Therese Coughy....

[mudsticks]

She and Braverman need to be shown the boot.

Let's face it, all of them do.

It's only because some are so very irredeemably awful, that others appear in any way 'acceptable'

General election now.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

General election now.

General strike now
General insurrection (well, what else can you do when you're retired?)
then
General Election.

 

[mudsticks]

General strike now
General insurrection (well, what else can you do when you're retired?)
then
General Election.

I can't really go on strike..
Folks might get scurvy 😱

But I'm happy to keep on with the general insurrecting , and nuisance making 👍🏼🚜🍆

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I can't really go on strike..
Folks might get scurvy 😱

Go on strike anyway. People have to live with the issues that causes and seeing produce rot would really hammer home the message that you deserve more cash.

Or do you mean you can't really strike because you would lose money?

 

[mudsticks]

Go on strike anyway. People have to live with the issues that causes and seeing produce rot would really hammer home the message that you deserve more cash.

Or do you mean you can't really strike because you would lose money?

Of course I would lose money, and I wouldn't be able to pay my staff..
Nor all my other overheads, energy bills etc.

My going on strike, and letting crops rot, wouldn't impact greedy capitalists, and corrupt politicians, they don't care, they wouldn't notice.
They'll always be able to buy food.

It would only only impact those people who I supply, who already appreciate what I do.
In addition to wasting good food into which a lot of effort has been expended

Happy to support other striking workers, and campaigners on these issues in various ways, I already do in fact.

Already send surpluses to food banks (which shouldn't have to exist) already have a solidarity scheme which means some people pay less, some pay more depending on what they can afford.

Anyway work to get on with.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Of course I would lose money, and I wouldn't be able to pay my staff..
Nor all my other overheads, energy bills etc.

My going on strike, and letting crops rot, wouldn't impact greedy capitalists, and corrupt politicians, they don't care, they wouldn't notice.
They'll always be able to buy food.

It would only only impact those people who I supply, who already appreciate what I do.
In addition to wasting good food into which a lot of effort has been expended

Happy to support other striking workers, and campaigners on these issues in various ways, I already do in fact.

Already send surpluses to food banks (which shouldn't have to exist) already have a solidarity scheme which means some people pay less, some pay more depending on what they can afford.

Anyway work to get on with.

But you are happy to support other strikes that have real-life negative impacts on people, you not paying your employees and supplying food is simply a small inconvenience.

Supporting train workers striking for instance means that some people will not be able to get to to work and may lose out on a couple of days pay, deliveries of foodstuffs get delayed and people relying on those deliveries don't get fed, food and time critical deliveries are ruined or delayed. The impacts are all exactly on people as if you went on strike.

The only difference really is that you lose out on cash personally.

 

[jowwy]

But you are happy to support other strikes that have real-life negative impacts on people, you not paying your employees and supplying food is simply a small inconvenience.

Supporting train workers striking for instance means that some people will not be able to get to to work and may lose out on a couple of days pay, deliveries of foodstuffs get delayed and people relying on those deliveries don't get fed, food and time critical deliveries are ruined or delayed. The impacts are all exactly on people as if you went on strike.

The only difference really is that you lose out on cash personally.

Do you not support the right to strike then???

 

[Mr Celine]

Or do you mean you can't really strike because you would lose money?

I think she means she can't really strike because she's self employed.

 

[mudsticks]

But you are happy to support other strikes that have real-life negative impacts on people, you not paying your employees and supplying food is simply a small inconvenience.

Supporting train workers striking for instance means that some people will not be able to get to to work and may lose out on a couple of days pay, deliveries of foodstuffs get delayed and people relying on those deliveries don't get fed, food and time critical deliveries are ruined or delayed. The impacts are all exactly on people as if you went on strike.

The only difference really is that you lose out on cash personally.

"The only difference really is that you lose out on cash personally."

No that's not the only difference, if you bother to read what I've written.

Other striking workers are taking part in Union supported strikes to support those underpaid and poorly treated workers, it's very different.

But I remember now you're not here for good faith discussions are you .
You're not a big fan of Unions or solidarity amongst workers.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I remember a time when Craig used to try and defend this goverment.Its getting harder though....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63381450

 

[The Crofted Crest]

@Craig the cyclist, why are you an apologist for lousy employers?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Do you not support the right to strike then???

Striking is a thing of the past. I have said it lots on here, striking seems great, but it leads workers in to an inevitable black hole from which they emerge weaker.

British Leyland, British Rail, miners, the current rail strikes, the common denominator is that they all end if failure. No employer can give what they demand, the Unions know this and yet they still lead their members out in a 'we can win brothers way'. They all fail and end up agreeing for a much lesser deal and the losers are not the union leaders who get a big payrise and lose no money for going on strike, but the public and the union members.

The nurses strike which is planned will be a disaster as nurses won't properly strike. They are demanding a 16% increase, and the RCN are offering a payment of £50 per day to all striking nurses, on a band 5, during a 12 hour shift, a mid-point nurse will be earning about £160 per day. So they will strike, and get £100 per day less, then be advised to settle for something like 6% over three years in 3 months time. Fucking lunacy.

So sure am I about this, that I am willing to bet someone on here £10 to a charity of the winners choosing that the nurses fail in their 16% pay claim. Who will take that on? Surely someone will be so confident in the power of the unions to beat the Government?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I think she means she can't really strike because she's self employed.

Self-employed can simply withdraw their labour, just like everyone else. The difference is that they lose out personally, so they don't because they aren't stupid.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

@Craig the cyclist, why are you an apologist for lousy employers?

I'm not, read my post 2 up.

I am saying that striking is a tactic from years ago, that has never really worked, and works even less now because laws have been passed to allow employers to by-pass strikers. Remember P&O and how everyone was going to boycott it because of what they did, and how the unionised masses would mobilise to ensure they all got their jobs back? How did that work out then?

 

[newfhouse]

So sure am I about this, that I am willing to bet someone on here £10 to a charity of the winners choosing that the nurses fail in their 16% pay claim. Who will take that on? Surely someone will be so confident in the power of the unions to beat the Government?

There’s always a compromise. Both sides know this.