Gully And Other Intenrational Socialists/The Hard Left To Accept This

[DTCwordfan]

A report in the Sunday Tel that the RMT have reverted to 'extreme' capatalism.

1. The RMT, Unison and Unite bribing workers to strike, effectively doubling their pay.

2. RMT has a war chest of £100 thousands of BP and RDShell shares - part of £22 mln that they hold.

3. Money invested in Melrose that oversaw the break-up of GKN

4. £120k invested in Man, a hedge fun in Lloyds and HSBC while campaigning for the banks' brea-up.

5. Investments in Diageo, Astra Z abd GlaxoSmithKline that have made £5 mln.

6. Mike Lynch awarded pay of £163k....yet the union has criticised others and the Rail industry fpr investor payouts.... "It's time to cut out those greedy middlemen and bring the whole of the railway into public hands." Tell me......

Bloody hypocrites that the three rail unions are......and Arthur et al would be turning in his grave, if they were any different - yet Gully et al who have leftwing/communist sympathies have remained very quiet over this - but, then, should we be surprised?

[sevenOP]

Thanks for that Link New Judge.

As for "(what amounts to) Communism",
well frequent users - and particularly on this Forum - of this clichéd, massive paint brush term, "Communism", are not able to define it in their own words, never mind the ENORMOUS difference between "Communism " and socialism /Socialism, so a refining of what the RMT means by "4.(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society; " is moot.

RMT OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNION
'part 4.(h) to settle disputes between its members and employers, regulate the relations between those parties by the collective withholding of labour or otherwise, and to provide funds for the relief of members during trade disputes connected with their employment subject to these Rules;'

and '4.(k) to provide funds for legal assistance, strike and provident benefits as provided by these Rules;'

might interest DTCwordfan.

[10ClarionSt]

As a former trade union official, I never associated myslf with the term communism or left winger, fifth columnist or any other of those references. I just wanted fairness and job security. As I posted earlier on this thread, I never advocated strike action and still don't. It's a loser for everyone, not just union members. Other options are available, especially dialogue. All sides should recognize that and act accordingly.

[New Judge]

OK, let's move away from "Communism" debate which, as you say, is not mentioned (except by me).

Do you consider it is a legitimate aim of a trade union to seek to supersede a capitalist system by a "socialist order of society" (whatever that might mean), especially bearing in mind that this particular union has the ability to inflict enormous damage on the economy and considerable grief on millions of people? Shouldn't something as radical as that be determined by the electorate as a whole?

[sevenOP]

NJ : " Do you consider it is a legitimate aim of a trade union to seek to supersede a capitalist system by a "*socialist order of society" (whatever that might mean)"

"*socialistic" was the word they use, and as neither you, NJ, nor I have a clue what they mean by that, speculation is pointless.

[New Judge]

Then let's forget what they want to replace the capitalist system with (since that seems to be causing some difficulty). Is it a legitimate aim of a trade union to want to facilitate the "supersession of the capitalist system"?

[dannyk13]

Canary //This strike has obviously been fostered by the Employers as a smoke screen to deflect attention from bungling Boris.//
That qualifies as the most ridiculous post of the month.

[gulliver1]

DTC. Are you on the night shift when you make your posts , because you don't half post some trash , you really do. Then you disappear almost like you have gone back to sleep.

[sevenOP]

NJ, if by your use of the term "legitimate" you mean 'conforming to the law or to rules', or, 'able to be defended with logic or justification; valid', then when the Union members sign/agree to the Terms and Conditions of joining the Union, then I do not see it as illegitimate.

[Peter Pedant]

eek what was the question