Thatcher Dead

Thank you for your detailed reply. I havn't read that book by the way. Sorry I didn't include the previous post of yours, and not sure how to rectify it now.

It is clear now, why you have such anti Thatcher views. It must be particularly frustrating for you as such a Trade Unionist, with your family so much involved as well, to see Thatcher praised by so many, when she was responsible for destroying Trade Union power and frustrating the picketing efforts during the strike.

So, whilst I most definitely disagree with your views, I now have sympathy for why you have them.

I disagree with your view that the Communists were only trying to bring the end to capitalism, as they were also very active during the Labour years where the communist lead Unions caused the “winter of discontent” through 30 million strike days in one year. It was those events that lead to the Conservative win at the next election. Thereby replacing a Communist influenced and infiltrated Labour Government with a Conservative government. Your view just doesn’t make sense.

I also note your later comments on Communism and in a broad sense, I can agree with the ideals, but I think, and this has been subsequently proved, that it is just ideaiistic as it cannot work in a population that encompasses the entire spectrum of personality and character. There is no record of sustained success anywhere, and you will agree that where there was a degree of success it was on the back of secrecy, blocked communication and freedom, not to mention the slaughter of millions by their leaders – who of course would not have been without their privileged lifestyle.

I have no issue with The Communist Party, The Morning Star, etc trying to gain support for their politics. Use all democratic methods that other parties use, leaflets, knocking on doors, rallies, etc - that is fine with me. It was the subversive nature of how they were doing it that annoys me. They were, in my opinion, using and sacrificing the workers and, yes the miners, to try and force their ideals onto everybody else. You say capitalism is outdated, but even the most successful Communist regimes, have gone that way now, so maybe it is you that is outdated?

Whilst I can now understand why you have been so vitriolic, your personal involvement doesn’t mean that you have a monopoly on the truth of how things were or what happened. For example, you are implying that my golf partner is telling lies – and if you actually knew him, you wouldn’t be saying that. He was on the same side as you regarding events in the 80’s, and that is one of the reasons I know something about it as well, as we would regularly discuss the matter, involving many other involved individuals.

The Ridley Plan

This was drawn up in 1974 or 1975, well before Thatcher.. It was publically known as it was detailed in “The Economist” and was a plan on how an elected Government could prevent the Trade Unions from bringing them down, as had happened a couple of years earlier.

This is entirely sensible. It is the government that is democratically elected, and the population’s wishes should not be at risk to few Communist Union leaders who force strike action. The fact that, whilst the Government employed many of the Plans ideas, and that the Union didn’t change their tactics or hesitate in their desire to take on the government that was obviously going to be far better prepared, is the Unions fault.

If Scargill was so certain that Thatcher was going to try and break the Union, then he should have been more careful with his workers lives.

Every decent voter in the Country should have been comforted by the Ridley Plan. Which was basically about increasing stocks of coal, diversifying the energy supplies away from coal, reducing our dependence, and ensuring that such a strikeforce would have to be mostly funded by the Union that called the strike, rather than the innocent taxpayer. Yes, everybody should have a right to choose to strike, but why should every other tax payer pay for them? They also wanted to divide the Unions, by as they would obviously be less of a force. They also wanted to try and reduce the liklehood of the strikes being called against the workers wishes hence the balloting rules.

British miners, actually helped to build up a stockpile of coal through increased productivity when they were offered lucrative bonuses between 81 and 84. It was all out in the open. The UK government was prepared to take on the Unions.

The Ballots

The main problem in your Ballot figures is that you continually refer to me saying that the majority of miners were “against” the strike. I havn’t said that. I was careful in my choice of words when I said that the majority did not “feel strong enough” to vote for a strike. I used simple maths in my earlier posts, but you ignored them, and I’ll try again.

If there is a ballot of 10 miners and 2 voted to strike and 3 voted not to strike. Then 8 didn’t feel strong enough to vote for a strike, keeping the status quo, whilst 2 did feel strong enough, only 20%.

In Nottinghamshire, the second largest region, for example, only 16.6% voted to strike.

I didn’t say that the pollsters like Mori were Marxist, just that when these Poll results are spoken about by Marxist groups, and Unions, they ignore the fact that there may have been a low turn-out.

The Courts

The fact that Scargill didn’t do a national ballot was against the Union rules. It wasn’t the government that brought a “political” case to the courts. It was two aggrieved miners who wanted the right to work. The Courts decided on the basis of the Union breaking it’s own rules, rather than the new Law that was available.

So your facts are wrong. The fine was only £200,000 whilst the Union had at least £5m, so it was hardly going to break the Union, it was only when the Union refused to pay that there assets were seized. If they had complied with the law instead of trying to ignore it, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

You seem to ignore the fact that 000’s of miners didn't vote to strike, but due to an illegally called strike, their rights were taken away and were victims of horrendous violence and intimidation. You call them “scabs”, yet they were the ones in the right, both legally and morally. It was disgraceful. Most of the police action was taken to defend their right to work. Yes, they stopped vehicles, etc, but why shouldn’t they. Your mates were violently stopping law abiding miners from working. 1000’s of aggressive men onto 1 or 2 individuals.

NACODS

NACODS, decided that they wanted to settle with the Coal Board rather than strike. Your assumption that there were “dark forces” at work are ridiculous unless you have some proper evidence. Indeed, even Scargill doesn’t say that in his letter to The Guardian a few years ago. Your anger should be addressed to the NACODS leadership rather than Thatcher.

They decided that settlement was better than strike. Your bitterness doesn't hide that fact.

General Opinion

Whilst distributing your anger you could also consider the following;

• Kinnock, the Labour leader, felt that there should have been a national ballot and mostly blamed the pickets for the violence during the strike saying at the Labour Party Conference that the police were the “meat in the middle of the sandwich”.
• The TUC would not support the NUM
• Only one or two other unions, supported the Miners, including yours. You were part of a tiny minority that supported Scargill and his methods.
• The public did not support the miners. Various Polls rated their public approval between 33% and 25% but going as low as 7%. The public were so annoyed with Thatcher that they voted her back in - twice
• None of the National Newspapers were consistently behind the strike, not even the Mirror or Guardian. Only the Communist Morning Star was behind the strike.
• The Daily Mirror (not The Sun or Daily Mail) alleged that the Union was seeking finance from Libya. Whilst the NUM denied this they did not deny an official visit to Libya by Union officials.
• The NUM has not denied getting funding from various communist group and governments (not that I see much wrong with that, anyway, considering their motives were the same)

You do raise some compelling reasons why a striker should dislike Thatcher, particularly when they are not in full knowledge of the facts.

But the facts remain, that we will never know just how long the pits called have remained viable had Scargill not insisted on the impossible demand that pits could only close once completely exhausted. Yes, there was no doubt that uneconomic pits would have closed down, but in the event, the strike damaged many pits viability and yet more pits had closed in the 70’s than would do in the 80’s. This was a demonstration that the restrictive practices and inefficiencies. Miners cannot expect the tax payer to continue to pay fortunes to supplement their very high wages when they are inefficient – particularly when, due to the Unions in the first place, the UK was broke.

Even after privatisation, the owners were not able to make things viable with all the obstruction caused by the Unions.

Regarding “apartheid”.

Again you are being very selective.

The ANC was a communist backed organisation. The “terrorist” breakaway part of the ANC was formed in conjunction with the South African Communist Party. This is the group that Nelson Mandela joined. The rest of the ANC only wanted peaceful and non-violent methods to be used, in their struggle.

Mandela’s group preferred indiscriminate bombing in streets and bars. That doesn’t sound heroic to me. Yes, his demeanor and behaviour later in his life, deserves credit, but lets not pretend that bombing women and children people in the streets where the bombers live and go about their lives, is anything other than terrorism.

To suggest that the whites were an occupying force is a simplistic notion as the history of that region shows that all the tribes were fighting, invading each other for 00’s of years. It is actually very difficult to establish which land many tribes or peoples belong to. Almost all tribes were nomadic or had designs on invading other tribes territory. There are numerous examples of inter tribe fighting leading to 000’s of deaths.

It is also quite ironic that last year the ANC were instrumental in the shooting dead of around 50 miners (mostly in the back) and the injuring of some 74 more. It seems strange that you remain such an advocate of the ANC after such events. You support the ANC, even though they were behind shooting miners in the back, yet you criticise Thatcher for stopping vehicles that transported violent pickets. Very strange.

Thatcher was against Apartheid, but believed in dealing with it differently. To help explain, I am copying the part of the article that you linked to me. Strangely, you chose to ignore this bit in your post.

The British Ambassador (who should know) in SA at the time said;

“It seemed to her that the worst approach was to further isolate South Africa with sanctions, as isolation contributed to a siege mentality on the part of Afrikaners. She reacted with genuine indignation to any suggestion of racism,” Robin Renwick writes in “A Journey with Margaret Thatcher,” to be published this month in the UK.
“She regarded any racially based legislation as incompatible with her meritocratic vision of society. She saw the apartheid laws as inhuman and absurd, understanding that the people they alienated most were the black elite on which the future of the country would depend.
“She did, however, feel a good deal of sympathy for the white population of South Africa, whom she credited for the country's economic development,” says an excerpt of the book.
Former South African President FW de Klerk, the country’s last white leader and a joint Nobel peace prize winner with Mandela, has praised Thatcher’s role in supporting South Africa’s constitutional transformation from white rule.
“Although she was always a steadfast critic of apartheid, she had a much better grasp of the complexities and geo-strategic realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries,” de Klerk said in a statement, responding to news of Thatcher’s death.
“She consistently, and correctly, believed that much more could be achieved through constructive engagement with the South African government than through draconian sanctions and isolation.”
Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, a rival of the ANC, also posthumously praised his “dear friend” Thatcher.
“She was a voice of reason during apartheid and listened attentively to my plea against sanctions and economic disinvestment, which we both recognized would hurt the poorest of our people the most,” Buthelezi said.

So, even major black African leaders agreed with Thatchers approach.

As for the more recent comments from the Aussie left wing politician. He was in the Labour party and chose to make these allegations 1 day after Thatchers death, waiting until she was not around to defend herself. I am highly suspicious of such cowardly, and obviously politically driven, behaviour.

In summary, you were brought up and then worked for years in a pro Union environment. I understand your attitude, even though I don’t agree with it. I grew up with Labour voting parents, but was not subject to any indoctrination as you were. My opinions were formed initially due to the stupid restrictions that I saw as a teenager by the Unions at the Post Office ( a “moderate” Union) and then into my first career job that had to deal with the dockers. As I had no axe to grind, I could freely form my opinions with an open mind.

I hope I have covered your points. As you will know, it isn’t easy to answer such long posts fully.

 

And the award for thread with the longest posts goes to.....

 

It very difficult to argue a case when someone has experienced something personally, I have 4 close friends who are from mining towns, two hate thatcher and two say it is the best thing that happened as they ended up getting a far better jobs in better conditions and claim the miners bought it on themselves, I know two got very good payoffs, so that may be why they are happy, one of the two who hate thatcher actually votes Tory which I am surprised and one who has done well vote LIB Dem

 

Thatcher was the Hoofroyd of Prime Ministers.

 

Some great debate on here..... especially like Clive of the Kremlin

What is clear is that Mrs Thatcher was a strong leader who made decisions many of which caused a lot of a lot of grief and distress but at least she made them unlike our current crop of politicians who can't seem to make a decision about anything.

 

CotC: Could you please elaborate on how these two quotes fit together? It appears (from the quotes) that you believe the greatest PM of recent times was good because he was weak and scared? If this is the case I can see why you wouldn’t like Thatch.

 

1. Most of the line is electrified. There are some parts that aren't, such as the line from Crewe to Holyhead for example, and in cases such as these a diesel engine is used for that part of the journey. However, it's one diesel engine - not 300 lorry engines. There's no way transporting such loads via road rather than rail can be considered anything other than crazily inefficient, wasteful, disruptive, polluting and dangerous (although perhaps 'cheaper' under current economics). It's not just coal and newspapers that now go almos exclusively by road, unfortunately it's also the mail and the greater majority of parcel traffic.

2. Well I've explained my attitude towards scabs. I played for the Euston cricket team at that time and the captain, who was a signalman, scabbed during a strike. That was the end of the team. Nobody would play alongside him or even speak to him after that. We'd been good and quite close friends, but I never spoke to him again afterwards. He was a traitor and sold us out for a few stinking pounds. If he wanted money, we could have had a collection for him. He didn't need to scab. He cried and begged and apologised and said he 'thought he was leading everyone else back to work', but it cut no ice. As you say, these things continue for many years afterwards. Even after I'd left the railway, I went to someone's retirement party some years later and he was there and tried grovelling up to me and some others. We just turned our backs. He made his decision about who his real friends were at the time.

I remember there being a driver at Euston who'd scabbed once in the late 1940s. They wrote SCAB on his locker at work and it was always there. They painted over it loads of times, but it always reappeared straight away. Nobody would have anything to do with him whatsoever. He was ignored completely, even on the day he finally retired.

Not the union doing that or ordering it or anything, but the feelings of the men themselves. That's how we felt about treachorous scabs. Another law that was created by Thatcher at the time, made it illegal to expell scabs from the union, but we could still ban them from holding branch office. We took advantage of this by posting a big notice on the union notice board: "The following members have been banned from holding branch office:-" followed by their names, so everyone knew who they were.

We didn't ever assault anyone physically, or even stop anyone physically from crossing a picket line. I think the worst I can recall ever being done was during one strike when a scabby guard turned up on a scooter and rode full speed at the picket line so that we all had to jump out of the way for our lives. After he had taken his train out, it seems that some local vandals must have lifted his scooter up between them and carried it to and dumped it in the adjacent canal, although unfortunately none of us on the picket line witnessed anything.

You might not like these things or approve of them, but as I say, it wasn't ordered (or even suggested) by the union or anyone in power. It was just the strength of feeliing at the time.

 

I like this a lot! Admin - please could my user name be changed to Clive_ofthe_Kremlin?

I think that what even a democratically elected government does is subject to whether the establishment allows it or not. For example, Harold Wilson's govt in the 1960s was elected with a policy of closing all US bases in Britain. When he got into power, he was invited over to the White House and advised that if he were to close even a single base, Britain would suffer immediate economic destruction. "Your English Pound will be worth a cent" was I think the gist of the conversation.

So I believe Attlee's government did what it did, but that it was "allowed" to get away with it by the establishment who were extremely worried about communism spreading westwards in Europe.

If a radical socialist government were elected now (something of a stretch of imagination I know!) when such fears don't exist, I strongly believe the establishment would find a way of declaring them illegal, or staging a coup or some other way to not permit them to carry out their program.

 

So someone was mentally bullied and disadvantaged by his peers at work simply because he disagreed with other people's opinion.
Could the person in question have quit the trade union without losing his job? This continued for the rest of his life?

I find it interesting that that Thatcher is castigated for treating the trade unions this way, but it's exactly the same sort of behavior trade union members exhibit themselves.

Trade unions have their place in ensuring fair conditions for their members, but it's behavior like that that did for most of them in the end.

 

Absolutely :sign15:

 

this should be balloted by the forum members ( bruvs and sisiters) -feckin facist dictatorship -feckin canuting canut commies!

 

I suppose you could call it mentally bullying, but you can't force or legislate to make us remain pally with a scab. You'd surely agree that it's up to each individual who he chooses to socialise and be friendly with.

As for disadvantage, well the only disadvantage I can think of (apart from one case of a soggy scooter!) was being banned from holding branch office. Of course, this was just a notional thing anyway because you never saw any of them near a branch meeting anyway. It was just to identity them. In fact, rather than being at a disadvantage they were at an advantage because they got to claim full pay during a strike - normally for sitting around doing f all because there were no trains running anyway! Of course, they also got full benefit from all the pay rises and improvements in conditions won by the rest of us taking action.

There was a closed shop on the railways up until the early 80s, but that got declared illegal, so there was no requirement for them to be members after that time.

I often thought that there should be a union member's pay and conditions and a non-union member's pay and conditions. The non-members pay would be the accrued first offers from the employer, whilst the member's pay would be what was finally won through union negotiations and actions. So if the employer offered 0.5% rise, the non-member's pay would rise by that much. If 4% were eventually won, the member's pay would rise by that amount. Of course this would be compounded year on year. It seems only fair, since the non-member pays nothing by way of subs and takes part in none of the actions that win the higher pay rise.

Of course, this would mean that after a few years, the non-member's pay would probably be about half of the member's pay rate.

We could then see who wanted to be a union member and who didn't.

That seems perfectly fair and just to me.

 

What I find astonishing reading this post, is not what happened to the railwayman that wanted to work, as I knew that it happened, happens and often far worse. No, it is your sense of pride in what you did. It is behind my comprehension.

I think you ought to be totally ashamed of your bullying.

This is why these ballots are so important and the threshold must be changed for strike action. It seems utterly despicable that someone can be treated in this way for wanting to work along with the majority of the Unions membership, but then be treated in this way if the Union leaders either just ignore the rules and law, or the ballot turnout was so small a strike is called with no majority.

Having thought about this more over the past few days, the more low-life's that come out against Thatcher, the better, as it raises her image no end.

 

Well that's the way it was. As I said before, fortunately there's no law that can force you to be friendly with a stinking scab. I suppose they're free to socialise amongst themselves, but there were never more than half a dozen of them anyway. They decided who their real friends were and where their loyalties lie.

I'm not going to be friendly with a treacherous unpredictable scab. Who knows what they might do. They've proved conclusively that they've got no loyalty or principles. Once your back is turned, they might steal your wallet or try it on with your wife or anything. Not the sort of people you want around you socially.

To all those younger people reading this, you may not know but: YOU MUST NEVER CROSS A PICKET LINE!

They'll tell you "But technically this is an illegal strike" - NEVER CROSS A PICKET LINE.


They'll tell you "But technically these workers have no rights" - YOU MUST NEVER CROSS A PICKET LINE.

 

That's amazing, for the sake of one principle, every other principle is completely ignored.:doh:

 

pickets and scabs always reminds me of school kids picking their noses.

Maggie must have been great to arouse such passionate debate. BBB for PM!

 

I thik Clive has now gone back to trolling, whether he realised he was wrong a couple of posts ago and is now trolling to make it look like he was all along I don't know, but most people are able to make up their own minds, their loyalty probably lies with their opinions, their family, and their moral sense of right.

 

The following is what someone emailed me on one of those things, thought I would copy and paste it to see what people think (I did not write)



I THINK THIS MAN HAS IT ALL COVERED. I COULDN'T SPOT ANYTHING HE LEFT OUT.


"I am the Tory Party's Worst Nightmare. I am a White, Former Tax-Paying, God fearing British man. I was a hard working Brit and I worked long hours to earn a living.

I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don't push it on others. I believe in British products and buy them whenever I can.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and not to some governmental functionary, to share with others who don't work!

I think owning a home doesn't make you a capitalist; it makes you a smart Brit. I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it. Join in with the majority!

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, you should do it in English. I believe there should be no other language option. I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

I don't pity the poor, I just hate the way they are always moaning that they are hard done by!!


I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it. I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

This is BRITAIN .....We like it the way it is and even more so the way it was...so stop trying to change it to look like some other socialist country! If you were born or legally migrated here and don't like it... you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the House of Commons where MPs should have first have served time in business/acedemia before putting themselves up for election at minimum 30/35 years of age.

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what race, colour or creed you are. And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driving licence. I think it's good....


I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!

I believe the Union Jack flag should be allowed to be flown anywhere in the United Kingdom !

If this makes me a BAD Brit, then yes, I'm a BAD Brit. If you are a BAD Brit too, please forward this to everyone you know....

We want our country back! My Country.....

I hope this offends all illegal aliens.
Our sons and daughters watched & bled as their friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq . None of them died for the Afghanistan and Iraq Flag. Every Briton died for the British flag.

At one high school, foreign students raised a Middle East flag on a school flag pole. British students took it down. Guess who was expelled...the students who took it down.
West London high school students were sent home, because they wore T-shirts with the Union Jack flag printed on them.

What is going on?? What idiots do we have in authority?? Enough is enough.
This message needs to be viewed by every Brit; and every Briton needs to stand up for Britian. We've bent over to appease the Brit-haters long enough. I'm taking a stand.

I'm standing up because of the millions who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the British flag.

And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message. IT IS NOT !

Britons, stop giving away Your RIGHTS !

THIS IS OUR COUNTRY !

This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration !

YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:
1. Get a sponsor !
2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!
3. Live by OUR rules ! Dress as we Britons Do
4. Get a job !
5. Pay YOUR Taxes !
6. No Social Security until you have earned it and paid for it !
7. Find a place to lay your head !

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !

We've gone so far the other way... bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

WAKE UP BRITAIN ! ! !

If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp !

Made in BRITAIN & DAMN PROUD OF IT!!!!!"
AMEN"
[/I][/FONT][/FONT]

 

After what the soap dodgers did to the Sir Winston one during what ever they were standing up for (Rioting and looting) at the time then not a good idea!

 

What do I think? Shall we start with "it's quite clearly an email that used to have the word America everywhere it says Britain" and leave it there? Utter garbage.

 

Oh and Australia too:

 

Agreed


and comrade Clive, you've tipped the balance into trolldom now.

 

Clive I appreciate the honest answer.

I'll not say where I worked, but I used to be the local union rep for our little group. The staff of our UK wide company went on strike in the early 80's, and we picketed where I worked. After a couple of weeks one of the chaps went to work and crossed the picket line. He warned us he was going to do it as he had a young family, was the only breadwinner and had absolutely nothing to live on. He was a genuine bloke, someone we all liked, but when he crossed that line the attitudes of the older staff in our group switched completely.

The strike lasted another 3 weeks, and every day the older staff made his life hell as he came in to work, then they buggered off down the pub for the rest of the day.

When the strike was over, the union sent out memos about who crossed the lines, and asked me to make sure everyone knew locally. I didn't need to because the internal gossips did all the work, not that I would have anyway. The chap who crossed the picket line was never spoken to again by the same older staff members, and his life was made very difficult. It was outright bullying, pure and simple, and I made sure I took no part in it and treated the bloke as I always had, but it broke him eventually. I told the union to get someone else to be the local rep as I wanted no part of it anymore.

The die hard union blokes were the scumbags in that era. They were bullies, pure and simple. You did what they said or you suffered the consequences. Your story about the railway chap is appalling and very sad. The unions did more to damage the unions than Thatcher ever did. Secretly the vast majority of us were absolutely delighted when Thatcher smashed them over time, and I used to love seeing Scargill whining on TV every day on the news. Like all bullies, the unions ganged up and picked on Thatcher, and now she's dead the scumbags are having a field day, (easy to be a bully when your oppressor isn't about).

We've moved on thank god.

 

Ha ha! I wondered why I'd never heard of the case of the London students who wore union jack t-shirts. The reference to high school gave it away.

It's a bit rich for Australians to write that isn't it?

After all, they came to Australia and didn't dress like the Aborigines or learn their language.

I don't know why some people have said I am trolling. Because I said about never crossing a picket line?

I meant to be purely educational. Some younger people might not know that. They're certainly not going to know from reading the papers or watching TV.

It's important for them to know.

 

All this thread has taught me is that your name is not Clive and you're not from the Cassiobury. I feel my life is now a sham.

 

If he warned you he was going to cross the picket line, then it was up to you to talk him out of it. You should have explained to him what would happen subsequently. If he was short of money, then you should have arranged for him to get a loan, or raised a collection for him. He can't have been the only one who was the only breadwinner in his family and everyone else lost their wages while they were on strike - why should he be the one who was different?

You don't mention whether the strike was won or not or what it was over. If it was over wages, tell me, did this poor fella turn down the pay rise that was won? He had no right to it, since he scabbed and didn't undergo the same hardships as everyone else in order to win it, so morally he had absolutely no entitlement to it.

Why do you think you can specify who people must be friendly with? You can surely see how scabbing lets everyone else down. How it wrecks unity and undermines the cause. How those on strike think it completely unfair that one greedy person gets his full money, while everyone else has nothing. How it's viewed as treachery.

So this man crossed his mates picket line every day for three weeks. He left them standing outside in the cold on no pay, while he went in to draw his full wages. What did you expect to happen? Did you expect them to clap him on the back as he crosses the picket line and tell him what a jolly good chap he is?

Why do you think that afterwards they should pretend nothing has happened and carry on as before? Did you really expect them to go back to work afterwards and say "Alright Fred, how are you? Wow, tight for money this month, what with all the lost pay for the strike days. Still, spose you're alright though, eh, you cheeky young strikebreaker, you! Coming down the pub later? I'll buy you a pint!" You're not being realistic.

We're entitled to speak to who we want to and be friendly with who we want to. Let them go and be mates with the boss. They made their decision about where their loyalties lie.

I'm serious when I say that if a scab lets you down and stabs you in the back over something as serious as a strike, how can you possibly ever trust him again over anything else? Who knows what he'll let you down over next, or what pathetic reason he'll use to justify himself.

Why would you be friendly with someone like that?

 

I think it has a lot to do with how the strike was brought on. If the workforce was balloted and there was a clear majority of the workforce positively voting to strike, then I can understand some of what went on. But, if the strike was brought under false pretences , over something that the majority of the workforce believed to be too trivial to strike over, then the Union are to blame. If only 30% of the workforce positively voted to strike and 70% didn't, and a strike is still engineered, then it is the Union letting the 70% down. Even more so, if the Union rules were broken and/or the laws of the land were broken.

Indeed, if the Union truly believed that they were acting on behalf of their workforce, they should insist that strikes would only be possible if a majority of the workforce actually voted to strike. To do anything else, demonstrates that they are not acting on behalf of their members. After all it is the ordinary members that are paying for their leaders, subsidised homes and cars and £150,000 salaries.

 

Earn it? Striking to you is about "earning" a pay rise? If as a union you believe you are underpaid, surely that fact remains afterwards. How is him going to work greedy, and striking for a a bigger pay rise not greedy?

Why does it have to be with the boss or with your colleagues? This isnt the playground and being friends with the teachers. You sound like a child. Standing out in the cold? Lets remember who was the one putting the work in.

Maybe he has priorities outside of work more important than pandering to pleasing the union bosses and being popular? Were you bullied as a child?

 

I didn't mention earning a pay rise at all. Check again. I said "win" a pay rise. Hopefully if the strike is won, then you will not be underpaid afterwards. That's the whole point. To get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. By going to work and drawing his full wages whilst everyone else is losing theirs, yet still taking the pay rise that's won, it seems clear to me that that's pure greed. Obviously you have a different opinion.

I think I already explained quite fully why nobody who was decent and loyal to their mates would want to be friendly with a scab. The scab has shown where his loyalties lie. It's completely unrealistic to expect everything to carry on as normal afterwards. Sorry if loyalty, solidarity and trustworthiness seem like childish concepts to you. Judging by the state of society today, I believe that's the case with many people and we're all the worse off for it.

Certainly he most evidently and obviously has greater priorities than loyalty to his mates and work colleagues. Unless he was particularly stupid, he would have realised he was not going to make himself very popular by scabbing on them. It seems foolish to whinge about that lack of popularity afterwards.

I don't see the relevance of your 'bullied' question. The answer's no. Suffered plenty of attempted bullying by jumped up, self-important foremen and junior managers whilst fighting the good fight on other people's behalf ("I'll sack him and I'll sack you as well" etc.), but always managed to stand up for myself more than adequately thanks!

 

If anyone tried to tell me to strike I would go to work, even if I didn't want to. I'd even cross picket lines to do other people's jobs. Even without pay.

I'd arrange for truck loads of Poles to come over and keep the business going. I'd do whatever I could to undermine the position of the strikers.

If you don't like your work or conditions, then quit. Someone else will take your job.

 

How about if someone told you to go to work when you didn't want to?

What would you do then?