The planned strike on April 24th will go ahead as a tribute to SteveDoesn't that tell you all you need to know about the warped priorities of the NUT?
Sunday, April 06, 2008
No Respect to the NUT
The premature death of NUT leader yesterday was very sad indeed. But I could scarcely believe my ears when listening to the BBC news report of his demise which quoted an NUT official as saying...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
It really is Life on Mars with back to the 70's.
High oil prices, strikes, food inflation.
I wonder if the NUT Commies would like grave diggers to pay a similar tribute?
It's what he would have wanted.
I do think Bill Quango MP is probably right.
As for anonymous 12:33 car driving and aviation are still cheap, strikes are very very few indeed, food inflation is often rather illusory and made up for by ridiculous loss leaders and smart prices, throwbacks and the like, technology and clothes and budget furniture etc etc have never been cheaper.
If "real inflation" has been runnign at 2-3% more than quoted inflation for 11 years we would be one third worse off if pay had risen only with inflation.
That simply won't wash. Lazy and inaccurate. You've never had it so good.
This chap who's died -- what I want to know is, was he a good teacher?
"food inflation is often rather illusory"
I almost spluttered my coffee. Where the ... well, imagine that bit ... is Chris Paul living? It certainly isn't Britain, and I don't think it is on this planet.
I for one eat a fair amount of eggs and bread, partly because they are tasty, flexible and cheap. Both have risen by many times the "official" rate of inflation (CPI) in the last couple of years, eggs by nearly 50%. Cheese has also been going up, as have many vegetables (I admit some of those have come down, things like spinach and vine-ripened tomatoes not the staples). Meat I am not sure about, I only recently started cooking it regularly and am still happy to do without, but I understand feed prices have pushed costs up.
Of course my housing costs, transport costs and tax (for people like me not blessed by this vile government) have also inflated far faster than the CPI, so the only essential that hasn't is clothing (I count essentials as food, housing (including services), clothing, transport and tax).
The real rate of inflation - that of how much it actually costs to live, without all the fluff of consumer luxuries which are generally reducing in price, is far higher even than the RPI, let alone the CPI.
In fact my main luxury, beer, has also been put up in price deliberately by this government, with no rational justification.
I buy very little technology, furniture or even many clothes, so why do I care if these go down?
I am a third worse off than I would have been in this job ten years ago. In fact I was earning an equivalent salary nine years ago, and I was driving a car that cost me three times as much to buy as my current one (in fact £15 more than three times as much, so almost exactly) and was better off generally.
For Chris to say otherwise won't wash. It is lazy and inaccurate. Typical left-wing self-righteousness to claim that we are all better off, when only those of whom they approve are.
Oh, God, that's wonderful! Not even the French would have thought up that one pour faire en grève!
A 'tribute strike'. How sweet.
Iain, that was just plain disrespectful. Sinnott backed the strike, therefore it is a tribute to him to continue. I will never understand the Tory hatred for the unions - perhaps it's because they have about 8 million members to your 200,000? I think you'll find the trade union movement is the largest democratic grouping of any kind in the UK - so perhaps you should give them a little more respect. They represent a hell of a lot more people than you lot ever will. And while we're on this subject, surely you can see the vile hypocrisy in Tory criticisms of TU funding of Labour? Any union member has to decide to donate, and there's a ballot on political funds every 10 years - totally transparent, totally democratic. On the other hand, when a Tory businessman donates a million to the Tories, does he have to consult the workers who made that money for him? Do they get any say in how the profits they generated were used? Do they heck. TU money is the cleanest in politics; I say introduce an individual donations cap - the TU donations will still be fine, because they are tiny donations from millions of people. I can't think of any more democratic and just way of funding politics. The tories and liberals are just jealous that they have no popular base, that they don't have our proud history and principles of solidarity and collective action.
Why should they call off the strike just because someone has died?
That's not what Sinnott would have wanted at all. Surely they should honour the ideas and actions he worked for?
Sorry for the rant. Chris's comment was so smug I lost sight of the post.
"Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the warped priorities of the NUT?"
Yes, in remembering a teacher by refusing to teach children. Tells you about their perception of Mr Sinnott's priorities.
John,
What is disrespectful there? Why should respect someone we don't know, who has not earned our respect?
"Any union member has to decide to donate" is simply not true. In many unions they have to decide not to donate. A union is a collective, so it belongs to the members, as do any funds. A business is not owned by its workers, so why should it consult them on its use of money?
John @ 1.56 PM. You say, "I will never understand the Tory hatred for the unions."
Perhaps it's because we remember how, in the 1970s, they destroyed the Labour government and in the 1980s did their best to destroy the Tory government.
Or because we remember the workers at the de Havilland aircraft factory who went on strike during the battle of Britain;
Or the dockers who, in the run-up to D-day refused to handle Bill Deedes's landing craft because no 'rate for the job' had been agreed, with the result that the landing craft were damaged and British soldiers drowned;
Or Red Robbo and the thugs at British Leyland who brought the British motor industry to its knees;
Or the baggage handlers at Heathrow who fought tooth and nail against the introduction of CCTV and other measures to clamp down on their luggage-looting;
Or the ambulance drivers who went on strike leaving soldiers and their 'green goddesses' to handle emergencies - with catastrophic consequences for some of their patients;
Or the firemen who went on strike on the grounds that their pay rise was more important than saving lives and property;
Or ... (need I go on?)
Thanks, Trumpeter. I wasn't aware of some of those events.
Richard Dale said...
"In fact I was earning an equivalent salary nine years ago, and I was driving a car that cost me three times as much to buy as my current one (in fact £15 more than three times as much, so almost exactly) and was better off generally."
You must be doing something wrong then. Most people know that they are better off than they were 9 years ago.
Most of those things are clearly regrettable - but may I just remind you that without trade unions, there would be no Labour Party. There would therefore be no welfare state, no NHS, no redistribution, no element of human decency in our politics. You forget how incredibly successful this country was before Thatcher: in 1979, less than 10% of our children lived in poverty - equivalent to Sweden today. The lives that have been saved by trade unions' strivings for a more equal society far, far outweigh any lost due to misguided strike action. Were it not for the unions, we would live in a far less decent, less humane society. If only they had more power, we might live in an even better one! Every day, thousands of people have their injustices at work resolved by their unions; hundreds of lives a year are saved by unions pushing for better conditions of work. And I think you'd agree that British industry has of late been brought to its knees rather more by market forces and globalization than union action. And to Richard Dale, there's no difference between opting in and out - if you actually want to, you will do it. Workers have no such choice - obviously if they produce the wealth, it's wholly undemocratic for them to have no say in its dispensation. You cannot deny that fuding from Unions is far more democratic than that from business or individuals.
"They represent a hell of a lot more people than you lot ever will"
Union membership
"With member unions representing over six and a half million working people"
Conservative vote 2005
8,772,598
"Any union member has to decide to donate, and there's a ballot on political funds every 10 years - totally transparent"
Balls! Labour shop stewards are notorious for not telling new members they can opt out of paying the political levy.
Why would Plaid have to do this if that weren't the case.
Maybe the Conservatives should do likewise.
Trumpeter, another important strike was at Betteshanger Colliery in Kent where the miners went on strike in 1941-42.
I was a menmber of a Union.
No one asked if i wanted to donate to a political party. They just handed the money over.
Opting out is extremely difficult.
Further, when my union went on a long and public strike last year they received no help whtsoever from the Government, a Labour Government, and consequently the union had to give in . Despite which the union loudly and publicly claimed a victory.
All of the employers demands have now been met. Job losses are happening now and all the hated terms and conditions , changes to working practices and to individuals pensions are all now going ahead.
The pay deal was no better than what could have been agreed without a union.
What's the point of the union?
They achieved nothing
And this in a Postal union. The Postal services of which are OWNED by .. the government.
I am no longer a Union member not wishing to fund an organisation that unstintingly gives to a party that doesn't give a monkeys about the Union or its members.
We would be better off giving funds to Lib Dems or just holding a big lottery so there would at least be one winner amongst the rank and file.
The Labour Party is only interested in itself and big business.
Union leaders despite the fact many are good at what they do are just government puppets!
An ex-Union member and former labour Party member says
Vote them out.
At least you know the Tories won't help you and so you don't get that awful sense of being betrayed.
Well obviously anonymous. But they weren't too keen to pay out for membership, were they? Could that be because they actually have power to do valuable things for their members and are genuinely concerned about their welfare, rather than just seeing them as another vote to be manipulated and tricked into voting Tory? And remind me who won that election? Oh yes, the party backed by the unions. And if you've ever been a union member, it's clearly there on the form. And why shouldn't union members be encouraged to contribute to Labour - it's their party, it's supposed to defend them.
