Files show truth

WITH the release of secret Government papers under the 30 year rule, at last the truth has come out about the 1984-5 miners strike. Despite all their denials at the time, Margaret Thatcher and the Tories had a hidden agenda to destroy the mining industry, through her well-planned strategy of killing off Britain’s weak, poorly-led Trade unions. She first struck at the engineering unions, and provoked a strike with British Leyland.

Her next target was the steel industry, which initiated the demise of the 10,000 strong Llanwern steel union membership.

The public sector followed, including nurses and the whole of the NHS. The railway union was next in line.

Arthur Scargill did his utmost to expose the half truths and downright lies.

However, with the help of the media – especially the London press and a hostile Parliament, including Welsh MPs, the lies of Thatcher and MacGregor began to stick. The miners fought a heroic fight back. Cardiff and our Valleys were at the centre of the world’s attention.

They were never defeated. They marched back to their pits and the prospect of a devastated community.

A lost generation of kids will forever curse Thatcher, MacGregor and the Tories.

Ray Davies Pandy Road Caerphilly

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:07am Tue 7 Jan 14

Mervyn James says...

Scargill was right she intended a total closure of pits, not, just 20 as she declared, in fact after the strike failed she closed over 70 straight away. It was always the tory agenda to defeat the unions at whatever cost, half of the north sea oil revenues were used to defeat the mine workers Unison. A scandalous abuse of British natural energy reserve to attack the miners in a class war.

The Miners were lions led by self-opinionated lambs to be sure, but the utter vindictiveness of the battle was driven by sheer hatred of the working class, and, the people who represented their rights, now, Tories are attacking the disabled, so nothing has changed. Anything to preserve the privileged classes, and Banks who are feeding from it seems an ever-filling trough, as they do a reverse robin hood, depriving the poor to make the rich even richer.

We should be thanking God the Tories have no real power base in Wales.
Scargill was right she intended a total closure of pits, not, just 20 as she declared, in fact after the strike failed she closed over 70 straight away. It was always the tory agenda to defeat the unions at whatever cost, half of the north sea oil revenues were used to defeat the mine workers Unison. A scandalous abuse of British natural energy reserve to attack the miners in a class war. The Miners were lions led by self-opinionated lambs to be sure, but the utter vindictiveness of the battle was driven by sheer hatred of the working class, and, the people who represented their rights, now, Tories are attacking the disabled, so nothing has changed. Anything to preserve the privileged classes, and Banks who are feeding from it seems an ever-filling trough, as they do a reverse robin hood, depriving the poor to make the rich even richer. We should be thanking God the Tories have no real power base in Wales. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

Some thirty years on the media is still largely dominated by the right-wing and it is extremely unhealthy to have a national media that largely shares and promotes exactly the same kind of opinion and slant on the reporting of news events. The British government is as non-transparent as ever and for some reason seems very scared of upsetting the mainstream media by implementing the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. It almost makes you wonder whose pulling the strings here - what if the press have been in charge all along and had some secret information on cabinet ministers that they use to threaten the government with?

And conveniently onto the release of government secret papers: whilst I feel that in general conspiracy theorists are more often than not deranged people with a far-right agenda, when a coroner's report concludes that the death of a British MI5 employee - such as Gareth Williams - was caused by locking himself in a hold-all bag my limits of accepting the official, establishment report of events is severely tested.
Some thirty years on the media is still largely dominated by the right-wing and it is extremely unhealthy to have a national media that largely shares and promotes exactly the same kind of opinion and slant on the reporting of news events. The British government is as non-transparent as ever and for some reason seems very scared of upsetting the mainstream media by implementing the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. It almost makes you wonder whose pulling the strings here - what if the press have been in charge all along and had some secret information on cabinet ministers that they use to threaten the government with? And conveniently onto the release of government secret papers: whilst I feel that in general conspiracy theorists are more often than not deranged people with a far-right agenda, when a coroner's report concludes that the death of a British MI5 employee - such as Gareth Williams - was caused by locking himself in a hold-all bag my limits of accepting the official, establishment report of events is severely tested. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 5

1:01pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Thinking heads says...

You are correct she hated the other options and the thought of being opposed.
By anyone in the cabinet or outside she would not listen to resin.
as sir ian found out she hate the the miner for the powerful force thay had and the very soild leadership they had when others waved the miner's stood .
whether for the nurses or for steel and the railways and docks and never for get the the power worker when the asked. Thay had a tripartite agreement .
with for unions at that time. Miners went on the pickit line with the steelmen
and the railmen. When there was a threat to steel. Thay whould not allow lorrys at any pit when there was a local strike in an area. And you must remember another signurtey to the triple alliance . Was the transport and general. Miners and railmen stood. T.g did anything thay could to undermine and the steelmen fell for it contracts where made in the at that time that wouldrun for years and make local transport company's and the men who drove for them a lot of money. They got food and drink free at the llanwern club. Free of charge. I say that but they paid with there honor and there soils while others suffered. The coutry should arplologe to the miner's
what they were told by the leadership was true and thay where vilavid for it.
meny things happen in a dispute the miner's have apoulgesd for there wrongs
IT IS TIME WE TOLD THEM THAT WAS THE OF AT TIRANT AND SHE WOULD NOT BE TOLD. SORRY FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR COMMUNITY THE LOSS JOBS
AND THE OF RESPECT WE OWE THE MINER'S.
You are correct she hated the other options and the thought of being opposed. By anyone in the cabinet or outside she would not listen to resin. as sir ian found out she hate the the miner for the powerful force thay had and the very soild leadership they had when others waved the miner's stood . whether for the nurses or for steel and the railways and docks and never for get the the power worker when the asked. Thay had a tripartite agreement . with for unions at that time. Miners went on the pickit line with the steelmen and the railmen. When there was a threat to steel. Thay whould not allow lorrys at any pit when there was a local strike in an area. And you must remember another signurtey to the triple alliance . Was the transport and general. Miners and railmen stood. T.g did anything thay could to undermine and the steelmen fell for it contracts where made in the at that time that wouldrun for years and make local transport company's and the men who drove for them a lot of money. They got food and drink free at the llanwern club. Free of charge. I say that but they paid with there honor and there soils while others suffered. The coutry should arplologe to the miner's what they were told by the leadership was true and thay where vilavid for it. meny things happen in a dispute the miner's have apoulgesd for there wrongs IT IS TIME WE TOLD THEM THAT WAS THE OF AT TIRANT AND SHE WOULD NOT BE TOLD. SORRY FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR COMMUNITY THE LOSS JOBS AND THE OF RESPECT WE OWE THE MINER'S. Thinking heads
  • Score: 1

1:23pm Tue 7 Jan 14

endthelies says...

I think most people in the valleys new this already, but people refused to listen. And now we have Cameron, her offspring, and again, people are refusing to listen to the terrible consequences on peoples lives due to his 'welfare reforms'.
I think most people in the valleys new this already, but people refused to listen. And now we have Cameron, her offspring, and again, people are refusing to listen to the terrible consequences on peoples lives due to his 'welfare reforms'. endthelies
  • Score: 3

2:05pm Tue 7 Jan 14

county mad says...

Well thats one view of events not surprising really but they forget the previous Labour administration closed twice as many pits ruined the economy and the left wanted to continue the wreckage remember the militant tendancy ? Scargill was himself a declared member of the Socialist Workers Party a party devoted to the overthrow of Britain
Well thats one view of events not surprising really but they forget the previous Labour administration closed twice as many pits ruined the economy and the left wanted to continue the wreckage remember the militant tendancy ? Scargill was himself a declared member of the Socialist Workers Party a party devoted to the overthrow of Britain county mad
  • Score: 4

2:16pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.
The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 5

2:55pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.
Why were they a threat ?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.[/p][/quote]Why were they a threat ? Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.
Why were they a threat ?
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/uk_politics/4
553464.stm
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.[/p][/quote]Why were they a threat ?[/p][/quote]http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/uk_politics/4 553464.stm Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them.

How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ?
The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them. How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ? Mr Angry
  • Score: 2

5:49pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them.

How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ?
They caused a drop in living standards. Rubbish not being collected, power going off, inflation and finally an IMF bailout. And most of us didn't vote for any of them.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them. How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ?[/p][/quote]They caused a drop in living standards. Rubbish not being collected, power going off, inflation and finally an IMF bailout. And most of us didn't vote for any of them. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you. Mr Angry
  • Score: 6

6:33pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

6:43pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Frankfurt says...

Many times in the 70's and 80,s I was glad I was in a union. Anyone who just wants to rely on an employer's largesse and not find his own bargaining strength is a fool.
Many times in the 70's and 80,s I was glad I was in a union. Anyone who just wants to rely on an employer's largesse and not find his own bargaining strength is a fool. Frankfurt
  • Score: 7

7:18pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response. Mr Angry
  • Score: -4

7:28pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

7:50pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT

AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't Mr Angry
  • Score: -1

7:58pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Thinking heads says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
Maybe in your cosy world now of no contracts so if you're employed for a short time in many jobs and the employer has not paid his dues and the gone it liquidation you have no cover or back up because he did not allow unions to go about there business in that place of work.
Agencies work. pay the employee as little as possible claim as much on his back as the agency can get rid when you like.
Not a care if he's got a family and a mortgage then he finds out is n.i was not paid.
He will be ok maggie told him when he bought his coucil house as long as you go to work till you drop dont go on the sick don't fight for any rights don't join a union and do what your employers say even if you think it could kill you. She
She cut the the power of entry to health and safety inspectorate so they had to tell the employer he or she was comeing the normal health and safety rep was a union member.
The miner's had Arthur the railwaymen had sidney wayhill untill he did not do what he was told by his membership (HE WAS SACKED) Arthur did what he was told and was never ask to resign by the membership.
Three year after the strike john pillger the famous investigation journalist did a documentary and found all the alowgations against him were lies and government proper gander even Sir Ian McGraeger said that in his book.
SO FOR GOD SAKE GET YOUR FACTS RiGHT.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]Maybe in your cosy world now of no contracts so if you're employed for a short time in many jobs and the employer has not paid his dues and the gone it liquidation you have no cover or back up because he did not allow unions to go about there business in that place of work. Agencies work. pay the employee as little as possible claim as much on his back as the agency can get rid when you like. Not a care if he's got a family and a mortgage then he finds out is n.i was not paid. He will be ok maggie told him when he bought his coucil house as long as you go to work till you drop dont go on the sick don't fight for any rights don't join a union and do what your employers say even if you think it could kill you. She She cut the the power of entry to health and safety inspectorate so they had to tell the employer he or she was comeing the normal health and safety rep was a union member. The miner's had Arthur the railwaymen had sidney wayhill untill he did not do what he was told by his membership (HE WAS SACKED) Arthur did what he was told and was never ask to resign by the membership. Three year after the strike john pillger the famous investigation journalist did a documentary and found all the alowgations against him were lies and government proper gander even Sir Ian McGraeger said that in his book. SO FOR GOD SAKE GET YOUR FACTS RiGHT. Thinking heads
  • Score: 3

9:58pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Scargill and Mcgregor actually reached an agreement, however it was vetoed by Thatcher ..........why ?
Scargill and Mcgregor actually reached an agreement, however it was vetoed by Thatcher ..........why ? Mr Angry
  • Score: 2

10:36pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT

AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't
'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT'

That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't[/p][/quote]'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT' That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 6

7:32am Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't
'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT' That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate.
Ah..... the voice of the employer refuses dialouge then blames the Unions.

The Employer an idiot who

1) Pays his employee for 40 hrs , yet expects 50
2) Cuts pay and conditions, yet still expects people to give their best
3) Expects his workforce to take all the crap thrown at them.

Its Employers who are a danger to the country driving down pay and conditions andtrating people badly.

THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't[/p][/quote]'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT' That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate.[/p][/quote]Ah..... the voice of the employer refuses dialouge then blames the Unions. The Employer an idiot who 1) Pays his employee for 40 hrs , yet expects 50 2) Cuts pay and conditions, yet still expects people to give their best 3) Expects his workforce to take all the crap thrown at them. Its Employers who are a danger to the country driving down pay and conditions andtrating people badly. THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD Mr Angry
  • Score: -4

8:25am Wed 8 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

@ Mr Angry
Do you really believe all this guff?
'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD'

Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world.
@ Mr Angry Do you really believe all this guff? 'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD' Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 7

8:54am Wed 8 Jan 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't
'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT' That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate.
Ah..... the voice of the employer refuses dialouge then blames the Unions.

The Employer an idiot who

1) Pays his employee for 40 hrs , yet expects 50
2) Cuts pay and conditions, yet still expects people to give their best
3) Expects his workforce to take all the crap thrown at them.

Its Employers who are a danger to the country driving down pay and conditions andtrating people badly.

THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD
God, no wonder Wales is bottom of the economic heap.
Mr Angry is a good name for you with your one-dimensional view of society.
If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.
I expect that you would prefer if everyone was employed by the State.
A Socialist/Communist Utopia, that simply wouldn't work. (literally).
People like Bliar would simply fleece everyone and run off with the spoils.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT AS for people dealing drugs or not turning up of course they should be sacked, after the correct proceedures are followed. No one is saying they shouldn't[/p][/quote]'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT' That statement is as inane and improbable as saying all union bosses and socialist politicians are the reincarnation of Mother Theresa. If it's a genuinely held belief then it explains much but definitely closes all avenues of reason and intelligent debate.[/p][/quote]Ah..... the voice of the employer refuses dialouge then blames the Unions. The Employer an idiot who 1) Pays his employee for 40 hrs , yet expects 50 2) Cuts pay and conditions, yet still expects people to give their best 3) Expects his workforce to take all the crap thrown at them. Its Employers who are a danger to the country driving down pay and conditions andtrating people badly. THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD[/p][/quote]God, no wonder Wales is bottom of the economic heap. Mr Angry is a good name for you with your one-dimensional view of society. If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs. I expect that you would prefer if everyone was employed by the State. A Socialist/Communist Utopia, that simply wouldn't work. (literally). People like Bliar would simply fleece everyone and run off with the spoils. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 9

9:16am Wed 8 Jan 14

_Bryan_ says...

This information is nothing new.
The wholesale price of coal and the sheer number of miners meant that it was simply too costly to leave all the pits open. A phased series of closures based on the economic viability of the individual pits was the obvious course of action.

In my opinion, neither Scargill nor Thatcher came out of this incident particularly well. Both allowed their idealogy to get in the way of their primary duty, which was to manage the inevitable pit closures in such a way as to provide the best opportunities and support for those needing to find new careers.
This information is nothing new. The wholesale price of coal and the sheer number of miners meant that it was simply too costly to leave all the pits open. A phased series of closures based on the economic viability of the individual pits was the obvious course of action. In my opinion, neither Scargill nor Thatcher came out of this incident particularly well. Both allowed their idealogy to get in the way of their primary duty, which was to manage the inevitable pit closures in such a way as to provide the best opportunities and support for those needing to find new careers. _Bryan_
  • Score: 17

9:24am Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Maggie closed the pits to destroy the unions. that's now a fact that no one can deny because its in the report for everyone to read. She closed the pits and left large areas of the country she was supposed to be protecting, with large unemployment, social depravation and lost hope. She placed those people on sickness benefits to hide the true unemployment figures. consequent governments have never been able to right her wrongs. Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me.
Maggie closed the pits to destroy the unions. that's now a fact that no one can deny because its in the report for everyone to read. She closed the pits and left large areas of the country she was supposed to be protecting, with large unemployment, social depravation and lost hope. She placed those people on sickness benefits to hide the true unemployment figures. consequent governments have never been able to right her wrongs. Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me. endthelies
  • Score: -1

9:34am Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.
Why were they a threat ?
In the 1970s you could be refused employment (or sacked) if you refused to join a union. Including at the Argus as print unions were particularly militant. Closed shops were legal, as were idiotic demarkation lines, restrictive practices, strikes without ballots, and sympathy strikes where an employer, not even in dispute with their employees, could be shut down because of it's workforce being called out in sympathy with an unrelated dispute. In many ways the miners were a side-show of the war. The government HAD to regain control from militant union bosses and both Wilson and Heath had failed. Wilson repealed the Industrial Relations Act and replaced it with his own voluntary agreement, the 'Social Contract'. The unions drove a bull-dozer through it. With the economy in serious economic trouble and begging from the IMF Thatcher was the only one with the mandate and the will to take the battle on. This is a short but interesting read:
http://www.nationala
rchives.gov.uk/cabin
etpapers/alevelstudi
es/1960-radicalisati
on.htm
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: The unions of the seventies were a much greater threat to this country than the Iraqis that Bliar threw all our sophisticated weaponry at. I wonder if the 30yr rule will reveal his and Brown's iniquities.[/p][/quote]Why were they a threat ?[/p][/quote]In the 1970s you could be refused employment (or sacked) if you refused to join a union. Including at the Argus as print unions were particularly militant. Closed shops were legal, as were idiotic demarkation lines, restrictive practices, strikes without ballots, and sympathy strikes where an employer, not even in dispute with their employees, could be shut down because of it's workforce being called out in sympathy with an unrelated dispute. In many ways the miners were a side-show of the war. The government HAD to regain control from militant union bosses and both Wilson and Heath had failed. Wilson repealed the Industrial Relations Act and replaced it with his own voluntary agreement, the 'Social Contract'. The unions drove a bull-dozer through it. With the economy in serious economic trouble and begging from the IMF Thatcher was the only one with the mandate and the will to take the battle on. This is a short but interesting read: http://www.nationala rchives.gov.uk/cabin etpapers/alevelstudi es/1960-radicalisati on.htm Stevenboy
  • Score: 8

9:36am Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
@ Mr Angry Do you really believe all this guff? 'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD' Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world.
I've worked for them - yes THE BRITISH EMPLOYER IS THE WORST IN THE WORLD
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry Do you really believe all this guff? 'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD' Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world.[/p][/quote]I've worked for them - yes THE BRITISH EMPLOYER IS THE WORST IN THE WORLD Mr Angry
  • Score: -10

9:38am Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

endthelies wrote:
Maggie closed the pits to destroy the unions. that's now a fact that no one can deny because its in the report for everyone to read. She closed the pits and left large areas of the country she was supposed to be protecting, with large unemployment, social depravation and lost hope. She placed those people on sickness benefits to hide the true unemployment figures. consequent governments have never been able to right her wrongs. Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me.
'Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me.'

