HAve most of your Unions got ties back into the Mob or is it just the garbage collectors union out there that is linked into them?
Ours all have some have some ties into the waterfront workers.that is the Mob out here.
Printable View
HAve most of your Unions got ties back into the Mob or is it just the garbage collectors union out there that is linked into them?
Ours all have some have some ties into the waterfront workers.that is the Mob out here.
Basically...Jimmy Hoffa was the leader of the Teamsters and had mob ties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
And miles their welfare is successful if you want the end result to be making people lazy because they have done exactly that. Lazy entitled people who do 0 to help the economy.
Lyle, of course unions are political. It is a group of people trying to make collective decisions, a union is by its very nature political. And as I have said before I always maintain a sense of suspicion about any organisation with a concentration of power. Sure there are agendas at play, but ultimately a union is about representing the interests of the worker as contrasted with the corporate elite who exist only to represent their shareholder friends. Which political side am I on? Of course the one that wants to represent labour interests. I have done no research on the topic, but my gut intuition is that there may have been some corruption in the union process, but that is because of my own inherent distrust of power. But IMO even a union with a small degree of corruption is infinitely preferable to not even being able to have a union at all. In the corporation I was working for in the UK, corporations were not allowed and anyone looking to form one would have been given the boot very quickly. I would have loved to have a union looking out for me as the conditions were awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
For sure, I would imagine that there is an element of power play involved in unions, but that is better than having no representation and having the elite rip labour off just to satisfy shareowner interests.
Right Lyle, because socialism/welfare for the elite is an infinitely more preferable model. Give it to the bankers who messed up the world, but let's not give anything to the working people who cannot find work anymore. I would agree that some are lazy, but let's not generalise too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBasically...Jimmy Hoffa was the leader of the Teamsters and had mob ties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
And miles their welfare is successful if you want the end result to be making people lazy because they have done exactly that. Lazy entitled people who do 0 to help the economy.
So Lyle have all or most of your unions got ties?Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongBasically...Jimmy Hoffa was the leader of the Teamsters and had mob ties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
And miles their welfare is successful if you want the end result to be making people lazy because they have done exactly that. Lazy entitled people who do 0 to help the economy.
Out here the industrial unions have links into the water front workers and the bastards can hold the whole business sector up if they dont get their cut.
Our old PM from the late eighties: primeminister Bob Hawke, left his job as head of the Union to run as leader of the opposition "LAbour Party" Which is like your Liberals.
We are reverse to you: our Libs are for free enterprise .LAbour more like the Reds or commies were.
Anyway Bob Hawke left his job as head of the ACTU Australian Capital territory Union to become PrimeMinister for Labour. There were murders and disappearances of some men who were lined up for his old job! Shows you how high up they have got.
Miles, I think Unions treat the average joe worse than the government for example if you want to work at a certain factory you HAVE to be Union, and to be a Union member you have to pay dues and where do those dues go? What do they pay for? And what does the low man on the totem pole get out of being a Union member other than being able to seriously fuck up his job yet stay employed because he's in a Union?
I hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
I cannot really comment without knowing the specifics of this particular union. My perception of unions is definitely quite different to your one. However, a union should be no different to any other democratic organisation. You pay your dues therefore your vote on significant issues should matter. That is infinitely preferable to working without a union IMO as basically you are just treated how the elite want to treat you. You have no bargaining power short of quitting. Just because he is low on the totem pole shouldn't eradicate his voting power, he is after all paying his dues. Joining a union should defintely be optional though.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Miles as you will recall I was against the bail out as I don't think the government should pick winners and losers.
How can a man who doesn't work criticise that system? Bilbo....Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
People who are more successful are usually so because they have been given all the advantages brought about through inheritence and privilege. There are numerous exceptions, but this is usually how it is. Take away that and what you have is a level playing field. I am all for a level playing field. I was reading an article today that revealed that children at primary schools who recieved free school meals were significantly more likely to be unable to read beyond a basic level than other students. Poverty reduces the ability to compete in society and even a free dinner isn't that much of a help to these kids. I recieved free school dinners and did very well, but I am a bit weird.
Society should be about the equality of opportunity and a level starting platform. Obviously we cannot have communism, so therefore, we need a society that assists those that start off with difficulty, otherwise we are condemning them from birth. In that sense, the model I outlined above is perfectly feasible and is morally just. It helps to make life a little bit more equal and for society to be a little more than those that have it all and those that have nothing.
And for that I commend you. The bail out is horrible business.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
The one thing we can agree on is that Obama is little more than a representative of the corporate and financial elite.
I am not against things like the health service, public transport and the benefits system. But trying to bring about equality by dragging the successful person down to the level of the unsuccessful is the wrong way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboI hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
How can a man who doesn't work criticise that system? Bilbo....
People who are more successful are usually so because they have been given all the advantages brought about through inheritence and privilege. There are numerous exceptions, but this is usually how it is. Take away that and what you have is a level playing field. I am all for a level playing field. I was reading an article today that revealed that children at primary schools who recieved free school meals were significantly more likely to be unable to read beyond a basic level than other students. Poverty reduces the ability to compete in society and even a free dinner isn't that much of a help to these kids. I recieved free school dinners and did very well, but I am a bit weird.
Society should be about the equality of opportunity and a level starting platform. Obviously we cannot have communism, so therefore, we need a society that assists those that start off with difficulty, otherwise we are condemning them from birth. In that sense, the model I outlined above is perfectly feasible and is morally just. It helps to make life a little bit more equal and for society to be a little more than those that have it all and those that have nothing.
It seems to me now that 20 years after Thatcher most of her ideals have been proved right. The EU is a fucking travesty, public opinion is now overwhelmingly leaning towards the right on issues such as welfare benefits and her privatisation of much of the state has proven to have been the right approach.
Look at the mess the health service is in now thanks to labour. They injected billions into it with the net result that productivity decreased! Our educational system is in turmoil as we continue to spiral down the world league tables for performance, I think we are 27th now in the world for mathematics. It's unaccetable.
Cameron and the Tories have the right appraoch. The austerity package will hopefully see some of the bloat and middle management that plagues the health service and all areas of civil service finally removed. The quango's can quite happily be burned, most are a complete waste of money and I love what he is doing to take power away from the state and give it back to local councils.
The centralisation of power is a mistake. It leads to massively inefficient beaurocratic impotence and the Conservative government are right to want to reign it in.
I also love what Ian Duncan Smith is doing in overhauling the welfare state, in fact I think this government will go down in history as the best post war government since Thatcher.
Hopefully they can jettison the fucking useless liberal democrats and end the coalition. Then we can see an end to the ridiculous human rights bill and the other concessions we have had to make to that bunch of incompetants.
And WTF does any of this have to do with Wikileaks? I'm knackered. I am going to bed, talk to all tomorrow.
If you go to bed we win. That's how it works ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
You are nuts, Labour is going to get straight back in after this ridiculous coalition is done. But this is no Labour party that I recognise, so it doesn't mean a great deal. Blair sold the soul of the Labour Party. I think you have some valid criticisms of the welfare state, but I do have a number of objections. However, I will address this post in full tomorrow as I am quite tired.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI am not against things like the health service, public transport and the benefits system. But trying to bring about equality by dragging the successful person down to the level of the unsuccessful is the wrong way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboI hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
How can a man who doesn't work criticise that system? Bilbo....
People who are more successful are usually so because they have been given all the advantages brought about through inheritence and privilege. There are numerous exceptions, but this is usually how it is. Take away that and what you have is a level playing field. I am all for a level playing field. I was reading an article today that revealed that children at primary schools who recieved free school meals were significantly more likely to be unable to read beyond a basic level than other students. Poverty reduces the ability to compete in society and even a free dinner isn't that much of a help to these kids. I recieved free school dinners and did very well, but I am a bit weird.
Society should be about the equality of opportunity and a level starting platform. Obviously we cannot have communism, so therefore, we need a society that assists those that start off with difficulty, otherwise we are condemning them from birth. In that sense, the model I outlined above is perfectly feasible and is morally just. It helps to make life a little bit more equal and for society to be a little more than those that have it all and those that have nothing.
It seems to me now that 20 years after Thatcher most of her ideals have been proved right. The EU is a fucking travesty, public opinion is now overwhelmingly leaning towards the right on issues such as welfare benefits and her privatisation of much of the state has proven to have been the right approach.
Look at the mess the health service is in now thanks to labour. They injected billions into it with the net result that productivity decreased! Our educational system is in turmoil as we continue to spiral down the world league tables for performance, I think we are 27th now in the world for mathematics. It's unaccetable.
Cameron and the Tories have the right appraoch. The austerity package will hopefully see some of the bloat and middle management that plagues the health service and all areas of civil service finally removed. The quango's can quite happily be burned, most are a complete waste of money and I love what he is doing to take power away from the state and give it back to local councils.
The centralisation of power is a mistake. It leads to massively inefficient beaurocratic impotence and the Conservative government are right to want to reign it in.
I also love what Ian Duncan Smith is doing in overhauling the welfare state, in fact I think this government will go down in history as the best post war government since Thatcher.
Hopefully they can jettison the fucking useless liberal democrats and end the coalition. Then we can see an end to the ridiculous human rights bill and the other concessions we have had to make to that bunch of incompetants.
No, I disagree. I think Thatcher's politics decimated the UK. It is because of her that your monthly bills are so expensive. It is because of her that getting around the UK on a train costs so much today. In Korea these things are dirt cheap and that is because they are nationalised.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI am not against things like the health service, public transport and the benefits system. But trying to bring about equality by dragging the successful person down to the level of the unsuccessful is the wrong way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboI hate socialism. It tries to engineer equality by taking from one to give to another, when usually the most successful has more because he is more productive and proactive than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI said it before, I think the most obvious example to me was what The Labour Party introduced to the UK after WW2. A nationalised healthcare system, nationalised utilities and transportation systems, support for those unable to work and subsidised education through the tertiary sector, support for trade unions etc. These were measures that were enacted even though the major British corporations would likely have been against it. In fact it was so successful that it largely stayed in place until Thatcher under the influence of Friedman dismantled it in the 1980's.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Now the average UK citizen has to pay through the roof for utilities, public transportation, university education etc. But we do still have the NHS. It was a system that did work and was successful, but of course it could never come back as large corporations in collusion with the government would never relinquish what they now have.
It's like the story of lazy mouse. How can you endorse such a shit philosophy?
How can a man who doesn't work criticise that system? Bilbo....
People who are more successful are usually so because they have been given all the advantages brought about through inheritence and privilege. There are numerous exceptions, but this is usually how it is. Take away that and what you have is a level playing field. I am all for a level playing field. I was reading an article today that revealed that children at primary schools who recieved free school meals were significantly more likely to be unable to read beyond a basic level than other students. Poverty reduces the ability to compete in society and even a free dinner isn't that much of a help to these kids. I recieved free school dinners and did very well, but I am a bit weird.
Society should be about the equality of opportunity and a level starting platform. Obviously we cannot have communism, so therefore, we need a society that assists those that start off with difficulty, otherwise we are condemning them from birth. In that sense, the model I outlined above is perfectly feasible and is morally just. It helps to make life a little bit more equal and for society to be a little more than those that have it all and those that have nothing.
It seems to me now that 20 years after Thatcher most of her ideals have been proved right. The EU is a fucking travesty, public opinion is now overwhelmingly leaning towards the right on issues such as welfare benefits and her privatisation of much of the state has proven to have been the right approach.
Look at the mess the health service is in now thanks to labour. They injected billions into it with the net result that productivity decreased! Our educational system is in turmoil as we continue to spiral down the world league tables for performance, I think we are 27th now in the world for mathematics. It's unaccetable.
Cameron and the Tories have the right appraoch. The austerity package will hopefully see some of the bloat and middle management that plagues the health service and all areas of civil service finally removed. The quango's can quite happily be burned, most are a complete waste of money and I love what he is doing to take power away from the state and give it back to local councils.
The centralisation of power is a mistake. It leads to massively inefficient beaurocratic impotence and the Conservative government are right to want to reign it in.
I also love what Ian Duncan Smith is doing in overhauling the welfare state, in fact I think this government will go down in history as the best post war government since Thatcher.
Hopefully they can jettison the fucking useless liberal democrats and end the coalition. Then we can see an end to the ridiculous human rights bill and the other concessions we have had to make to that bunch of incompetants.
I don't think think that Thatcher has been proven right whatsoever. All that has happened is that Tony Blair decided to bastardise The Labour Party to fit his own narcissistic vision and so you had essentially two versions of The Tories. Sure Labour was more friendly, but the differentiation had been largely watered down. After years of the Tories people were willing to vote for anything and what we got was 'New Labour'. Clause 4 was eradicated and Labour essentially became a party of big business. As can be seen with the wars it had also become totally undemocratic. This was a Labour Party in name only.
I agree that the Labour Party was wasteful. There were too many of those ludicrous quangos and money was obviously wasted on the NHS. But having said that, look at how much money the Americans are wasting on their health service. An awful lot more. The NHS is what it is, but it is being overworked as the nation becomes progressively fatter and more and more unhealthy. All in all though, the NHS is one of the great things about the UK and we have it because of progressive thinking. It is vital that people have a point of use healthcare system.
In terms of education, it is a complicated issue. My own personal opinion of the education system is that it is very good. My teachers were on the whole good people and I was attentive. I learned a lot from school. But as a whole you have to consider the changes in British society. Teachers have less and less power in the classroom. More and more kids are from broken homes or family environments where both parents are needing to work. These societal changes are also having a considerable impact on the educational system. I teach for a living, but I would never consider teaching in an English public school. It looks like hell. So, you can't just say that the Labour party is responsible for changes in the educational system. But I would actually be in favour of giving teachers more power and reigning in problem students.
When it comes to the austerity measures, you have to consider what they are really about and they are basically an unchecked attack on the less well off in society. It is a great excuse to blame it on national debt. I agree that the debt is too high and that Labour was fiscally irresponsible. However, a lot of that debt came from bailing out the financial sector which is guilty of mass fraud. You don't pay that off by going after the more vulnerable in society. Cameron is simply perpetuating what Thatcher did and of course he has a ready made excuse to do it.
I agree with you that you cannot have too much centralised power. You do need to stimulate self responsibilty, but at the same time I genuinely believe that every person should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Otherwise society has failed them. Rampant Friedman style economics only enhances disparities between the rich and the poor and leads to the bulk of the wealth going to a concentrated section of the elite. It doesn't work and America today shows us this. We need to keep away from that and follow other European models.
Some patriotic Americans. I particularly like what Hedges had to say, he was bang on the money. I would love for the anti-war movement to expand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIb5CniKCas
I'm sure you would....the only place I want the anti-war movement to expand is within Al Queda and the Taliban and all groups like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles