I'm a union man!
Comments
-
It's a good job with still good Ts&Cs thanks in part to the union.
Wow! :shock:I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years.
I have not worked at any one place for more than 4 years over a 35 year span.
Half the changes have been choice, half were forced. Getting paid off has become just one of these things.
A job for life sounds like hell on earth. I like variety.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Each to their own. As always.
It's a good job with still good Ts&Cs thanks in part to the union.
Wow! :shock:I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years.
I have not worked at any one place for more than 4 years over a 35 year span.
Half the changes have been choice, half were forced. Getting paid off has become just one of these things.
A job for life sounds like hell on earth. I like variety.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Frank, likewise I am not having a pop at you, I am having a pop at the ideaology you espose. Can't say I would want to see you out of a job (although I may make an exception if you are a tube driver :twisted: )Stevo666 If you're fortunate enough to be able to leave your current employer and go elsewhere great, most "wage slaves" are not in that position.
I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years. During that time my employment has been threatened on numerous occasions and it has only been down to the negotiational skills of the union and the fortitude of its members that I have retained my job. I'm talking highly skilled blue collar work. The last time my job was under really serious threat was when a eastern european company wanted to buy us out. Even though they had no technical know how and couldn't manufacture the parts my job/livelihood +200 others was saved by the men standing as one and the trade union putting forward a good argument.
Had this been unsuccessful perhaps the engine on the aircraft taking you and your loved ones on holiday could have been nailed together by Igor and Demitri, but they'd have been cheap and the shareholders could have had an extra 10p on their divi.
But Capitalism, PROFITS before PEOPLE that's what it's all about.
Not actually a stab at you Stevo , why I don't know 'cos I'm sure you would quite happily see me out of a job (I cost too much) People get tie up in their own worlds (me included) and they either don't or refuse to see the perspective of others.
While I can see the union workers pov, I am also just about old enough to remember the damage done to this country when the unions thought they ran the country and really did hold the place to ransom. We must not go back to that for the sake of the country as a whole.
I am fortunate enough to now have a relatively transferable skill as I deal with one of life's two certainties. But I didn't start out that way and the word in my post above that you may have missed was 'retrain'. I am no special case and from a pretty ordinary background in the North East. If I can do it, lots of other people can too."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
While I can see the union workers pov, I am also just about old enough to remember the damage done to this country when the unions thought they ran the country and really did hold the place to ransom. We must not go back to that for the sake of the country
One PoV would be that we still have situation where Joe Public can be held to 'ransom'. Tube drivers of course. Rail workers more generally, e.g. First Great Western rolling programme of strikes. Tanker drivers? Not that long ago since fuel panic buying, will we not revisit that any time? Civil service and councils - ah go on then, who cares?
Difference between say 70s and now is that de-industrialisation leaves only the effective monopolies / post privatisation entities where a screw the rest of you attitude survives.0 -
All I want is the law to be applied evenly. If anyone takes an action that causes me financial loss then generally I have the right to sue them for compensation. Why should the unions be exempt from this?
I'd still argue your reaction is very inconsistent.
Apologies if I'm incorrect here but I think you're something along the lines of an accountant and help people reduce their tax liabilities.
Frequently you make the argument that it is acceptable to reduce tax liabilities wherever possible. Providing the process adheres to the letter of the law. In many cases the steps taken to reduce these liabilities may well be within a strict interpretation of the letter of the law but they do not adhere to what the intention or spirit of the law was. This directly impacts the tax take of UK PLC. Therefore it does cost you and I money but you excuse it.
A political group that you don't like undertakes a legal strike that has knock on financial impacts on others and you expect to hold them liable for that impact.
I don't see how you're not being inconsistent.0 -
I'd still argue your reaction is very inconsistent.
Apologies if I'm incorrect here but I think you're something along the lines of an accountant and help people reduce their tax liabilities.
Frequently you make the argument that it is acceptable to reduce tax liabilities wherever possible. Providing the process adheres to the letter of the law. In many cases the steps taken to reduce these liabilities may well be within a strict interpretation of the letter of the law but they do not adhere to what the intention or spirit of the law was. This directly impacts the tax take of UK PLC. Therefore it does cost you and I money but you excuse it.
A political group that you don't like undertakes a legal strike that has knock on financial impacts on others and you expect to hold them liable for that impact.
I don't see how you're not being inconsistent.
For transparency, I am an accountant working for a company but previously had my own practice.
This is an often held misconception of accountants; that they are there to reduce your tax liability. Usually also held by tax officials.
