal, whether or not somebody would leave the country and as i stated earlier, government should not pander to business or unions, they should mealy create suitable conditions for prosperity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    They risk losing their job, is it really a risk worth taking? In a modern wealthy country like here, it simply just isn't.

    Did I say that they didn't exist and that private sector employees don't strike, no I didn't/
    But they don't risk losing their job? It's illegal to sack a worker for striking y'know.

    Shall I quote you again?

    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Private sector "workers", do you ever hear them standing up for their rights often? No, as there employers will just sack them and find somebody else. Having the unions allows workers to exploit the government, whereas private sector employees have to get on with it or leave.
    I don't know about you, but it sounds a lot like you're saying private sector workers don't strike, when they clearly do. Hell, the fuel tanker drivers work for a private company for God's sake. Start making some sort of sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Of course I do. When have I said that I want to outlaw striking?
    "There is nothing wrong with defending a right or campaigning for a right however you should do it on your own time and without causing inconvenience for others.

    I have no objection to a union acting as a think tank and proposing policy, they got the minimum wage without striking.

    Strikes should not be legal, rather there should be a system in which 50% of public sector employees must petition against or for a particular action with a turnout of 50%+. If this was the case then government would amend its policy (though there would be no second petition. It may or may not work, just a thought."


    Here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Whilst it is true that there are such examples you make the mistake of assuming that i, leader of the TSR Tories would pander to such demands.
    Well since you give Morgise a run for his money in obtuseness so it's hard to know what you, leader of the TSR Tories, would do in many cases. Suffice it to say that I don't trust you're actually being honest here.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Of course I do. When have I said that I want to outlaw striking?
    You haven't? I've not read all your posts. Trying to half-watch The Apprentice here - a great demonstration of the woes beholden to private enterprise!
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    But they don't risk losing their job? It's illegal to sack a worker for striking y'know.

    Shall I quote you again?



    I don't know about you, but it sounds a lot like you're saying private sector workers don't strike, when they clearly do. Hell, the fuel tanker drivers work for a private company for God's sake. Start making some sort of sense.
    It may be illegal to sack a worker for striking, but they sure as hell will be the first to go once times get tough - from personal experience I know.


    "they don't strike often" - That is what I said.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.