> ®i©ardo wrote:

>> Brimstone wrote:

>>> ®i©ardo wrote:

>>>> Brimstone wrote:

>>>>> mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:14:27 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>>> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Unless it was your job, and those of your children and
>>>>>>> grand-children, that were swept away.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> It is the unions through sheer the sheer greed of many union
>>>>>> members that have caused people to loose their jobs and
>>>>>> industry's to close down no one else .

>>>>> What utter bollocks. Unless you're suggesting that it got nothing
>>>>> to do with the management's failure to invest in new equipment, new
>>>>> products, proper training for their staff or the various other
>>>>> aspects of running a successful business?
>>>>> ...

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:12:59 +0100, MIG wrote

>> The idea of the unions ever having had any real power is laughable.

>
> In general that's true but they *did* have the power to cause disruption;
> something they did on an all too frequent basis in the 1970s.
>
> There were, of course, real exceptions such as the Fleet Street printing
> unions who did wield genuine power
>

> ®i©ardo wrote:

>> Brimstone wrote:

>>> ®i©ardo wrote:

>>>> Brimstone wrote:

>>>>> Stimpy wrote:

>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:46:48 +0100, Brimstone wrote

>>>>>>>> Sorry to disagree with you Gismo but I do not think he is old at
>>>>>>>> all in fact I think he is sort of youngish and like most of
>>>>>>>> todays young he is not capable of showing respect for anyone.
>>>>>>>> I notice some MP's are arguing if she should be given a state
>>>>>>>> funeral when she goes, in fact there should be no arguments she
>>>>>>>> should be given a state send off if only to mark her brave
>>>>>>>> efforts in standing up to the damned unions and ridding the
>>>>>>>> country of some of them and their leaders especially Arthur
>>>>>>>> SCARGILL and bringing the rest to heel .

>>>>>>> And in so doing has decimated industry.

>>>>>> If we had to lose 10%% of industry the leave the economy in good
>>>>>> health then that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me

>>>>> Unless it was your job, and those of your children and ...

> �i�ardo wrote:

>> Brimstone wrote:

>>> Stimpy wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:14:27 +0100, Brimstone wrote

>>>>>>> And in so doing has decimated industry.

>>>>>> If we had to lose 10%% of industry the leave the economy in good
>>>>>> health then that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me

>>>>> Unless it was your job, and those of your children and
>>>>> grand-children, that were swept away.

>>>> Like I say, 10%% seems like good value to me. �For there to be
>>>> winners there have to be those that lose.

>

>>> Who, in your opinion, are the winners and do you really think the
>>> current bill for keeping people idle who are fit to work is
>>> acceptable?

>> Surely, you must ask Brown, Darling and their cronies about the
>> current bill for keeping people idle. After all, if they've only to
>> make the situation worse in 11 years, they're not really able to
>> blame anyone else - unless they're a Socialists, of course, then it's ...

> Stimpy wrote:

>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:12:59 +0100, MIG wrote

>>> The idea of the unions ever having had any real power is laughable.

>>
>> In general that's true but they *did* have the power to cause
>> disruption; something they did on an all too frequent basis in the
>> 1970s. There were, of course, real exceptions such as the Fleet Street
>> printing unions who did wield genuine power
>>

>
> When I was a civil servant I was in a section devoted to R & D.
> Whenever new kit (digital oscilloscopes, spectrum analysers etc)
> arrived it would be surrounded by people trying to find out what it
> could do and to what purposes it could be put. Almost next door was
> another section involved in maintenance, same grades of personnel and
> same...