Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Unions - ( ONS )

On 31 May 2015 at 12:07pm Paul Newman wrote:
Private sector Unionized workers - 2.6 million in 2013 (14.4%)- and this includes the RMT for example which is a monopoly with state licenses so it is outsourced state activity really .
Public sector 3.8 million (55.4 per cent )
Behind these figures are subtler changes .In 2010 60% of Trade union members are concentrated in education, public administration, defence and health and social services. This compared to less than a quarter of non-Union members.
In other words, when Trade Union leaders defend the interests of their members, the interests they are defending are increasingly those of educated public sector professionals
It is this group that we hear so much from in Lewes of course

Check it out here »
On 31 May 2015 at 12:17pm Yawn Again wrote:
Can't you find an audience on your own Website/Blog?
On 31 May 2015 at 12:33pm Old Bloke wrote:
Lewes is rife with the odd balls you describe as "educated public sector professionals"
Fair few of them spout on this forum
Wonderful thing Unions - formed and administered by fine men and women that fought and won a just and wonderful cause.
Shame so many of them have come to the stage where they are polluted and led by spiteful fools with an agenda led by their own politics rather than the interests of their members
On 31 May 2015 at 12:38pm Celine wrote:
Well to do people have always been v good at looking after their own interests. Look at the BMA, Law Society etc. 'Unions' in everything but name for the professional class. And the ruling class has a network built on public schools, inter-marriage, the city and socialising at Ascot, Glyndebourne and each others extensive piles. So what exactly is the problem when other sections of society try to protect their interests in the same manner?
On 31 May 2015 at 1:16pm Frak wrote:
Figures can be used to create whatever argument you want. Surely it says more about how private sector workers are discouraged from being part of a union as business owners don't want workers to have any rights or powers...
On 31 May 2015 at 1:22pm Paul Newman wrote:
I was responding to the factually incorrect figures quoted by Mark and sadly the thread was complete "Yawn"
I agree with you Old Bloke and the interesting thing is ( for those that remember ) that in the old days it was the Labour Party that was off with the fairies ( Foot , Benn ....eeeek) whilst some of the the Unions kept them more or less sane.
In those days the Unions had a wide variety of opinions and types of people in them. Now they are a much smaller homogeneous group which has given them almost complete control of the direction of the Labour Party.
They are going to put their boy Burnham in and whilst I should be pleased I rather like Liz Kendall

On 31 May 2015 at 3:17pm Anon wrote:
Well said Celine! The only difference between the Masons/Bullingdon/Oxford elite and a decent trade union is they a clandestine instead of publicly transparent.
On 31 May 2015 at 3:49pm bastian wrote:
Paul N, your sofistry is boring.
We are, as Celine says, rules by a bunch of posh thugs, who have been in control from thre middle ages onwards, and when the little people ask for help/ more/what ever, they are not only slapped down by the ruling elite (which in my mind shows fear of the little people) but by fawning t*ssers like yourself, who for what ever twisted reason, sees their divine right as more important than the working mans ability to live with in the means set for him by the ruling elite.
On 31 May 2015 at 3:57pm Sophistry wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 4:54pm Old Bloke wrote:
@Bastian - what a load of bollo**s
On 31 May 2015 at 5:07pm Signalman wrote:
@Bastian - what a refreshing response to the increasingly tedious Tory Boy P. Newman, who, until his fellow Tories won the general election had said he was leaving this forum. More broken promises eh Paul?
On 31 May 2015 at 8:08pm Paul wrote:
Well people in private sector should join unions then.
On 31 May 2015 at 10:28pm Belladonna wrote:
Some of us do !!
On 31 May 2015 at 10:40pm Paul Newman wrote:
Whatever... at the moment its rather interesting. Anyone watching would have noticed Burnham positioning himself as the leftish friend of the Unions for some time and , I would have said a tad more red than Ed if anything
Liz Kendall is a really interesting candidate and obviously the one with an idea of the sort of Party Labour has to be to win in England. She is the one who is facing the fact that moderate Conservatives ( like me ) have to vote Labour .
As she said , that is just a numerical fact
So will the Unions force Burnham through and sentence Labour to extinction or not ? We shall see
On 31 May 2015 at 10:58pm numerate wrote:
SQ said: "30% of their *gross salary*, leaving the rest (the 70%) as their spending money during their working life."
So, just to be clear, she claimed that police officers pay 30% of their gross salary into a pension pot to fund their retirement income. She even linked to a House of Commons file - or at least tried to link to one but rather ineptly failed to do so - that would prove her right. It did not.
The file she linked to stated that police officers (on the 1987 scheme) paid 31% of the total contributions to their pot - they most definitely do not pay 30% of their gross income as SQ ignorantly claimed. They paid 11% - a rather significant difference, I'm sure everybody would agree.
Maths and statistics - clearly not her strengths.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 8:28am numerate wrote:
*taps fingers on table*
*makes cup of coffee*
*does cryptic crossword*
Still waiting.
*gets settled down and comfortable*
This promises to be a very long wait.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 9:09am Southover Queen wrote:
I fully and unreservedly acknowledge that I got this wrong and am woefully innumerate. Sorry.

There you go. I do note that someone has started a spiteful new thread.

I shan't be responding to more of this stuff, mainly because innumerate though I may be I am not stupid. Please just go away.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 10:26am Landporter wrote:
Hahaha SQ, got it wrong, throws rattle out of pram Hahaha
On 1 Jun 2015 at 10:29am numerate wrote:
Good idea that you don't carry on. Wouldn't want to be coming out with any more howlers now, would you?
Stop whining just because you got caught out being extremely condescending to somebody you disagreed with.
Until you learn to debate civilly and actually take the time to check your own stats then perhaps it's best if you go away, no?
On 1 Jun 2015 at 3:30pm bastian wrote:
people make mistakes, there is no need to crusxify them on here. Let it go!
There are problems, and we can all see where they stem from, when any governemnt starts to supress the freedom of speech and action of its democtratic people, it is running scrared and then you have to ask WHY? What are they so scared of?
On 1 Jun 2015 at 4:05pm lewes resident wrote:
Quite right Bastian. Can you imagine living with one of these people? You would come home from Tesco's with semi-skinned instead of the full fat milk requested, and 3 months later they would still be prodding you with a stick about how ignorant and useless you were. I suspect a psychologist would have something to say about this mind set.

16 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Lewes centre of The Cosmos 64:132
Lewes centre of The Cosmos

I find your first remark utterly vile and if I were running this forum I would ban you. You are either using me to make... more
The great thing about the Lewes Forum is it's up to date and lively, you don't have to wait a month to get out of date news