I believe and have often stated to tax officials that if you could be expected to be treated fairly and equitably by tax officials by disclosing all your information then there would be no need to have accounting firms.
The simple answer is the tax office does not want to do all that work for you and force you to complete forms based on (sometimes) complex accounting rules to calculate your tax liability. Those complex rules are there to stop large corporations abusing the system.
The large corporations that do abuse the system do so with the assistance of possibly the 0.01% of accountants/ tax experts and not small firms. In 20 years working I have never been asked to reduce Starbucks tax bill.
With respect to following 'strict interpretation of the letter' that is how law works. It is generally not the spirit of the law that counts but what the law is. Additionally, in the UK there is general anti-avoidance legislation (like a lot of countries) that states that artificial transactions that the sole purpose is to reduce taxes can be ignored and the relevant taxes levied.
You cannot tarnish a whole profession well except lawyers they are scum.Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
I'm not trying to tarnish an industry. I'm highlighting what I perceive to be a significant inconsistency in somebodies attitude to the consequences of undesirable, but legal, behaviour based on who is carrying out the actions.I'd still argue your reaction is very inconsistent.
Apologies if I'm incorrect here but I think you're something along the lines of an accountant and help people reduce their tax liabilities.
Frequently you make the argument that it is acceptable to reduce tax liabilities wherever possible. Providing the process adheres to the letter of the law. In many cases the steps taken to reduce these liabilities may well be within a strict interpretation of the letter of the law but they do not adhere to what the intention or spirit of the law was. This directly impacts the tax take of UK PLC. Therefore it does cost you and I money but you excuse it.
A political group that you don't like undertakes a legal strike that has knock on financial impacts on others and you expect to hold them liable for that impact.
I don't see how you're not being inconsistent.
For transparency, I am an accountant working for a company but previously had my own practice.
This is an often held misconception of accountants; that they are there to reduce your tax liability. Usually also held by tax officials.
I believe and have often stated to tax officials that if you could be expected to be treated fairly and equitably by tax officials by disclosing all your information then there would be no need to have accounting firms.
The simple answer is the tax office does not want to do all that work for you and force you to complete forms based on (sometimes) complex accounting rules to calculate your tax liability. Those complex rules are there to stop large corporations abusing the system.
The large corporations that do abuse the system do so with the assistance of possibly the 0.01% of accountants/ tax experts and not small firms. In 20 years working I have never been asked to reduce Starbucks tax bill.
With respect to following 'strict interpretation of the letter' that is how law works. It is generally not the spirit of the law that counts but what the law is. Additionally, in the UK there is general anti-avoidance legislation (like a lot of countries) that states that artificial transactions that the sole purpose is to reduce taxes can be ignored and the relevant taxes levied.
You cannot tarnish a whole profession well except lawyers they are scum.
If my interpretation is correct, it speaks loudly about values (mamba made this point very directly).0 -
Let me help you see then.I'd still argue your reaction is very inconsistent.
Apologies if I'm incorrect here but I think you're something along the lines of an accountant and help people reduce their tax liabilities.
Frequently you make the argument that it is acceptable to reduce tax liabilities wherever possible. Providing the process adheres to the letter of the law. In many cases the steps taken to reduce these liabilities may well be within a strict interpretation of the letter of the law but they do not adhere to what the intention or spirit of the law was. This directly impacts the tax take of UK PLC. Therefore it does cost you and I money but you excuse it.
A political group that you don't like undertakes a legal strike that has knock on financial impacts on others and you expect to hold them liable for that impact.
I don't see how you're not being inconsistent.
1. Tax planning as you see it is a loss to one party with no upside. But it is an equal gain to another party, otherwise my employer wouldn't pay me. Striking in the case of the tube workers costs the London economy an estimated at £50m a day (including reduced tax revenues) and adversely affects over a million people. The upside to the tube workers is way less and benefits a few thousand individuals. So not a zero sum game. I stand by my comment that strikes are selfish. The question of whether certain governments should cut their cloth more sensibly is a different one...
2. I have mentioned before on this forum that I am actively engaged in increasing UK tax revenues for the group I work for. The UK corporate tax rates are now very competitive and we are actively maximising our revenues in the UK - at the expense of less business friendly countries. So the UK gains at the expense of other countries and overall my group gains. I won't bore you with the details. I'm quite happy for you to take legal action against me as in this case you'd be forcing me to accept a commission for enriching the UK treasury. But I'll make do with a quiet word of thanks instead
Also see stu-bims comment below. There is way more to what else do than tax planning. Legal compliance is a big part as governments like their red tape, bur there is also support to the business. Tax is pretty complex and large business deals have a lot of pitfalls. Without proper tax support some of these deals would not make economic sense. We help them make sense and so help trade.
The leftie claim that they somehow that have better values than someone on the right usually doesn't stand up to scrutiny
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Your point 1. I think you'll find a mindset is gaining ground throughout Europe that thinks the current western led (but widely adopted) economic model isn't entirely balanced. They'd possibly argue that the tube drivers are standing up to a much broader erosion of rights than just their own. I don't agree that theirs is much of a cause célèbre, but it is an equally compelling argument to your justification for negotiating tax. £50 million cost to London but if a successful test case, theoretically a line in the sand for employees that is worth multiple millions to millions of workers. Tbh, I don't buy that but then again I equally don't buy a lot of the tax breaks. Negotiations don't deliver fair and just outcomes, they reflect how a negotiation transpired.
Let me help you see then.I'd still argue your reaction is very inconsistent.
Apologies if I'm incorrect here but I think you're something along the lines of an accountant and help people reduce their tax liabilities.
Frequently you make the argument that it is acceptable to reduce tax liabilities wherever possible. Providing the process adheres to the letter of the law. In many cases the steps taken to reduce these liabilities may well be within a strict interpretation of the letter of the law but they do not adhere to what the intention or spirit of the law was. This directly impacts the tax take of UK PLC. Therefore it does cost you and I money but you excuse it.
A political group that you don't like undertakes a legal strike that has knock on financial impacts on others and you expect to hold them liable for that impact.
I don't see how you're not being inconsistent.
1. Tax planning as you see it is a loss to one party with no upside. But it is an equal gain to another party, otherwise my employer wouldn't pay me. Striking in the case of the tube workers costs the London economy an estimated at £50m a day (including reduced tax revenues) and adversely affects over a million people. The upside to the tube workers is way less and benefits a few thousand individuals. So not a zero sum game. I stand by my comment that strikes are selfish. The question of whether certain governments should cut their cloth more sensibly is a different one...
2. I have mentioned before on this forum that I am actively engaged in increasing UK tax revenues for the group I work for. The UK corporate tax rates are now very competitive and we are actively maximising our revenues in the UK - at the expense of less business friendly countries. So the UK gains at the expense of other countries and overall my group gains. I won't bore you with the details. I'm quite happy for you to take legal action against me as in this case you'd be forcing me to accept a commission for enriching the UK treasury. But I'll make do with a quiet word of thanks instead
Also see stu-bims comment below. There is way more to what else do than tax planning. Legal compliance is a big part as governments like their red tape, bur there is also support to the business. Tax is pretty complex and large business deals have a lot of pitfalls. Without proper tax support some of these deals would not make economic sense. We help them make sense and so help trade.
The leftie claim that they somehow that have better values than someone on the right usually doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Your last comment; there's equal greed and myopia on both sides. I personally like to see people rewarded for success but not without boundaries. Capitalism with a social conscience if you like. Right now, we don't have that. The current direction of the global economy is too imbalanced in favour of localised wealth accumulation. Eventually revolts will happen if and when too many people become too disenfranchised.
Interesting article on beeb website a few months back about how modern technology is actually reducing how much work actually needs doing on an absolute scale. There isn't enough! That's a problem that the free market can't resolve.0 -
I have only been a union member once and only for a short period.
I days of my spotty youth I worked for Tesco and joined USDAW, mainly because everyone else was. There was a union meeting to discuss the latest pay offer. We all went by coach to Birmingham, most of us lured by the prospect of a night out in the city afterwards. Listening to the pay offer being discussed, my mate and I thought it ok and would vote to accept.
Come the vote, the members were first asked who wanted to reject the offer and every hand bar 2 went up. Who wanted to accept? My mate and I sat on our hands as we would have been the only 2.
Imagine everyone surprise when it was later revealed that the membership in the union had voted to accept the offer.
Now it could be that that one meeting was an isolated case where every hand shot up to reject, but I doubt it.
Unions only following members wishes? I don't think so.0 -
I know you're a similar age to me, so I can only assume that must have happened about 35years or so ago. You know as well as I that would not/could not happen now.I have no doubt back then "deals" over beer and sandwiches were done.I have only been a union member once and only for a short period.
I days of my spotty youth I worked for Tesco and joined USDAW, mainly because everyone else was. There was a union meeting to discuss the latest pay offer. We all went by coach to Birmingham, most of us lured by the prospect of a night out in the city afterwards. Listening to the pay offer being discussed, my mate and I thought it ok and would vote to accept.
Come the vote, the members were first asked who wanted to reject the offer and every hand bar 2 went up. Who wanted to accept? My mate and I sat on our hands as we would have been the only 2.
Imagine everyone surprise when it was later revealed that the membership in the union had voted to accept the offer.
Now it could be that that one meeting was an isolated case where every hand shot up to reject, but I doubt it.
Unions only following members wishes? I don't think so.
What I do know is in 2015 things are totally different. And that's one of the things that p1ss me off when I see the usual "union bashers" that bcome on here every time anyone takes industrial action. No-one loses pay voluntarily through strike action lightly it is a LAST RESORT. Industrial action of any kind now days can only be after the unions have complied with all manner of purposely overbearing legislation.
The last time we (the blue collar workforce) at my workplace spontaneously "walked off the job" the stewards and union officials were sh1tting themselves in case it lead to punitive action against the union itself. But management were left in no doubt that it was action taken by men who were members of a union rather than union members.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
The way I see it there are good and bad Unions. The good ones work closely with employers to get the best for their members but also realise that sometimes a company needs to change to survive and then work closely with their members and the employer to minimise the impact. On the other hand you get bad Unions run by people on ego trips wanting to show how tough they are and who will persuade their members to go for the nuclear option at the first opportunity. The Unions we hear about most often fall into the latter category. Teaching is an example of a profession covered by Unions from one extreme to the other.0
-
Also interesting that only around a quarter of the UK workforce is now unionised. The large majority of the workforce clearly don't need to join. Not quite the disenfranchised masses close to revolt that some try to make out.The way I see it there are good and bad Unions. The good ones work closely with employers to get the best for their members but also realise that sometimes a company needs to change to survive and then work closely with their members and the employer to minimise the impact. On the other hand you get bad Unions run by people on ego trips wanting to show how tough they are and who will persuade their members to go for the nuclear option at the first opportunity. The Unions we hear about most often fall into the latter category. Teaching is an example of a profession covered by Unions from one extreme to the other."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Interesting that in traditional union thinking the two crimes of "large-scale theft" and "deciding that it is better not to go on strike" appear to have roughly equal gravityGreatorex is a scab and a crook and desereves to rot.0 -
The use of the word 'scab' is very telling. And presumably this sort of mindset is not unique within the union movement. If this is their view of people who exercise their democratic right to do their job, god help us if they ever get their hands on the reins of power again. Luckily the unions are becoming less relevant over time, as the falling union membership shows.
Interesting that in traditional union thinking the two crimes of "large-scale theft" and "deciding that it is better not to go on strike" appear to have roughly equal gravityGreatorex is a scab and a crook and desereves to rot."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I once got told a story about a friend of a member of my family who worked in a highly unionized workplace where the union was very active. He never joined a union and was very open about his own reasons. Turns out he joined but saw the light. Asked why he left when the unions were really good at negotiating with management for better pay and benefits, he just said I'll get whatever the union member gets, they can't pay me less for the same job. I'll just keep my dues for myself. I've always thought that's what I'd do.
BTW anyone know how many teaching unions there are? The one most outside of teaching and unionism know about is NUT, the loud teaching union who's most likely to strike. There are others and it is rare they strike. Why? Seriously, why would one teaching union feel the need to strike when others do not? Are members of one union getting better pay and conditions than v teachers in the NUT so they don't feel as much need to strike? Or is it something to do with political agendas? It's the worry that it's the latter case that makes me doubt unions worth. Political games masquerading as pay dispute when the kids are losing out? Ideology over education. Of course it's in d defence of political.interference in b our education system by the evil Tories I'm sure. Didn't Labour.carry out a lot of academies and Tory ideas too?0 -
Wow! :shock:I have been in employment with the same internationally renowned company for 38 years.
I have not worked at any one place for more than 4 years over a 35 year span.
Half the changes have been choice, half were forced. Getting paid off has become just one of these things.
A job for life sounds like hell on earth. I like variety.
I've not eve n been alive 35 years!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
UK citizens are rushing to get dual citizenship in advance of the referendum on EU membership.
One more reason why we need an effective opposition to the Tories.
No one has ever given a credible reason why we should leave the EU, but I am quite clear than there
will be considerable cost to us if we do.0 -
Someone is confused.UK citizens are rushing to get dual citizenship in advance of the referendum on EU membership.
One more reason why we need an effective opposition to the Tories.
