|
|
Post by Cothi on May 1, 2006 19:28:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 2, 2006 2:40:10 GMT -5
They got what they deserved - nothing. Quitting a job and going elsewhere for other work is an honourable thing to do. Striking, where you refuse to work but refuse to get the Hell out and let someone else have the job, is a dishonourable thing to do and should always lead to dismissal. "The sun's too hot for me so I'll go in the shade but I'll leave my towel on the sun lounger so no one else can pinch my place..." It's time we stopped swallowing the propaganda about the heroes of the General Strike. Many more workers lost their jobs and all that went with it when mechanisation swept through agriculture. What did they do? Got other work and got on with their lives - no strikes and no whinging.  richard |
|
|
|
Post by JCT on May 2, 2006 3:32:52 GMT -5
Socialist historians or BBC journalists? Or no-one? Is there a difference between the two?  |
|
|
|
Post by TroutBoy on May 2, 2006 7:40:41 GMT -5
They got what they deserved - nothing. Quitting a job and going elsewhere for other work is an honourable thing to do. Striking, where you refuse to work but refuse to get the Hell out and let someone else have the job, is a dishonourable thing to do and should always lead to dismissal. richard What utter rubbish It is for each individual to do what they can to improve their lot on their own terms - if this means joining in a strike, since striking is legal, then so be it. Honourable and dishonourable are meaningless labels used to try and coerce others in to doing things 'your way'. |
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 2, 2006 8:18:21 GMT -5
If striking is legal then dismissing strikers should be just as legal.
The irony is that if no one ever went on strike but instead had the guts to quit and go elsewhere, the employers would have to offer better wages and better conditions to attract employees to join them. Trying to have the cake and eat it and having the "right" so to do being protected by loony left politicians is why so many jobs have actually left these shores for ever. Price yourself out of the market and it won't let you back in without a lot of climbing down and trouble.
Sacking strikers is the best thing an employer can do for the benefit of us all.
Weak management and strong unions, backed by their MPs, ruined the Nation between 1945 and 1978.
richard
|
|
|
|
Post by guinea on May 2, 2006 11:00:29 GMT -5
If employers kept firing strikers then the population would be forced into working for bullies on low pay. If they didn't like the terms they were offered they'd be fired.
Those doing jobs with low salaries and little training would be most at risk. Companies would compete to pay the lowest with as few benefits as possible.
At the moment people can move to other companies if they offer better packages. This is great for people being headhunted by agencies but not entirely usefull for guys working in factories sticking labels on boxes of Quality Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 2, 2006 12:25:26 GMT -5
If employers kept firing strikers then the population would be forced into working for bullies on low pay. If they didn't like the terms they were offered they'd be fired. Why? How do you arrive at that conclusion? If a company has to change terms and conditions to survive then why should it be prevented from so doing? If folk don't find the terms acceptable and they are feeling bullied then they should leave. Eventually the bully (if the employer really is a bully) wouldn't be able to employ anyone so would have to improve the terms offered or else cease trading. Those doing jobs with low salaries and little training would be most at risk. Companies would compete to pay the lowest with as few benefits as possible. Unskilled work is always the most risky. The answer is to learn a skill that is in demand. Companies don't compete like that. They compete to win and keep business. If they can't afford the labour then the jobs they might offer never get offered and so never exist. Alternatives are found, such as automation or offshoring. At the moment people can move to other companies if they offer better packages. This is great for people being headhunted by agencies but not entirely usefull for guys working in factories sticking labels on boxes of Quality Street. That task is done by machines not guys... Like I said earlier. Price yourself out of a market (like a labour market) and it will not let you back in... richard |
|
|
|
Post by jimdoyle1 on May 2, 2006 12:54:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfisher on May 2, 2006 13:20:16 GMT -5
If striking is legal then dismissing strikers should be just as legal. The irony is that if no one ever went on strike but instead had the guts to quit and go elsewhere, the employers would have to offer better wages and better conditions to attract employees to join them. Trying to have the cake and eat it and having the "right" so to do being protected by loony left politicians is why so many jobs have actually left these shores for ever. Price yourself out of the market and it won't let you back in without a lot of climbing down and trouble. Sacking strikers is the best thing an employer can do for the benefit of us all. Weak management and strong unions, backed by their MPs, ruined the Nation between 1945 and 1978. richard bollocks!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 6:05:18 GMT -5
If striking is legal then dismissing strikers should be just as legal. The irony is that if no one ever went on strike but instead had the guts to quit and go elsewhere, the employers would have to offer better wages and better conditions to attract employees to join them. Trying to have the cake and eat it and having the "right" so to do being protected by loony left politicians is why so many jobs have actually left these shores for ever. Price yourself out of the market and it won't let you back in without a lot of climbing down and trouble. Sacking strikers is the best thing an employer can do for the benefit of us all. Weak management and strong unions, backed by their MPs, ruined the Nation between 1945 and 1978. richard bollocks!!!!! Perhaps you would like to offer some proof for your point of view here? Just so that we can all understand the logic behind your position... richard |
|
|
|
Post by Dovey on May 3, 2006 6:30:37 GMT -5
Well now Cothi, a pretty good day's fishing I think.
And such a basic pattern...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cothi on May 3, 2006 6:32:48 GMT -5
I never get tired of catching that old trout from Derbyshire who believes that, if let loose, labour markets would work perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardw on May 3, 2006 6:43:05 GMT -5
I never get tired of catching that old trout from Derbyshire who believes that, if let loose, labour markets would work perfectly. I do believe it is worth a try! Capitalism is the only policy that has never actually been tried anywhere. It can't be worse than all the state interference policies so loved by the loony left, be they Democrats in the USA, communists in Cuba, or the crooks we have in Great Britain. Free markets! Let's try them... richard |
|
|
|
Post by guinea on May 3, 2006 8:07:21 GMT -5
At the moment people can move to other companies if they offer better packages. This is great for people being headhunted by agencies but not entirely usefull for guys working in factories sticking labels on boxes of Quality Street. That task is done by machines not guys... I actually picked that example as one my partner did in the summer holidays whilst at university. I did get my facts wrong though, it was Roses and not Quality Street. They used to get paid a pittance, then the minimum wage came and they changed to piece work. The employer used the top performer as the benchmark and most people ended up with a pay cut. You see, companies do not care about the bottom tier of employees. An ex boss of mine once told me he fired everyone after 6 months as once they got over their 'new job enthusiasm' he'd get more work out of a new starter. The idea that a free labour market would somehow make things better for these people is laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by Sewinbasher on May 3, 2006 8:12:47 GMT -5
That task is done by machines not guys... I actually picked that example as one my partner did in the summer holidays whilst at university. I did get my facts wrong though, it was Roses and not Quality Street. They used to get paid a pittance, then the minimum wage came and they changed to piece work. The employer used the top performer as the benchmark and most people ended up with a pay cut. You see, companies do not care about the bottom tier of employees. An ex boss of mine once told me he fired everyone after 6 months as once they got over their 'new job enthusiasm' he'd get more work out of a new starter. The idea that a free labour market would somehow make things better for these people is laughable. But the other side of the coin is that some people who think that they are impregnable tend not to work, take liberties and are less productive and a burden to both the company and those workers who do their bit. I work on the basis that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys and I pay a decent wage and expect a decent day's work in return. If someone isn't performing we use all reasonable means to help them improve as it's expensive and risky recruiting new staff but if they don't they have to go. |
|