Probably voted that way by people who saw what Britain was like before her. Read my previous post and the paper attached. It's an interesting history lesson.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Maggie closed the pits to destroy the unions. that's now a fact that no one can deny because its in the report for everyone to read. She closed the pits and left large areas of the country she was supposed to be protecting, with large unemployment, social depravation and lost hope. She placed those people on sickness benefits to hide the true unemployment figures. consequent governments have never been able to right her wrongs. Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me.[/p][/quote]'Why she was voted the most popular prime minister is beyond me.' Probably voted that way by people who saw what Britain was like before her. Read my previous post and the paper attached. It's an interesting history lesson. Stevenboy
  • Score: 10

9:44am Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
@ Mr Angry Do you really believe all this guff? 'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD' Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world.
I've worked for them - yes THE BRITISH EMPLOYER IS THE WORST IN THE WORLD
You've worked in a sweat shop in Bangladesh? Good lord. I think Greece might have had better working conditions than here. And nothing went wrong there did it???
http://www.keeptalki
nggreece.com/2011/10
/11/wanna-know-why-g
reece-went-bankrupt/
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry Do you really believe all this guff? 'THE BRITISH EMPLOYER - THE WORST IN THE WORLD' Not China? Bangladesh? India? Pakistan? Anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa? Most of South America? Even Japan. Clearly plausibility doesn't figure in your world.[/p][/quote]I've worked for them - yes THE BRITISH EMPLOYER IS THE WORST IN THE WORLD[/p][/quote]You've worked in a sweat shop in Bangladesh? Good lord. I think Greece might have had better working conditions than here. And nothing went wrong there did it??? http://www.keeptalki nggreece.com/2011/10 /11/wanna-know-why-g reece-went-bankrupt/ Stevenboy
  • Score: 6

10:54am Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Ask yourself what happened to the majority of the folk she left unemployed. Ask yourself did she enhance the valleys by closing the pits. Ask yourself would there be generations that have grown up with low unemployment and benefit dependency if she hadn't took the stance that she did. Or would we have a more viable economy if some other way could have been worked out rather than her stubborn idea that unions had to be destroyed at ANY cost.
Ask yourself what happened to the majority of the folk she left unemployed. Ask yourself did she enhance the valleys by closing the pits. Ask yourself would there be generations that have grown up with low unemployment and benefit dependency if she hadn't took the stance that she did. Or would we have a more viable economy if some other way could have been worked out rather than her stubborn idea that unions had to be destroyed at ANY cost. endthelies
  • Score: 0

11:08am Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Stevenboy, I remember what our town was like before the pits closed. There were shops, there was employment and there was money in the town. There was always a job when you left school, either down the pits or the steelworks and there were lots of jobs in retail etc. So many that you could have your pick of where to work. The social clubs were full on the weekend with couples enjoying themselves and it was a proud area. Not anymore though.
Stevenboy, I remember what our town was like before the pits closed. There were shops, there was employment and there was money in the town. There was always a job when you left school, either down the pits or the steelworks and there were lots of jobs in retail etc. So many that you could have your pick of where to work. The social clubs were full on the weekend with couples enjoying themselves and it was a proud area. Not anymore though. endthelies
  • Score: -1

11:09am Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.'

Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock Mr Angry
  • Score: -8

11:14am Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

endthelies wrote:
Ask yourself what happened to the majority of the folk she left unemployed. Ask yourself did she enhance the valleys by closing the pits. Ask yourself would there be generations that have grown up with low unemployment and benefit dependency if she hadn't took the stance that she did. Or would we have a more viable economy if some other way could have been worked out rather than her stubborn idea that unions had to be destroyed at ANY cost.
The idea of keeping something going just to keep people employed, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer or economy belongs to another era, mainly the Soviet one. It's interesting that in the 13 years of Labour rule since Thatcher they didn't think it a priority either. The job vacancies under recent Labour rule which British people could have taken were handed on a plate by Blair to mass immigration. Mandleson himself admitted that they used to pretty well dole passports out freehand to encourage people here. People crossed continents to take work that our own wouldn't leave Wales for. In a perfect world more could have been done to encourage this mobility here but to lay the blame entirely at Thatchers door is simplistic in the extreme.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Ask yourself what happened to the majority of the folk she left unemployed. Ask yourself did she enhance the valleys by closing the pits. Ask yourself would there be generations that have grown up with low unemployment and benefit dependency if she hadn't took the stance that she did. Or would we have a more viable economy if some other way could have been worked out rather than her stubborn idea that unions had to be destroyed at ANY cost.[/p][/quote]The idea of keeping something going just to keep people employed, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer or economy belongs to another era, mainly the Soviet one. It's interesting that in the 13 years of Labour rule since Thatcher they didn't think it a priority either. The job vacancies under recent Labour rule which British people could have taken were handed on a plate by Blair to mass immigration. Mandleson himself admitted that they used to pretty well dole passports out freehand to encourage people here. People crossed continents to take work that our own wouldn't leave Wales for. In a perfect world more could have been done to encourage this mobility here but to lay the blame entirely at Thatchers door is simplistic in the extreme. Stevenboy
  • Score: 10

11:22am Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Some pits WERE still viable. Where do we get our coal from now and how much does it cost. It wasn't a question of closing the pits because they weren't viable, she did it to destroy the unions as is in the report. I agree that Labour also haven't done enough to improve Wales situation but its one hell of a task to get an industry in that can replace the millions of jobs that were obliterated by Maggie. Don't forget she didn't just target mining unions. There was the nhs, the railway unions and the engineering unions. She wanted the workers to have no rights and she succeeded, but at a terrible cost to the country.
Some pits WERE still viable. Where do we get our coal from now and how much does it cost. It wasn't a question of closing the pits because they weren't viable, she did it to destroy the unions as is in the report. I agree that Labour also haven't done enough to improve Wales situation but its one hell of a task to get an industry in that can replace the millions of jobs that were obliterated by Maggie. Don't forget she didn't just target mining unions. There was the nhs, the railway unions and the engineering unions. She wanted the workers to have no rights and she succeeded, but at a terrible cost to the country. endthelies
  • Score: 2

12:26pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.'

Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 9

12:39pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Mr Angry wrote:
''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.'

Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
I came from a working class background and my father was a member of a union and the Labour Party.
I have never voted Labour myself though.
Through sheer hard work and determination, I have managed to carve out a decent standard of living for myself and family.
I realise that some people, by accident of birth, are born into money.
If you are unfortunate enough not to be one of these, then you have to make your own way, it is as simple as that.
There will always be people that are better off than me, but I say good luck to them. I would rather be envied than pitied.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]I came from a working class background and my father was a member of a union and the Labour Party. I have never voted Labour myself though. Through sheer hard work and determination, I have managed to carve out a decent standard of living for myself and family. I realise that some people, by accident of birth, are born into money. If you are unfortunate enough not to be one of these, then you have to make your own way, it is as simple as that. There will always be people that are better off than me, but I say good luck to them. I would rather be envied than pitied. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 7

1:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy Mr Angry
  • Score: -6

1:28pm Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.'

Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
I came from a working class background and my father was a member of a union and the Labour Party.
I have never voted Labour myself though.
Through sheer hard work and determination, I have managed to carve out a decent standard of living for myself and family.
I realise that some people, by accident of birth, are born into money.
If you are unfortunate enough not to be one of these, then you have to make your own way, it is as simple as that.
There will always be people that are better off than me, but I say good luck to them. I would rather be envied than pitied.
I understand what you're saying but it doesn't change the fact that Maggie took a hatchet to millions of peoples lives and left them with nowhere to go in terms of employment. She did this with the ulterior motive of shutting down the unions to stop workers having a right to decide their working conditions, pay etc. She did it because she was belligerent and determined to stop any opposition to her plans to 'take out' those who spoke against her government. That's fact. She ruined whole areas with her decisions and now we pay the money for our gas etc to other countries, taking much needed cash out of our own economy. People hate her for a reason and here it is in black and white for all to see.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]I came from a working class background and my father was a member of a union and the Labour Party. I have never voted Labour myself though. Through sheer hard work and determination, I have managed to carve out a decent standard of living for myself and family. I realise that some people, by accident of birth, are born into money. If you are unfortunate enough not to be one of these, then you have to make your own way, it is as simple as that. There will always be people that are better off than me, but I say good luck to them. I would rather be envied than pitied.[/p][/quote]I understand what you're saying but it doesn't change the fact that Maggie took a hatchet to millions of peoples lives and left them with nowhere to go in terms of employment. She did this with the ulterior motive of shutting down the unions to stop workers having a right to decide their working conditions, pay etc. She did it because she was belligerent and determined to stop any opposition to her plans to 'take out' those who spoke against her government. That's fact. She ruined whole areas with her decisions and now we pay the money for our gas etc to other countries, taking much needed cash out of our own economy. People hate her for a reason and here it is in black and white for all to see. endthelies
  • Score: -2

1:38pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad. Stevenboy
  • Score: 6

1:43pm Wed 8 Jan 14

_Bryan_ says...

To lay the blame entirely at Thatcher's door is misguided in the extreme.

If Scargill and the unions had engaged in a negotiated programme of pit closures as economic necessity demanded, then the union could have used its position to ensure that the closures and subsequent job losses were managed appropriately, with full provision made for retraining workers and investing in alternate industries.

As it was, the situation was allowed to escalate to a point were the union was broken and left powerless to intervene on behalf of its members and thereby failing in its over-riding duty of care to the workers it was supposed to be representing.

This isn't to saay that the Conservative party were blameless by any means but there was clearly a serious failure of leadership at the root of the NUM's antagonistic policy during this period.
To lay the blame entirely at Thatcher's door is misguided in the extreme. If Scargill and the unions had engaged in a negotiated programme of pit closures as economic necessity demanded, then the union could have used its position to ensure that the closures and subsequent job losses were managed appropriately, with full provision made for retraining workers and investing in alternate industries. As it was, the situation was allowed to escalate to a point were the union was broken and left powerless to intervene on behalf of its members and thereby failing in its over-riding duty of care to the workers it was supposed to be representing. This isn't to saay that the Conservative party were blameless by any means but there was clearly a serious failure of leadership at the root of the NUM's antagonistic policy during this period. _Bryan_
  • Score: 6

2:03pm Wed 8 Jan 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

Ray Davies has written an excellent letter.
These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right.
thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest.
The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst.
Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right. thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest. The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: -3

2:18pm Wed 8 Jan 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth.
Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions.
Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth. Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions. Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: 4

2:18pm Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

That's right bcf. it had hardly anything to do with unviable pits and everything to do with overthrowing the unions. As I said before, not just the NUM but steelworks, nhs etc etc. The list goes on and on. Lies have been told for generations but now the truth is out and there's no denying it.
That's right bcf. it had hardly anything to do with unviable pits and everything to do with overthrowing the unions. As I said before, not just the NUM but steelworks, nhs etc etc. The list goes on and on. Lies have been told for generations but now the truth is out and there's no denying it. endthelies
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Wed 8 Jan 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

endthelies wrote:
That's right bcf. it had hardly anything to do with unviable pits and everything to do with overthrowing the unions. As I said before, not just the NUM but steelworks, nhs etc etc. The list goes on and on. Lies have been told for generations but now the truth is out and there's no denying it.
100% agreed endthelies, thatcher's crusade was really against the British working-classes and more widely the British values of fair play and co-operation. It made no economic sense to close the pits and steelworks - they were politically motivated moves that the country is still paying the price for.


David Cameron should issue a public apology for the behaviour of the British government during the Miners' Strike. Just like in the case of the Hillsborough Disaster, the powers that be actively conspired against the people, and we must ensure this never happens again.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: That's right bcf. it had hardly anything to do with unviable pits and everything to do with overthrowing the unions. As I said before, not just the NUM but steelworks, nhs etc etc. The list goes on and on. Lies have been told for generations but now the truth is out and there's no denying it.[/p][/quote]100% agreed endthelies, thatcher's crusade was really against the British working-classes and more widely the British values of fair play and co-operation. It made no economic sense to close the pits and steelworks - they were politically motivated moves that the country is still paying the price for. David Cameron should issue a public apology for the behaviour of the British government during the Miners' Strike. Just like in the case of the Hillsborough Disaster, the powers that be actively conspired against the people, and we must ensure this never happens again. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: -1

2:51pm Wed 8 Jan 14

welshmen says...

What I can't understand, since the end of Thatcher power, there has been NO Government reopening of any Coal mine or Steelworks, in actual fact our Steel Works have been sold to other foreign Countries, who by the way seem to be making a profit, so, who was right Thatcher or the Unions?....
What I can't understand, since the end of Thatcher power, there has been NO Government reopening of any Coal mine or Steelworks, in actual fact our Steel Works have been sold to other foreign Countries, who by the way seem to be making a profit, so, who was right Thatcher or the Unions?.... welshmen
  • Score: 5

2:56pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway.

If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.[/p][/quote]The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway. If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is Mr Angry
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway.

If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is
What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.[/p][/quote]The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway. If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is[/p][/quote]What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 7

4:31pm Wed 8 Jan 14

theviking666 says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Ray Davies has written an excellent letter.
These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right.
thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest.
The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst.
BassalegCountyFan says...

Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. I wonder what will be said in thirty years time, when we talk about Mr Davies and the other councillors of all parties in the CCBC have done to the Caerphilly area, with the constant bad press coming out of this council.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right. thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest. The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst.[/p][/quote]BassalegCountyFan says... Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. I wonder what will be said in thirty years time, when we talk about Mr Davies and the other councillors of all parties in the CCBC have done to the Caerphilly area, with the constant bad press coming out of this council. theviking666
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

theviking666 wrote:
BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Ray Davies has written an excellent letter.
These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right.
thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest.
The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst.
BassalegCountyFan says...

Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. I wonder what will be said in thirty years time, when we talk about Mr Davies and the other councillors of all parties in the CCBC have done to the Caerphilly area, with the constant bad press coming out of this council.
I don't know, but he told the truth in his letter.
[quote][p][bold]theviking666[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. These files show that a British government was willing to conspire against its own people to eliminate political opposition. Scargill was by no means perfect, but he was right. thatcher's war against the miners wasn't as she claimed because coal was the past (we import millions of tonnes of coal to Britain from Poland and Japan every year) but because her government, and the detestable Ian McGregor, wanted to destroy the ideas of trade unionism, solidarity and co-operation that mining areas represented - ideas that went against tory politics of greed and ruthless self-interest. The miners were the best of British, thatcher and her government were the worst.[/p][/quote]BassalegCountyFan says... Ray Davies has written an excellent letter. I wonder what will be said in thirty years time, when we talk about Mr Davies and the other councillors of all parties in the CCBC have done to the Caerphilly area, with the constant bad press coming out of this council.[/p][/quote]I don't know, but he told the truth in his letter. endthelies
  • Score: -2

4:48pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth.
Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions.
Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.
During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth. Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions. Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.[/p][/quote]During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

5:04pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway.

If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is
What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.
I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot.

I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!!

When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.[/p][/quote]The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway. If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is[/p][/quote]What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot. I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!! When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging. Mr Angry
  • Score: -2

5:08pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth.
Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions.
Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.
During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.
You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth. Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions. Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.[/p][/quote]During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.[/p][/quote]You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things. Mr Angry
  • Score: -6

6:13pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Stevenboy says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth.
Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions.
Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.
During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.
You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things.
I don't think someone who makes statements like: 'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT',or 'the British employer is the worst in the world' is in any position to accuse people of posting 'daft' things. The unions of the seventies brought an elected government down with no mandate from the electorate. Even the Labour government couldn't control them. Thatcher's nuclear option was harsh but necessary.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth. Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions. Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.[/p][/quote]During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.[/p][/quote]You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things.[/p][/quote]I don't think someone who makes statements like: 'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT',or 'the British employer is the worst in the world' is in any position to accuse people of posting 'daft' things. The unions of the seventies brought an elected government down with no mandate from the electorate. Even the Labour government couldn't control them. Thatcher's nuclear option was harsh but necessary. Stevenboy
  • Score: 6

6:20pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway.

If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is
What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.
I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot.

I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!!

When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging.
I recall saying that when spending public money every job should be justified. In the call centre case some of the jobs were justified (by me-not the people). Just not all of them. So I relocated them to an existing centre. I took the highest performers. That's common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.[/p][/quote]The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway. If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is[/p][/quote]What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot. I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!! When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging.[/p][/quote]I recall saying that when spending public money every job should be justified. In the call centre case some of the jobs were justified (by me-not the people). Just not all of them. So I relocated them to an existing centre. I took the highest performers. That's common sense. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 7

6:35pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Thinking heads says...

I have noted with with great interest the views on here and it seems to of got though Arthur was voted in by his men the u.d.m was made by a section of goverment.
Arthur scargill was called to explan his actions to a parliamentary committee
with the full power to get to the truth and he did tell all Margaret Thatcher did not ?
He told them then and we do now because surveys have now been carried out.
He said under oath there was thousand years of coal underground in the uk
And he told them of the new thinking on carbon capture thay where dumbfounded by his knowledge.
Please check I dont tell lies I know I was there.
I have seeked and ask and advise from union men and I've ask the same
of managers under me . Remembering who has got more on the job experience and in many cases done it for year ? (That is the no brainer)
GOOD LUCK
I have noted with with great interest the views on here and it seems to of got though Arthur was voted in by his men the u.d.m was made by a section of goverment. Arthur scargill was called to explan his actions to a parliamentary committee with the full power to get to the truth and he did tell all Margaret Thatcher did not ? He told them then and we do now because surveys have now been carried out. He said under oath there was thousand years of coal underground in the uk And he told them of the new thinking on carbon capture thay where dumbfounded by his knowledge. Please check I dont tell lies I know I was there. I have seeked and ask and advise from union men and I've ask the same of managers under me . Remembering who has got more on the job experience and in many cases done it for year ? (That is the no brainer) GOOD LUCK Thinking heads
  • Score: -4

6:35pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place'

Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.
Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.
You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes.

As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat.

As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.
It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.
Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth.
Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions.
Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.
During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.
You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things.
I don't think someone who makes statements like: 'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT',or 'the British employer is the worst in the world' is in any position to accuse people of posting 'daft' things. The unions of the seventies brought an elected government down with no mandate from the electorate. Even the Labour government couldn't control them. Thatcher's nuclear option was harsh but necessary.
Ah so workers should know their place and be controlled, thats the agenda of the far right
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: How did the unions cause this, people go on strike because they have a grievance, employers cause strikes not unions. When some cowboy employer cuts pay and conditions what are the workforce supposed to do tug their forlock and say 'Yes guv I knows me place' Unions are needed to protect employees from employers like you.[/p][/quote]Useless employees might need unions. So in your world the union representing power workers with the muscle to shut it off can pretty much demand what they want? The best thing Thatcher did was stop the tail wagging the dog. They represent a tiny minority of the UK public. They are not elected.[/p][/quote]You don't get it, no Union member wants to go on strike as that means loss of earnings, if they were treated fairly ( a word employers find hard to understand ) there would be no need for strikes. As for elected, union leaders are elected by members to represent them, and who decides employees are usless? I've known employees sacked as they are too good and management see them as a threat. As for the rubbish about power workers, is it right forpower employers to treat employees badly knowing they have no right of response.[/p][/quote]It ain't a perfect world. I've been on both sides of the fence but never met a union rep yet with a brain cell. Good employees are sought after. I know, I seek them. But once you've sat opposite a union guy defending someone for dealing drugs in work or surfing **** or turning up when he feels like it you realise the unions are just as flawed as some bosses but mostly without the nous. Usually on a power kick but lacking the ability to make it on their own.[/p][/quote]Llanmartin, your offensive remarks about union reps are a complete distortion of the truth. Firstly, some of the most intelligent, brave and noble people I've ever known have been union reps. They are the sort of people who stand up for each other and stand against vested interests. That's exactly why thatcher wanted to silence the unions. Secondly you suggest that trade union reps and leaders are unelected - this could not be more incorrect. Every union representative from a factory shop steward to the leader of a large national union like Unite or Unison is an elected representative. The same can't be said for the wealthy elite who are the puppet masters of tory governments, and have a much more damaging impact on Britain.[/p][/quote]During the course of a senior management career I've met dozens of union reps. Most struggled with even basic economics and employment law and a good many were doing it since it allowed them time away from their day job. I can't recall a single incident where they materially affected an outcome. Thatcher wanted to defeat the unions because they had thwarted even Wilson's and Callaghan's attempts to bring them into line and curb inflation. Closed shops, sympathy strikes, strikes without ballots, flying pickets, sending decent workers to Coventry, were all wrong and even the last Labour government didn't repeal a single piece of Thatcher's union reforms. As for unelected - I never elected any of them and neither did around 90% of the population.[/p][/quote]You don't get it do you, Union Leaders are elected by Union members and accountable to them, and them alone. Its nobody else's business . God you say some daft things.[/p][/quote]I don't think someone who makes statements like: 'I've met an employer with a brain cell, all are out to screw their workforce. FACT',or 'the British employer is the worst in the world' is in any position to accuse people of posting 'daft' things. The unions of the seventies brought an elected government down with no mandate from the electorate. Even the Labour government couldn't control them. Thatcher's nuclear option was harsh but necessary.[/p][/quote]Ah so workers should know their place and be controlled, thats the agenda of the far right Mr Angry
  • Score: -6

6:39pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock
You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.
Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy
I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.
The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway.

If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is
What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.
I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot.

I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!!

When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging.
I recall saying that when spending public money every job should be justified. In the call centre case some of the jobs were justified (by me-not the people). Just not all of them. So I relocated them to an existing centre. I took the highest performers. That's common sense.
Bet you enjoyed saying ''your fired'

Did you pleasure yourself whilst doing it ?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: ''If it weren't for employers there would be no jobs.' Oh and aren't we plebs supposed to be so so greatful. Treated like dirt, paid a piitance, oh yes Sir I know my place, dofts cap and tugs forlock[/p][/quote]You could always set up your own business. Experience it from the other side. Somehow though, if you did, I suspect you'd see that there are two sides to every coin.[/p][/quote]Pity you never see other side, the lives people like you destroy[/p][/quote]I'd google the term 'persecution complex' if I were you. You have no evidence that this poster has ever destroyed anyone and you seem to believe that everyone who works thinks like you do. Very sad.[/p][/quote]The poster has boasted on these boards of places he's shut down, and how he made employees 'justify their job' to him ( ie make them grovel) before sacking them anyway. If thats not wrecking peoples lives I don't know what is[/p][/quote]What? Are you serious? For a start I've never interviewed someone for their own job (you either need them or you don't), I've only ever dismissed for misconduct after due process and following legal advice and yes, I did close a call-centre for economic reasons. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it plausible.[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your previous posts. A while ago some troll had got under your skin during a Public Sector Worker / Union Bashing thread. I recall the troll said sarcastically that every Public Sector Worker should go in front of a panel and justify their job, if they don't they should be sacked on the spot. I recall you replied that was a techinque you used when you shut down a Call Centre. That indicates you made the employees grovel before shuting the place anyway. I bet you got a big kick out of that !!! When you are in a hole its a good idea to stop digging.[/p][/quote]I recall saying that when spending public money every job should be justified. In the call centre case some of the jobs were justified (by me-not the people). Just not all of them. So I relocated them to an existing centre. I took the highest performers. That's common sense.[/p][/quote]Bet you enjoyed saying ''your fired' Did you pleasure yourself whilst doing it ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -4

7:09pm Wed 8 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Stevenboy you say thatcher's nuclear approach was harsh, but necessary, but what did she leave the communities who needed these jobs. The families who suffered because of the lack of income and the generations that followed who now hang around on street corners because there is so little manual employment in Wales (and other places). Once lovely Towns like my own left to die and never rebuilt. The legacy she left is imprinted on many areas throughout the UK. There must have been another road but she did not want to take it.
Stevenboy you say thatcher's nuclear approach was harsh, but necessary, but what did she leave the communities who needed these jobs. The families who suffered because of the lack of income and the generations that followed who now hang around on street corners because there is so little manual employment in Wales (and other places). Once lovely Towns like my own left to die and never rebuilt. The legacy she left is imprinted on many areas throughout the UK. There must have been another road but she did not want to take it. endthelies
  • Score: -4

8:43pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Frankfurt says...

I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place.
I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place. Frankfurt
  • Score: -5

11:12pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Thinking heads says...

(Wait) ? That comes out next (your assumptions may be right ?
OR IS IT OIL OR COBAILT DIAMONDS GOLD
What ever is there the British government don't want to give it up?
It has cost a lot to us and governance from both sides have not moved at all
there's more money spent to keep it than is spent on the third world ?
there as been more money than an three airports here ?
work that one out.
(Wait) ? That comes out next (your assumptions may be right ? OR IS IT OIL OR COBAILT DIAMONDS GOLD What ever is there the British government don't want to give it up? It has cost a lot to us and governance from both sides have not moved at all there's more money spent to keep it than is spent on the third world ? there as been more money than an three airports here ? work that one out. Thinking heads
  • Score: -7

10:39pm Thu 9 Jan 14

maz1maz says...

Frankfurt wrote:
I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place.
Deffo, Frankfurt!
[quote][p][bold]Frankfurt[/bold] wrote: I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place.[/p][/quote]Deffo, Frankfurt! maz1maz
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Thu 9 Jan 14

maz1maz says...

maz1maz wrote:
Frankfurt wrote:
I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place.
Deffo, Frankfurt!
A few of Harry Enfield's Tory boys on here I've noticed! Probably made all there money under Thatcher's policys!
[quote][p][bold]maz1maz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankfurt[/bold] wrote: I believe that Thatcher's government wouldn't have lasted long if it hadn't been for the Falklands war. That changed everything for her. Ironically because it was her government's lack of attention to the defence of the islands that led to the Argentine invasion in the first place.[/p][/quote]Deffo, Frankfurt![/p][/quote]A few of Harry Enfield's Tory boys on here I've noticed! Probably made all there money under Thatcher's policys! maz1maz
  • Score: -2

9:08pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Spinflight says...

30 years on South Wales coal would be a viable proposition. There is increasing demand worldwide and the price is over 4 times that in the 1980s.

So with hundreds of years worth of energy under our feet why isn't it being used? The liblabcons are the reason, their devotion to a European superstate, and no doubt to generous pensions from Brussels, means that they have neither the legal right nor the will to open primary industries in South Wales.

Only UKIP has a viable energy policy that will keep the price down ( revoking Miliband's revolting taxes for a start) , keep the lights on and provide prosperity and jobs in South Wales.

http://ukip.org/issu
es/policy-pages/ener
gy

http://www.ukipnewpo
rt.com
30 years on South Wales coal would be a viable proposition. There is increasing demand worldwide and the price is over 4 times that in the 1980s. So with hundreds of years worth of energy under our feet why isn't it being used? The liblabcons are the reason, their devotion to a European superstate, and no doubt to generous pensions from Brussels, means that they have neither the legal right nor the will to open primary industries in South Wales. Only UKIP has a viable energy policy that will keep the price down ( revoking Miliband's revolting taxes for a start) , keep the lights on and provide prosperity and jobs in South Wales. http://ukip.org/issu es/policy-pages/ener gy http://www.ukipnewpo rt.com Spinflight
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Mon 13 Jan 14

emlynkide says...

wow she's still dividing the country now she's gone. wouldnt it be a great idea if we could transfer mp's like footballer's, we could sell our lott to germany and we could buy there's, then again would they buy ours, are well back to the drawing board. just remember this if you tell the people often enough they will believe any thing ( tory maual ).
wow she's still dividing the country now she's gone. wouldnt it be a great idea if we could transfer mp's like footballer's, we could sell our lott to germany and we could buy there's, then again would they buy ours, are well back to the drawing board. just remember this if you tell the people often enough they will believe any thing ( tory maual ). emlynkide
  • Score: 2

10:45am Tue 14 Jan 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

emlynkide wrote:
wow she's still dividing the country now she's gone. wouldnt it be a great idea if we could transfer mp's like footballer's, we could sell our lott to germany and we could buy there's, then again would they buy ours, are well back to the drawing board. just remember this if you tell the people often enough they will believe any thing ( tory maual ).
Intelligent comment? Pity about the spelling and grammar.
No wonder Wales is in such a state both financially and educationally.
[quote][p][bold]emlynkide[/bold] wrote: wow she's still dividing the country now she's gone. wouldnt it be a great idea if we could transfer mp's like footballer's, we could sell our lott to germany and we could buy there's, then again would they buy ours, are well back to the drawing board. just remember this if you tell the people often enough they will believe any thing ( tory maual ).[/p][/quote]Intelligent comment? Pity about the spelling and grammar. No wonder Wales is in such a state both financially and educationally. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -1

2:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them.

How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ?
They caused a drop in living standards. Rubbish not being collected, power going off, inflation and finally an IMF bailout. And most of us didn't vote for any of them.
Employers cause strikes not Unions , people dont strike less they have a grievance
Unions are needed to protect employees from the employers like you
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: The Unions were not prepared to go along with a Government that wanted to reduce the the living standards of it's members , good on them. How does standing up for working people make them a threat to cosy establishment who never see a drop in their living standards ?[/p][/quote]They caused a drop in living standards. Rubbish not being collected, power going off, inflation and finally an IMF bailout. And most of us didn't vote for any of them.[/p][/quote]Employers cause strikes not Unions , people dont strike less they have a grievance Unions are needed to protect employees from the employers like you Mr Angry
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree