Funnily enough I am now a contractor, so when I take time off, it is me losing money. I now take more sick leave than when I was an employee - basically, if I feel off enough to warrant not going in, then I feel it is my choice, whereas when I was an employee, I felt a duty to get in if I possibly could, no matter how bad I felt.
SteveW
Indeed. the unions preserved industries - docking and hot metal printing - well past their sell by date. With unions in the post office no doubt only ISPs with a union stamp could have transferred emails.
And that mean far far greater suffering when those industries finally closed.
If they had taken a view outside the narrow one of 'fighting for the jobs we already have' to 'doing what is right for the country, and organising ways forward for our members who won't be doing those jobs in future' there would have been no need for Thatcher at all.
If you are a contractor, there are only hours worked and time lost
I am now an employer who has made himself surplus to requirements in the day to day running of the business. I've tried taking time off, but I feel guilty for not being at work. They just put me in the corner where I can't do any harm ...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
Yeah Ploughman - go and make us a cup of tea and stop wingeing
Precisely why it's twaddle to say that "Thatcher caused division and dissent". Both of those had existed since the war, during in fact the whole period of the so-called "post-war consensus". For a while it looked peaceful, but only because the unions kept being bribed. By the time of the 70s the country could no longer afford closed shops and all the rest of the union bullshit.
It stopped being peaceful under Heath and continued under Sunny Jim, neither of whom had the bottle to sort it.
F*ck off. Anyone in paid employment is a worker.
You're starting to sound like harry.
I started work in the '60s.
In TV. Where new technology came along thick and fast. We grabbed all of it - knowing at the end of the day it would generate jobs and work - not replace it. But did expect existing members to be re-trained where necessary. And, of course, if it made more money for the company wanted a slice of it.
The facts were British industry didn't invest at all in the good times. Just made do and mend - to give the maximum amount to their shareholders. Then went cap in hand to the government for handouts when it all started to fall apart. And of course blamed everything on the unions. The even sadder thing was just how easy people like you were to fool.
Perhaps you'll tell about your direct involvement with unions and industry?
I certainly didn't believe one half of what the press wrote. And they had one of the worst industrial records of all.
Tell us your direct experience, then, Dennis.
A union's sole responsibility is to its members.
Absolutely. After all the workers are only serfs - good enough give their lives in wars etc - but of course should know their place and do exactly what they're told, and be greatful for any crust dropped from their master's plate.
And I bet you are up in arms about companies whose sole responsibility is to theirshareholders too.
Or camp guards at Auschwitz whose sole responsibility was to their commanding officers and their commander in chief.
someone get an angle grinder and remove that huge chip off the poor man's shoulder.
Hey Dave, its not the 19th century. Its not even the 20th century, its the 21st century.
Arthur Scargill was in the pay of and under instructions from Moscow.
It was a plot, the utimate aim was a Marxist government.
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: [snip]
Which is as far from Thatcherism as a view as anyone can get. One reason that she was reviled by both the toff class and the shirking class was that she had the unreasonable view that people should work to their ability and be paid appropriately for their labour.
Neither side liked being told to get off their lazy arse and work.
Some are still griping about it three decades later.
How do you work out that as any form of comparison? A union's primary job is looking after its members interests. Do you really think looking after shareholders is the primary job of any company? But if you do, you'd not be alone, and there you have the reason why so much of UK industry failed.
Thatcher would certainly have agreed with that one.
The irony is irony is lost on some.
And we have the woes of the country being blamed on the idle poor by many
- just like in the days of the workhouse.
But not in a manufacturing industry, yours is office work.
More than you.. you have had no experience at all of manufacturing industries.
On the other hand I have always worked in manufacturing and seen unions refuse to operate new machines and demand more workers to watch automatic machines.
I don't believe all they wrote either but I saw some of it happen.
I have no doubt at all that the unions wrecked some UK industry. I even told them that they would when I refused to join.
And scargills attempt to overthrow the elected government was in its members interests how?
And Thatcher had senile dementia.
Both rather after the events in discussion here.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required