Union leader says 2011 will be 'horrible' year
Discussion
Union leader says 2011 will be 'horrible' year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12092246
I bet not for him though;)
The unkindest cut of all, a 10% reduction in housing benefit after one year...wow, wish I could get my house paid for!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12092246
I bet not for him though;)
The unkindest cut of all, a 10% reduction in housing benefit after one year...wow, wish I could get my house paid for!
Mojocvh said:
thatone1967 said:
what he probably meant was... 2011 will be a horrible year for you lot because us lazy 
s will strike at every opportunity!
^^^this^^^^ they want to engineer a regime change and the coalition are sleepwalking right into the trap.s will strike at every opportunity!...but how does showing socialist tendencies endear an alternative socialist government to the voting population. The majority of voters really are idiots.
All they have to do to cut the Unions influence is to introduce a bill based around the current terrorist threat situation stating that all public service jobs (those controlled by the unions) fall under the sphere of emergency services. In times of emergency they will be supported and fully funded/provided with resources to deal with all acts of terrorism on the UK mainland blah blah blah.
Then 2 weeks later introduce a new bill stating that all emergency services due to the nature of possible terrorist threats are not allowed to strike (worded in more complex Sir Humphrey Appleby manner) as doing so will endanger lives. Union leaders then would be left with discussions without the threat of striking, possibly even charged with terrorism themselves if they tried, which IIRC is an introduced Labour Law so they'd get it from their own side.
Of course the 2nd bill needs to be smudged over a great deal but a 2 or even 3 stage bill could get the desired result.
Then 2 weeks later introduce a new bill stating that all emergency services due to the nature of possible terrorist threats are not allowed to strike (worded in more complex Sir Humphrey Appleby manner) as doing so will endanger lives. Union leaders then would be left with discussions without the threat of striking, possibly even charged with terrorism themselves if they tried, which IIRC is an introduced Labour Law so they'd get it from their own side.
Of course the 2nd bill needs to be smudged over a great deal but a 2 or even 3 stage bill could get the desired result.
Heard Serwotka (sp?) on the radio.
100% gold plated copper bottomed tt.
Says we need to keep the public sector employed, we need their tax and NI contributions. Still doesn't get that they are paid from tax and NI contributions and simply hand a bit back.
Also asked, twice, where he would get the money to invest in growth, which is his alternative to the cuts. Had no answer. At all.
What a moron.
100% gold plated copper bottomed t
t.Says we need to keep the public sector employed, we need their tax and NI contributions. Still doesn't get that they are paid from tax and NI contributions and simply hand a bit back.
Also asked, twice, where he would get the money to invest in growth, which is his alternative to the cuts. Had no answer. At all.
What a moron.
otolith said:
Why is the modern union movement so interested in benefits? Why does it support bigger deductions from the pocket of the working man in order to give more to those who do not work? Would the men who founded the movement for the right to work think much of the Jeremy Kyle class?
No if you talk to people in their 70's and 80's they are horrifed by the apparent Lazy people that claim benefits and they simply dont understand the concept of modern poverty when compared to their own childhood their is no such thing today as poverty.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff