UKBA - More Union B*ll*cks...
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15865138
So, the Government is keen to limit disruption and keep some semblance of order at the airports, etc, by asking volunteers to help out.
But step forward PCS Union chief Mark Serwotka, who said ministers were in a "blind panic" and should be resolving the dispute.
Smacks a bit of desperation, no?
Basically, he's putting the borders at risk, and is saying the Government should cave in to his demands immediately, or else.
Call off your stupid strike plans then you twunt!
You're not going to get a better deal than the one on the table so grow the f
k up, accept it graciously, pull your head out of your arse and get into the real world.
So, the Government is keen to limit disruption and keep some semblance of order at the airports, etc, by asking volunteers to help out.
Article said:
A UKBA spokesman said: "The security of the UK border remains our top priority and it is absolutely right we explore all options to ensure we minimise any disruption caused by planned union action."
Fair enough...But step forward PCS Union chief Mark Serwotka, who said ministers were in a "blind panic" and should be resolving the dispute.
Article said:
However, union chiefs expressed concern that the officials might not be properly trained and that borders could be put at risk.
Mr Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, blamed ministers for leaving it so late to try and resolve the dispute.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the call to civil servants was an example of "blind panic" at the 11th hour, he said, and accused the government of engaging in a misleading "PR exercise" about public sector pensions to try to force through "damaging" changes.
"Instead of scratching around trying to put untrained people on the front line, they should say today they want urgent talks to try to resolve the dispute," he said.
So, he's worried that the borders might be put at risk is he? Riiiigggghhhht!Mr Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, blamed ministers for leaving it so late to try and resolve the dispute.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the call to civil servants was an example of "blind panic" at the 11th hour, he said, and accused the government of engaging in a misleading "PR exercise" about public sector pensions to try to force through "damaging" changes.
"Instead of scratching around trying to put untrained people on the front line, they should say today they want urgent talks to try to resolve the dispute," he said.
Smacks a bit of desperation, no?
Basically, he's putting the borders at risk, and is saying the Government should cave in to his demands immediately, or else.
Call off your stupid strike plans then you twunt!
You're not going to get a better deal than the one on the table so grow the f
k up, accept it graciously, pull your head out of your arse and get into the real world.CzechItOut said:
Let's be honest, trained chimps couldn't do a worse job of protecting our borders, so it's a bit rich the unions coming out and criticising the government's plans.
Especially when they're just told to wave all and sundry through anyway.Hell, the Greeters at the Disney store could do that!
CzechItOut said:
Let's be honest, trained chimps couldn't do a worse job of protecting our borders, so it's a bit rich the unions coming out and criticising the government's plans.
Given my experience after going through Immigration in T5 last Friday morning I couldn't agree more. The Border Agency, in their infinite wisdom, decided it would be a great idea to put a couple of trainees in the EU/UK citizen lines. The line ground to a halt as the instructor talked the trainee through each passport. End result was a load of irate travellers. I'm all for people doing on the job training but doing it at a peak time when loads of flights were coming in was just crazy. But then again Border Agency and common sense do not go together.And to top it all off they illegally stamped my wife's passport on entry to the UK so I've just fired off a formal complaint.
Bertie W
nelly1 said:
Especially when they're just told to wave all and sundry through anyway.
Hell, the Greeters at the Disney store could do that!
They were following orders and I am sure they were still checking enough people to keep themselves busy - the point is there are more passengers than they have the staff/systems in place allow to be able to check them all proeprly. That is not the fault of the man on the ground at UKBA.Hell, the Greeters at the Disney store could do that!
powerstroke said:
Its a pity they couldent just sack the lot and start again.. mind I guess its more a case of a lefty union leader's death rattle than what the membership wants...
Your propensity for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and apportioning blame to the wrong issue is unmatched. Except perhaps by your lack of spelling skills 
To point out right from the start and for avoidance of doubt, I am not generally a supporter of strikes. Nor am I a union member. But when I read drivel like "Its a pity they couldn't just sack the lot and start again" (spelling corrected for you, because I didn't want a mistake like that in one of my posts) I can only assume that you are not old enough to remember the bad old days of trades unions in the 50s, 60s and 70s, or alternatively you've got amnesia. Compared to the situation pre-Thatcher, the unions these days are no more than a toothless lion. They roar a bit from time to time but, beyond that, the worst they can do is give you a nasty suck.
Personally I think that the unions are wasting their time in calling this strke. Its not going to do any good from the view of forcing the government to change their minds over the pension issue, those going on strike are going to lose a day's pay for effectively sod all and, lets be fair, the amount of public sympathy around for poor civil servants who won't be getting quite the size of pension handouts that they've been used to is, shall we be charitable and say, sparse ... And they won't be getting any extra public sympathy by having long queues at immigration either - in fact quite the reverse.
But leaving all that lot to one side, the unions have had a ballot of their members, and that ballot has authorised strike action. Now you can argue all you bleedin' well like about percentage turnout and the actual percentage of total union members that actually voted to walk out, but the strike was legally constituted (unlike the NUM 1983 debacle, by the way, but that's another issue). In addition, the union have no powers left to prevent those who don't want to strike from working normally. I think that deals with the "what the membership wants" bit of your post.
Finally, "I guess its more a case of a lefty union leader's death rattle" . Bullshyte. What the man is doing, as you would expect him to do, is to try to "talk up" his position and that of the union. The same as any politician does, the same as we all do when faced with opposition to our view or opinions. Just because you don't agree with what he has to say makes him no more "leftie" than Call me Dave or His Nigeness when they talk up their positions on any subject.
I suggest in future you try to form your opinions from informed sources, rather than the Sunday Sport
Trade Unions within the U.K. are the most heavily regulated Unions within Europe. Much/any more Governmental interference and regulations imposed could mean a threat to worker democracy and rights.
Also add that the current nonsense being spouted in Government circles and elsewhere that only 25% of membership voted to strike against as opposed to the 10% voting against strike action. Means that its not a democratic vote as the remaining 40% did not vote at all. Government whispers of perhaps dealing with this issue, well the only way to deal with it is introduce compulsory voting, starting with General Elections.
Also add that the current nonsense being spouted in Government circles and elsewhere that only 25% of membership voted to strike against as opposed to the 10% voting against strike action. Means that its not a democratic vote as the remaining 40% did not vote at all. Government whispers of perhaps dealing with this issue, well the only way to deal with it is introduce compulsory voting, starting with General Elections.
Do the boarder forces work at night?
Every time I come back into the UK and Im on the late flight I don't see a single person watching people come through, its completely empty unlike during the day, so to smuggle anything in would it be easier late at night?
This is not just those flights from EU that I notice this, quite a few times coming back from Africa too.
Every time I come back into the UK and Im on the late flight I don't see a single person watching people come through, its completely empty unlike during the day, so to smuggle anything in would it be easier late at night?
This is not just those flights from EU that I notice this, quite a few times coming back from Africa too.
crankedup said:
Trade Unions within the U.K. are the most heavily regulated Unions within Europe. Much/any more Governmental interference and regulations imposed could mean a threat to worker democracy and rights.
Also add that the current nonsense being spouted in Government circles and elsewhere that only 25% of membership voted to strike against as opposed to the 10% voting against strike action. Means that its not a democratic vote as the remaining 40% did not vote at all. Government whispers of perhaps dealing with this issue, well the only way to deal with it is introduce compulsory voting, starting with General Elections.
The worker's biggest right is to a job that is sustainable within the wider economy - UK Trade Unions, especially the public sector ones, have repeatedly demonstrated a total and criminal ignorance of this, they go way beyond what is reasonable especially when their members have benefits and conditions that are virtually non-existent elsewhere. The threat posed by the unions is greater to our economy and public finances than to their workers' "rights".Also add that the current nonsense being spouted in Government circles and elsewhere that only 25% of membership voted to strike against as opposed to the 10% voting against strike action. Means that its not a democratic vote as the remaining 40% did not vote at all. Government whispers of perhaps dealing with this issue, well the only way to deal with it is introduce compulsory voting, starting with General Elections.
You do have a point on compulsory voting - given this coalition's mandate.
sadoksevoli said:
The worker's biggest right is to a job that is sustainable within the wider economy - UK Trade Unions, especially the public sector ones, have repeatedly demonstrated a total and criminal ignorance of this, they go way beyond what is reasonable especially when their members have benefits and conditions that are virtually non-existent elsewhere. The threat posed by the unions is greater to our economy and public finances than to their workers' "rights".
Have you been watching too much Fox News? 
You quote crankedup who was saying much the same as I was in that the unions in this country have virtually no power compared to those in other EU countries, then you go off on a "UK Trade Unions, especially the public sector ones, have repeatedly demonstrated a total and criminal ignorance of this, they go way beyond what is reasonable" rant.
What planet are you living on?
I am old enough and ugly enough to remember when the miners went on strike in 1972, power supplies were enormously disrupted and we had a three day week. When ASLEF went on strike over flexible rostering in the late 70s, we had no trains for a few days. When the Royal Mail went on strike, also in the 70s, the country's communications ground to a halt.
These days, our power supplies are more vulnerable to Russian oligarchs cutting off the gas supply than they are to the NUM. The railway has been fragmented and all the drivers work for different companies, so if one goes on strike there are plenty of trains provided by other companies. In these days of email, text, mobile phones and the internet, few people would give a flying f
k if the postmen went on strike and stayed out for 5 years.Also these days, BA workers went on strike. Did they bring the country to its knees, or did everybody book with another airline and make a mental note not to use BA's services in future?
So the public sector are coming out shortly. For a day. So what? Who's going to be inconvenienced, except those people with kids who think its the state's job to babysit them in school whilst they go out earning (I'm also old enough to remember the days when my kids were young and SWMBO stayed home for 10 years to look after them). And of course, the fools who do the striking, playing into the governments hands by saving them the expense of paying them for that day.
Methinks you are over-egging your pudding
Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 24th November 17:16
sadoksevoli said:
The worker's biggest right is to a job that is sustainable within the wider economy - UK Trade Unions, especially the public sector ones, have repeatedly demonstrated a total and criminal ignorance of this, they go way beyond what is reasonable especially when their members have benefits and conditions that are virtually non-existent elsewhere. The threat posed by the unions is greater to our economy and public finances than to their workers' "rights".
You do have a point on compulsory voting - given this coalition's mandate.
Maybe if the private sector had had bigger balls in the past we wouldn't now have witnessed those workers being down trodden and so poor? I recall times when the Private sector were all doing very very nicely, now the tables have turned apparently. Also, absolutely nothing criminal about any actions being taken by Unions. The so called threat as you put it has been blown out of proportion by Governmental propaganda and a section of the public that have been deliberately angered by this rhetoric. The Unions only threat is to hold the Government to past pledges and ensure its members rights are, as far as possible, honoured. You do have a point on compulsory voting - given this coalition's mandate.
crankedup said:
Maybe if the private sector had had bigger balls in the past we wouldn't now have witnessed those workers being down trodden and so poor?
Not sure what you mean by this - bigger balls to do what?crankedup said:
I recall times when the Private sector were all doing very very nicely, now the tables have turned apparently. Also, absolutely nothing criminal about any actions being taken by Unions. The so called threat as you put it has been blown out of proportion by Governmental propaganda and a section of the public that have been deliberately angered by this rhetoric. The Unions only threat is to hold the Government to past pledges and ensure its members rights are, as far as possible, honoured.
The problem we are facing is that the pledges you mention are underwritten by the one entity that cannot be wound up nor go through a restructuring of its debts and liabilities without serious consequences for everybody. These pledges were based on calculations that were a tad over-optimistic to say the least. Furthermore when considered alongside all the other obligations the electorate and the public sector workforce want to hold the government to (healthcare, welfare, infrastructure, etc etc alas the list is endless now), the outcome is likely to be national bankruptcy. The unions know this and a holding the government to ransom over it. In the private sector the pain has been constant as people who worked hard all their lives found that the promises of good pensions did not materialise due to the fact that the businesses went bust (or sometimes due to fraud). And what's laughable is that even the deal on the table now leaves them in a pretty good position. The criminality is in the damage the unions have done and continue to do to the economy and the contribution they are making to the increasing body of evidence that Britain is now a sth0le.Du1point8 said:
Do the boarder forces work at night?
Every time I come back into the UK and Im on the late flight I don't see a single person watching people come through, its completely empty unlike during the day, so to smuggle anything in would it be easier late at night?
This is not just those flights from EU that I notice this, quite a few times coming back from Africa too.
Last time I flew into Manchester I wanted to ask someone if I could use the ePassport thing and do a bit of sneaky queue jumping. My passport looks like it'd take it as it has the chip, but I didn't want to do the walk of shame to the back of the line if it didn't work. No-one around, other than one girl scanning passports. No-one else at Customs either. This was at 8,30pm Every time I come back into the UK and Im on the late flight I don't see a single person watching people come through, its completely empty unlike during the day, so to smuggle anything in would it be easier late at night?
This is not just those flights from EU that I notice this, quite a few times coming back from Africa too.
I'm sure there's a crack team of CCTV operators somewhere though
Anyway, back on topic. Union strikes are a load of s
te IMOrs1952 said:
Your propensity for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and apportioning blame to the wrong issue is unmatched. Except perhaps by your lack of spelling skills
To point out right from the start and for avoidance of doubt, I am not generally a supporter of strikes. Nor am I a union member. But when I read drivel like "Its a pity they couldn't just sack the lot and start again" (spelling corrected for you, because I didn't want a mistake like that in one of my posts) I can only assume that you are not old enough to remember the bad old days of trades unions in the 50s, 60s and 70s, or alternatively you've got amnesia. Compared to the situation pre-Thatcher, the unions these days are no more than a toothless lion. They roar a bit from time to time but, beyond that, the worst they can do is give you a nasty suck.
Personally I think that the unions are wasting their time in calling this strke. Its not going to do any good from the view of forcing the government to change their minds over the pension issue, those going on strike are going to lose a day's pay for effectively sod all and, lets be fair, the amount of public sympathy around for poor civil servants who won't be getting quite the size of pension handouts that they've been used to is, shall we be charitable and say, sparse ... And they won't be getting any extra public sympathy by having long queues at immigration either - in fact quite the reverse.
But leaving all that lot to one side, the unions have had a ballot of their members, and that ballot has authorised strike action. Now you can argue all you bleedin' well like about percentage turnout and the actual percentage of total union members that actually voted to walk out, but the strike was legally constituted (unlike the NUM 1983 debacle, by the way, but that's another issue). In addition, the union have no powers left to prevent those who don't want to strike from working normally. I think that deals with the "what the membership wants" bit of your post.
Finally, "I guess its more a case of a lefty union leader's death rattle" . Bullshyte. What the man is doing, as you would expect him to do, is to try to "talk up" his position and that of the union. The same as any politician does, the same as we all do when faced with opposition to our view or opinions. Just because you don't agree with what he has to say makes him no more "leftie" than Call me Dave or His Nigeness when they talk up their positions on any subject.
I suggest in future you try to form your opinions from informed sources, rather than the Sunday Sport
err... you would appear to have a typo in your rather condescending copy. Meaner and less charitable types would perhaps call it a spelling mistake, but not wanting that kind of accusation in one of my posts, I felt it best to describe it as a mere typo rather than the inversely superior spelling mistake. To point out right from the start and for avoidance of doubt, I am not generally a supporter of strikes. Nor am I a union member. But when I read drivel like "Its a pity they couldn't just sack the lot and start again" (spelling corrected for you, because I didn't want a mistake like that in one of my posts) I can only assume that you are not old enough to remember the bad old days of trades unions in the 50s, 60s and 70s, or alternatively you've got amnesia. Compared to the situation pre-Thatcher, the unions these days are no more than a toothless lion. They roar a bit from time to time but, beyond that, the worst they can do is give you a nasty suck.
Personally I think that the unions are wasting their time in calling this strke. Its not going to do any good from the view of forcing the government to change their minds over the pension issue, those going on strike are going to lose a day's pay for effectively sod all and, lets be fair, the amount of public sympathy around for poor civil servants who won't be getting quite the size of pension handouts that they've been used to is, shall we be charitable and say, sparse ... And they won't be getting any extra public sympathy by having long queues at immigration either - in fact quite the reverse.
But leaving all that lot to one side, the unions have had a ballot of their members, and that ballot has authorised strike action. Now you can argue all you bleedin' well like about percentage turnout and the actual percentage of total union members that actually voted to walk out, but the strike was legally constituted (unlike the NUM 1983 debacle, by the way, but that's another issue). In addition, the union have no powers left to prevent those who don't want to strike from working normally. I think that deals with the "what the membership wants" bit of your post.
Finally, "I guess its more a case of a lefty union leader's death rattle" . Bullshyte. What the man is doing, as you would expect him to do, is to try to "talk up" his position and that of the union. The same as any politician does, the same as we all do when faced with opposition to our view or opinions. Just because you don't agree with what he has to say makes him no more "leftie" than Call me Dave or His Nigeness when they talk up their positions on any subject.
I suggest in future you try to form your opinions from informed sources, rather than the Sunday Sport
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff