Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Thatcher - Has passed away.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
402 replies to this topic

#301 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,028 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:23 PM

And now the debate about a dead woman makes the massive leap forward into childish name calling based on someone else's politics.
 
I think the word you were looking for was "Feral". If this is going to descend into schoolyard bullying, then let's at least try a bit harder.

And if the biggest point you can make about the argument is a spelling error than you have seriously lost it.

As for the school yard bullying, get a grip. SaintsLass is giving a good argument, and fights her own corner, you are being very patronising to her in thinking she's needs protection from you on here.

The fact about joining an organisation she despises because it protects her is utterly unprincipled.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#302 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,295 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:40 PM

It protects their interest and ensures they get maximum money for their work. Oh hang on that's a union.

 

Do you think they operate as closed shops?



#303 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,028 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

Does anyone really care anymore?
 
This is like having an argument about the Beard Tax, or canal building. The idea of unions is so out of date as to be obsolete.
 
If only the few middle-aged men still hankering for the good old days could just let go.

I left the EETPU over an argument about training, I don't particularly have an axe to grind with people who say unions had some bad practices, I have a problem with people implying they were the most evil thing on earth and Thatcher was right to wage a war to destroy them, but then say they joined to take advantage of the benefits they bring.

I also have a problem with the fact that certain vested interests were not treated the same, and are still not, as the so called closed shops representing the average worker.

Lawyers, doctors, accountants etc. operate closed shops, more closed than any union ever had, yet they were/are immune from attack.

When its good enough for all its good enough for me, but whilst we have this nonsense that a 'professional' body isn't a closed shop operating against the interest of the general public and out to feather their own nest I will defend the 'working man' to have his own closed shop. That is even though I had a major bust up with my union and left and shortly after left to go and do another job.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#304 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,028 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:13 PM

I really don't understand where you get your ideas from about doctors, lawyers and accountants.
 
If you are willing to spend the time studying to attain the necessary skills to join one of those professions, then they will welcome you with open arms.
 
Do you expect them to accept Joe Bloggs, Bricklayer, into the Medical profession?
 
I know dozens of accountants, and whilst, in general, they are the most boring people I know, I have no idea why you think they wouldn't allow you into their professional body if you were suitably trained.

The electricians union didn't mind you being a member with the correct qualifications, where do you get this idea that they wouldn't.

You don't understand 'closed shop' do you.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#305 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:28 AM

L'angelo the drive for care in the community started long before the Jay Report and even before Enoch Powell's spell as Health Minister in the early 1960s. Powell is sometimes credited as the minister who started the drive for care in the community but that isn't the case. The Jay Report, like Powell's interventions, was one of a number of drivers that provided renewed impetus.

 

Anyway, I don't want to take the thread anymore off topic than it already has become............

 

 

L'angelo the drive for care in the community started long before the Jay Report and even before Enoch Powell's spell as Health Minister in the early 1960s. Powell is sometimes credited as the minister who started the drive for care in the community but that isn't the case. The Jay Report, like Powell's interventions, was one of a number of drivers that provided renewed impetus.

 

Anyway, I don't want to take the thread anymore off topic than it already has become............

You are right.

My point was that when I was doing my nurse training The Jay Report represented current thinking, the closure of the victorian asylums became the reality it hadn't been before. It was supposed to mean the end of bifurcation-treatment in those victorian(and more 'modern') asylums alongside a measure of community care: costly and not the right way to treat people. The plan was to shut down the hospitals and invest in community care-at home and in community based residential facilities and a new philosophy of care. The hospitals were shut down, but the residential facilities were at best under invested in-both for people with mental health problems and with learning disabilities: which brings back to thatcher and sort of on topic.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#306 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:30 AM

Try to get it back towards the topic (not that its gone off too much)

What was her legacy that made her the greatest peace time PM. For a comparison we can use Clem Attle's goverment and the NHS and the welfare state ( in principle this is a progressiveand good thing)

I can't recal any gun carraige at his funeral.

Edited by Bostik Bailey, 11 April 2013 - 07:33 AM.


#307 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,049 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:31 AM

I do admire her yes.  I didn't always agree with her or her policies though.  I thought Care in the Community, for example, was a big mistake (although to be honest the asylum style mental health system was terrible and needed reforming desperately).  Coming from St Helens, I am also fully aware that there are people who feel they have good reason to dislike her.  However, she has been out of office for 23 years now and the level of bile and general twistedness shown in various places is not only vile but also ridiculous.  I just want to say 'Move the f*** on will you' as when I strip away the vitriol, the people indulging in it look utterly pathetic.

 

 

Care in the Community wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate policy to end state care for the mentally disabled by closing the hospitals that looked after them.  The name of the policy was to make it sound caring, It wasn't. BTW most of the sites (in West Yorkshire anyway) Stanley Royd, Storths Hall, Menston have been sold off to house building companies.


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#308 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,761 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:42 AM

Care in the Community wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate policy to end state care for the mentally disabled by closing the hospitals that looked after them.  The name of the policy was to make it sound caring, It wasn't. BTW most of the sites (in West Yorkshire anyway) Stanley Royd, Storths Hall, Menston have been sold off to house building companies.

You can add Westwood Hospital in Bradford and Northowram Hospital to that list.

 

I know a lady who was one of a team of three who attended 24/7 on two ex-Westwood male patients that were housed in an adapted semi in Bradford. However, because of the limited mobility of one and the relentless staring at her by one, the stress really got to her in the end.


Edited by Wolford6, 11 April 2013 - 07:43 AM.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#309 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,334 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

if it wasn't for your union your pay and working conditions would be far worse than they are now. You enjoy those pay and conditions without having contributed towards them-actually you have since you are a union member-your reasons for being in a union are your business, but it seems odd that you eschew they way your pay and working conditions have been striven for. Do you not feel that the who exercise their right not to be in a union are parasites?

These days we are heavily influenced by EU legislation.  I wouldn't know which bits of my terms and conditions were as a result of union activity, direct government policy or EU legislation.



#310 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,759 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:08 AM

I really don't understand where you get your ideas from about doctors, lawyers and accountants.

 

If you are willing to spend the time studying to attain the necessary skills to join one of those professions, then they will welcome you with open arms.

 

Do you expect them to accept Joe Bloggs, Bricklayer, into the Medical profession?

 

I know dozens of accountants, and whilst, in general, they are the most boring people I know, I have no idea why you think they wouldn't allow you into their professional body if you were suitably trained.

Solicitors have changed slightly in the last couple of years.  Now, non-solicitors can finally own companies that do law as a trade.  Barristers on the other hand haven't changed a bit, they're still stuck in the 80s, the 1880s that is: unless you're one of a trivially tiny minority, you're not getting a barrister's pupillage unless your face fits and you're of the right social background for them, the city ones are the worst for this by a long way in their snobbery.

 

Doctors, lawyers and accountants may not be 100% fits for the closed shop definition but their self-protection beats the unions of the 80s hands down.  Just try to get a lawyer's practice certificate removed, or a doctor's, for proven gross negligence and you'll find they'll protect their own like in all bar the most highly publicised of political cases with a serious crown court conviction forcing their hand.  It's only recently that lawyers were 100% in charge of their own discipline as a profession, now it's only 50% but they're still nearly immune to challenge.  Try suing one, good luck in winning anything important.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#311 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,334 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:12 AM

I was a member of the EETPU, a professional body in all but the name Union. I could be an electrician and practice my trade without being a member. I can't practice as a Lawyer etc. without belonging to a closed shop.

I am not implying anything about the affiliation politically about members of these closed shops that still exist, only that closed shops were different in Thatcher's eyes depending on who had the closed shop.

If she was against closed shops so much then she should have removed ALL closed shops.

As for SaintsLass, I just shake my head, to paraphrase, "I like the protection of a closed shop but I don't like closed shops". Your as principled as a ferule cat.

I always think that when people resort to personal insult they are acknowledging that they have lost an argument.



#312 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,678 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:22 AM

Whatever you think of the personal insults. One poster on here rather eluquently encapsulates what thatcher stood for,

take what you can out of of society don't put anything back that doesn't benefit you personally and anyone who contributes to the greater good of the people is a sucker

#313 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,781 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:50 AM

if it wasn't for your union your pay and working conditions would be far worse than they are now. You enjoy those pay and conditions without having contributed towards them-actually you have since you are a union member-your reasons for being in a union are your business, but it seems odd that you eschew they way your pay and working conditions have been striven for. Do you not feel that the who exercise their right not to be in a union are parasites?

 

I find it hard to see the logic in that position.

 

In my previous career, the terms and conditions were negotiated by trade unions, and the effect of it was that people who made widely different contributions to the university were on fixed pay scales. You had the people who brought money, prestige and research projects working alongside, and sometimes being paid less, than colleagues who would spend most of the day away from the place pursuing their own interests and taking advantage of the protection the unions gave them to avoid being accountable for their actions.

 

If the university had been forced to negotiate directly with its individual members of staff, those who fell into the former category would have earned far more than the unionised pay rates, while the latter would have earned less.

 

For an employer, as you suggested in a previous post, negotiating with a limited number of unions is much more convenient. But it can result in wages that are below what they would otherwise be if individuals had the right to negotiate their own contracts.



#314 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,781 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:55 AM

Solicitors have changed slightly in the last couple of years.  Now, non-solicitors can finally own companies that do law as a trade.  Barristers on the other hand haven't changed a bit, they're still stuck in the 80s, the 1880s that is: unless you're one of a trivially tiny minority, you're not getting a barrister's pupillage unless your face fits and you're of the right social background for them, the city ones are the worst for this by a long way in their snobbery.

 

Doctors, lawyers and accountants may not be 100% fits for the closed shop definition but their self-protection beats the unions of the 80s hands down.  Just try to get a lawyer's practice certificate removed, or a doctor's, for proven gross negligence and you'll find they'll protect their own like in all bar the most highly publicised of political cases with a serious crown court conviction forcing their hand.  It's only recently that lawyers were 100% in charge of their own discipline as a profession, now it's only 50% but they're still nearly immune to challenge.  Try suing one, good luck in winning anything important.

 

You're right. Some of the leading professions have learned to protect their interestes in a way that the old union leaders such as Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon could only have dreamed of.



#315 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,181 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:56 AM

Ah, the Daily Wail have another pop at the pinko BBC. Shame they can't even fake the basic details of a made-up outrage story. :D

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#316 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,781 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:56 AM

I always think that when people resort to personal insult they are acknowledging that they have lost an argument.

 

That echoes one of Margaret Thatcher's more well known quotes. And it remains true.



#317 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:05 AM

These days we are heavily influenced by EU legislation.  I wouldn't know which bits of my terms and conditions were as a result of union activity, direct government policy or EU legislation.

pretty much all of your terms and conditions.

Your union negotiates for them now and negotiatedand fought  for them in the past.

 

what do you think to the idea of non union members hving to negotiat their own terms nd conditions?

 

What areyour thoughts on the national curriculum and the comprehensive system?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#318 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:08 AM

That echoes one of Margaret Thatcher's more well known quotes. And it remains true.

I thyink that's a bit glib and facile personally.

 

and it consigns som of churchill's rhetoric to the dustbin.

 

I don't think Padge should have said what he did.

 

But t the same time I didn't know there was an argument gong on. Nobody is going to changeanybody' opinion on this opic let's face it.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#319 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,606 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:15 AM

I find it hard to see the logic in that position.

 

In my previous career, the terms and conditions were negotiated by trade unions, and the effect of it was that people who made widely different contributions to the university were on fixed pay scales. You had the people who brought money, prestige and research projects working alongside, and sometimes being paid less, than colleagues who would spend most of the day away from the place pursuing their own interests and taking advantage of the protection the unions gave them to avoid being accountable for their actions.

 

If the university had been forced to negotiate directly with its individual members of staff, those who fell into the former category would have earned far more than the unionised pay rates, while the latter would have earned less.

 

For an employer, as you suggested in a previous post, negotiating with a limited number of unions is much more convenient. But it can result in wages that are below what they would otherwise be if individuals had the right to negotiate their own contracts.

you find it hard, that's good because it means you don't find it impossible.

 

The relationship between employers and employees organisations i never going to be a marriagemad in heaven, but at least it can becivilkised and equitable.

 

I wuld sugest the situation at your previous employers was  matter for your employers and the way they ran the place. Negotiating with employees on an individual basis doesn't lend itself to the employees ngotiating from a position of strength.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#320 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,917 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:18 AM

"what do you think to the idea of non union members hving to negotiat their own terms nd conditions?"

 

That's a complex issue in my opinion.  What good did it do for the miners when their leaders "negotiated" a wage rise out of Ted Heath?  In my experience , companies offer the terms and conditions that attract the people they want. 

 

Post Thatcher union reforms, I reckon the unions have done a better job for their members than ever before. They have moved from being an undemocratic force where some leaders in some unions sometimes  their members muscle to try to frustrate the will of Parliament.    They are now, it seems to me  much more pragmatic in their approach, looking wider and further than just the rate for the job, the length of the working week etc, helped in large part by an improvement in the quality of many managements compared with pre-Thatcher days.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users