Motoring0 min ago
Labour Pledges To Restore The Rights Of Unions …
..to take sympathy action in support of workers in other countries.
That bodes well for peace in the workplace under a Labour government. The shape of things to come … if we’re very unlucky.
https:/ /www.th eguardi an.com/ politic s/2018/ dec/08/ john-mc donnell -labour -will-l et-work ers-tak ing-sym pathy-a ction-f or-over seas-co unterpa rts
That bodes well for peace in the workplace under a Labour government. The shape of things to come … if we’re very unlucky.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I was watching a program on TV a year or so back about the development of the Inter City 125 train that came as we got rid of steam trains.
Steam trains of course needed two people in the cab - the driver and the fireman (to load coal).
But when they designed the Inter City 125 it had just one seat in the cab, right in the centre.
When British Rail wanted to start testing the train the Unions refused to work in it as there was only room for one person in the cab not two.
So the cab had to be redesigned to seat two people, even though there was no need for a second person as there was no need to load coal.
THAT is why I hate some of the attitudes the unions and Labour have got.
And THAT is why we have to hope that Corbyn and his communist mates never get in to power or this country will be ruined.
Many people hate Thatcher, but when she came to power the communist leaders of the unions were tying to destroy this country and they nearly succeeded (see Winter of Discontent).
Thatcher saved this country and we went from being the "sick man of Europe" to one of the most powerful countries in Europe.
Thatcher "saved" this country every bit as much as Churchill did and I would put her up there with Churchill as one of our greatest leaders we have had.
Steam trains of course needed two people in the cab - the driver and the fireman (to load coal).
But when they designed the Inter City 125 it had just one seat in the cab, right in the centre.
When British Rail wanted to start testing the train the Unions refused to work in it as there was only room for one person in the cab not two.
So the cab had to be redesigned to seat two people, even though there was no need for a second person as there was no need to load coal.
THAT is why I hate some of the attitudes the unions and Labour have got.
And THAT is why we have to hope that Corbyn and his communist mates never get in to power or this country will be ruined.
Many people hate Thatcher, but when she came to power the communist leaders of the unions were tying to destroy this country and they nearly succeeded (see Winter of Discontent).
Thatcher saved this country and we went from being the "sick man of Europe" to one of the most powerful countries in Europe.
Thatcher "saved" this country every bit as much as Churchill did and I would put her up there with Churchill as one of our greatest leaders we have had.
So, I run quite a successful shoe factory in Northampton. The National Union of Cobblers and Shoemakers has discovered that some of their "colleagues" in Timbuctu are being hard done by. They call my employees out on strike in their support. I have no control over matters in Timbucu, nor, for that matter, does the UK government. What exactly is Mr McDonnell suggesting my striking employees will achieve (other than the probable destruction of my once successful business and the redundancy of all my staff)?
I don't get the point about "rights". If someone wants to take time off from their job in order to protest third-world poverty, or to show "consolidarity" with Bangladeshi sempstresses then what's stopping them?
Presumably the "right" under discussion is not that.
Might it be that the "right" is actually the duty of your boss, or your fellow citizen to for your moral posturing?
That ceases to be a "right" for you, doesn't it, and more like an unjust demand on others.
Presumably the "right" under discussion is not that.
Might it be that the "right" is actually the duty of your boss, or your fellow citizen to for your moral posturing?
That ceases to be a "right" for you, doesn't it, and more like an unjust demand on others.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.