No one has ever given a credible reason why we should leave the EU, but I am quite clear than there
will be considerable cost to us if we do.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
BTW anyone know how many teaching unions there are? The one most outside of teaching and unionism know about is NUT, the loud teaching union who's most likely to strike.
4 that I know of, my sister deliberately avoided the NUT for this very reason (I think she's with the NLT but not certain).
I was with NALGO / UNISON. They were great at calling for strikes at least once a year and got the staff to boycott using their own cars for business use back in the early 90s because the top mileage rate (60 odd pence) that related to cars over 2 litres was being removed leaving a maximum of 48p per mile (bare in mind fuel was only around 48p a litre back then, people took their cars out at every opportunity to make money!). However, when their members needed help in '96 when Local Government was being re-organised they were no help whatsoever. They don't seem to have improved either - when my sister-in-law, who has disabilities, recently had to relocate from the main HQ to a sub-office with no sensible public transport links they failed to fight her case for a posting somehwere else that would be more accessible. On the other hand they did manage to negotiate reduced rate mortgages and insurance deals (which were still higher than available on the open market) and get us vouchers to use at various shops no-one ever used so well worth the membership!0 -
We are only on 45p per mile now in the private sector so I guess 48p back then was a fortune. Back then we got 40p per mile IIRC and IIRC I made a she load on one day's round trip out of that. I used to think of these days out as getting an extra week's pay per month if I had to do a long day trip with my car on just 40p per mile so 48p would have been sweet. Public sector for you!!!
Year before last I had to spend a bit of time in hospital with a family member, first at my local and then at a regional centre. The regional centre was in Liverpool and I can quite honestly say I have never seen a union noticeboard in any hospital other than that one in Liverpool. They had them all along the main corridor and on other floors too. Very, very active in there and TBH it was run badly too. I remember seeing a large -cockroach coming out of a ward, under the door, taking as look around then going back. I told a cleaning guy thinking they might want to know. He just asked if it was ward K by any chance, it was, and then told me about how they know about it but can;t do anything about it. When it gets really bad they'll send someone in to fumigate but until then they live with them!!!! In a hospital?!! Nothing to do with unions, sorry. Mind you he did say it was nothing to do with him, think he said it was not his job but someone else's. I think that sentiment of not caring about something work related just because it is not your job sometimes is a result of strong and active unionism where you do your job and not worry about anything else. Doubt he told anyone about the cockroach.0 -
UK citizens are rushing to get dual citizenship in advance of the referendum on EU membership.
are they?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Hold on, you can only get dual citizenship if you meet criteria such as parents and residency surely. How can anyone rush to dual citizenship if they are not eligible. Can I become British and German please? If you look deep enough I have some Germanic ancestry in me anyway, does that make me eligible?
Does anyone know if Alan is into UKIP by any chance? Nothing wrong if he is just it does sound a little UKIPy to me.0 -
Hold on, you can only get dual citizenship if you meet criteria such as parents and residency surely. How can anyone rush to dual citizenship if they are not eligible.
It means that they are eligible for citizenship under current rules, but want to get it quickly just in case Britain leaves the EU, in which case all of their rights will be up for re-negotiation. That's the situation my wife is in and she'll be applying for citizenship this year, to avoid any potential problems.0 -
which rules would change that meant they were no longer eligible for dual citizenship?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
which rules would change that meant they were no longer eligible for dual citizenship?
Dunno. That's just the problem, we don't want to wait and find out.0 -
Plenty of instances that it would have an effect.
Most immediate one for me would be my mother. She's a non-British EU resident in the UK - has been for 26 years - married to a Brit.
Currently only has the non-British passport. If Brexit occurs she would need to either get hold of a visa (faff and not guaranteed), or apply for duel nationality before the Brexit ours, else she'd be thrown out, despite 26 years of tax paying!0 -
Why would she be thrown out? There is a right of residency after so many years even if you do not get a British citizenship status. My Grandad was American and he had a right to stay that would not have been affected by any BREXIT I can not see how it would be that much different for r-EU countries. The right of residency is related to the length of the stay and I think the contribution too but as it was a long time ago I can not remember. He was here from the 50s and had all the same rights as a UK citizen as far as services except no right to vote all without giving up his US passport. The visa thing to get through europe was a bind back in the day before Schengen agreement but he coped.0
-
The issue with dual nationality may be with the other country. The UK is generally fine with it, but some countries frown on it.Ecrasez l’infame0
-
I am a league man... best form of rugby.
That is what's being discussed here?0