John - are you a spoof? All those things (NHS, welfare state etc) would have happened almost certainly without either labour or the TU movement. All major steps forward in public health and welfare before 1945 were bought about by Tories or Liberals.
And before you start having ago ... I'm the union rep in my workplace!
john @ 3.11 PM. You say, "Most of those things are clearly regrettable ..."
I think the phrase you are searching for is 'All those things were utterly contemptible.'
Strange, given your assertion that without trade unions, 'there would be no ... element of human decency in our politics.'
But I think I follow the general drift of your remarkably subtle argument: Labour good - Tories bad. (Four legs good - two legs bad.)
John - thanks for the morning's first laugh. without trade unions, there would be no Labour Party. There would therefore be no welfare state, no NHS, no redistribution, no element of human decency in our politics.
Was this written with a staight face. No NHS? You mean clean and sterile hospitals? Dutiful, kindly, clean, spruce nurses? Matrons? People responsible for their own medical costs? Well, it certainly works in other countries.
No redistribution of wealth. John, dear, explain why there should be a redistribution of wealth. Why should people who created wealth give it to people who couldn't be arsed? Children up to age 18, and OAPs, the truly incapacitated yes, because they truly cannot help themselves in today's competitive society.
But everyone in between is on their own. Work or starve. Who cares? Oddly enough, when the charity dries up, most will opt to find a job.
No, Tory businessmen don't consult "the workers" when deploying their corporate funds (or their personal funds, either), because this is done by the duly appointed board and the shareholders. Workers are always welcome to buy shares and get a ballot. Shareholding isn't a private club. Anyone can join in.
What are you doing on a right wing blog? Do you honestly believe you are going to convince anyone here that socialism/communism/communitarianism is a good, rather than a deeply evil, thing?
To the anonymous who believes the unions have been betrayed by Labour govt, I wholly agree with you. However, there are many Labour MPs who backed the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill, and though I am regularly disgusted by the New Labour tripe the leadership comes out with, I remain convinced that only Labour will ever embody the values I was raised on: do as you'd be done by, you are your brother's keeper etc - in short, decency and a better quality of human relationships. After all, that's all socialism is - so no need to be scared of it, Verity! Your comments exhibit a lack of compassion, care and decency that is sad to see in a fellow human being - though I imagine you're a moderate in the Tory party. I'm very proud of my Labour heritage, and Labour values, and nothing's going to change that. That doesn't mean I endorse much (or anything) of what the Labour govt does. As you can see from this Unison joining form, everything is clearly stated: http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B1016.pdf
Ah yes John. Pity the facts of today say otherwise about Labour's social democratic credentials. Never mind their "socialist" ones.
Enjoy.
"Most of those things are clearly regrettable - but may I just remind you that without trade unions, there would be no Labour Party. There would therefore be no welfare state, no NHS, no redistribution, no element of human decency in our politics."
Ah yes, because no other western state has been able to do that either without a symbiotic relationship between the party of the left and their trade unions.
Oh wait. They have. Unless all those other welfare states, public health services, redistribution and an "element of human decency" are a figment of my imagination?
In fact they not only seem to have good relations with their parties of the left but working ones with the centre and right parties when they are in government. Could that be because their parties of the left aren't leeching money of members who are kept ignorant of this fact? Or that the party of the left's members within those unions are deliberately creating conflict with councils and government's that don't fit their party prejudice? Funny how they go for industrial action when it's not the Labour party doing something in a council when they keep quiet when it's a Labour council?
And how about that welfare state? Wasn't it Germany that started that ball rolling...under BISMARK!!!
And wasn't it Campbell-Bannerman's Government that introduced pensions?
And the NHS? One of the first publicly provided models was in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas's NDP. In the UK it was a Liberal who proposed it and the Commonwealth party which pushed for it pre-1945. The Labour party only signed up to it shortly before the 45 election.
Ah. the myths of Labour and its abuse of workers so the pigs can sit at the table with the farmers.
The NUT - its hard to think of a good word to say about them.
Speaking on be'arf of the bruvvers, I mean to say, when push comes to shove, at the end of the day, any person's demise is a sad occasion.
Nar, I fink that the strike should go a'ead as planned, because at the end of the day, thass wot democracy is abart.
Iss people like our most-recently demised co-worker as aforementioned wot made this country great, after all. People like 'im, and the carntless others, whose selfless work in ejercating our kids, as inabled this democracy wot we are in.
In order to pay a respectability tribute to our fallen comrade and cotradeunion member, our bruvvers in the tube union will show solidarity by staging a 24-hour protest. I would expect that Britain's great workers like the firemen, postal workers, ambulance staff and civil servants will lend their weight and support to this unnecessary one day of action.
We 'ope that people what use Landan Undergrarnd will see that this dispute is in no way the fault of the membership, but management's 'eavy-'anded failure to negotiate in this newly-dreamt up non-dispute.
I yope our position is now clear, and as I said, at the end of the day, and when all's said and done, we in the union 'ave no blood on our 'ands, and will keep up the pressure on the management, until our comrade 'as bin laid to rest.
I'd like to pass a motion, bruvvers.
Hmmm. "Tribute" strikes. Could be a winner.
2008 General Strike, as a tribute to Gordon Brown's powers of leadership.
To the Scottish nationalist, I totally agree with you on the socialist point. However, a member of the SNP could surely never call themselves a socialist? After all, what could possibly more selfish and self-indulgent than abandoning the rest of Britain to perpetual Tory rule. Millions of people would suffer, but who cares, so long as you get to have your own flag and a your own country without us nasty English people. There's nothing socialist about that - socialists think about the welfare of others, not just their own.
Teachers have to be in unions because if a child makes up an allegation about a teacher then it is the union that will provide a paid solicitor to represent the teacher.
I am a member of the NASUWT. I don't agree with strikes and I would rather be in school teaching - anyway, we have to be in them.
John,
If millions of people would suffer under a Conservative government, why would they vote for them in the first place.
On the contrary, if voting Tory is a sign of being well off we should all pray that their vote goes up and up because it means we are on the right track, and who knows if we can eradicate Labour completely we will have truly reached a Socialist Utopia.
anon 2:58 pm
That is a ridiculous thing to say. What could I possibly be doing wrong that means that I can't buy as much with my pay that is nominally very similar to my pay nine years ago?
It is not true that people in my position - single people, no dependants, not sponging off the state - are better off than they were ten years ago. I do not work for the government or claim benefits.
I choose to work in a job that I really enjoy, that is productive to the UK economy and in fact an export earner, as well as helping the efficiency of British industry and incidentally helping the company pay huge taxes and duties while getting no help at all from the government (which gets more from my work than I do). Yet I am penalised by higher taxes and inflation in the essentials of life that I outlined, where most of my money is spent, in order to pay for people in redundant government employment.
The purchasing power of my take-home pay is lower than it was nine years ago, despite earning a very similar amount adjusted for CPI because I pay more tax and because the CPI is a ridiculous measure of inflation.
John
Surely you mean "millions of people would benefit"? After all more working class people improved their prospects in Thatcher's first decade than in any other decade before that. That is why the polls were so wrong in the 1992 election, they were using the 1981 census data as the 1991 data was not yet available.
This shows the paradox of socialism. It is not in the interest of Labour to help poor people. If they help them to look after themselves they are more likely to start voting Conservative, so Labour try hard to keep them in government servitude and pull more people down into the client state.
Verity, you may disparage the NHS but the vast majority of people in this country appreciate it enormously and are proud of it.
Better Angels - "In the UK it was a Liberal who proposed it and the Commonwealth party which pushed for it pre-1945. The Labour party only signed up to it shortly before the 45 election. - Ah. the myths of Labour "
Do you seriously believe we would have had a comprehensive NHS after the war under a Conservative government? No, it would have been just a token effort.
" ...more working class people improved their prospects in Thatcher's first decade than in any other decade before that."
The 'prospects' may have improved but the reality of the eventual outcome didn't live up to expectations.
Surely you mean "millions of people would benefit"?
Well, apart from the 3 million unemployed (the root of yobbery and social breakdown today), the threefold increase in child poverty and the huge increase in inequality that it. And then all the problems she made which we're dealing with today, like council housing shortages and the consequences of that inequality in terms of crime, unhappiness and ill health. More equal societies are happier, healthier and safer. Fact. Your idea that if Labour improved lives no-one would vote for them is nonsense. A more equal society benefits everyone, so more of all classes would vote for us.
Anon 6:06
That is not true. It is just something you made up on the spot.
However, it is also not relevant. Government cannot determine what we do with the opportunities presented to us. It cannot determine the outcome of our lives, unless it takes totalitarian control. Freedom includes the freedom to do less well than others.
Your comment shows the disgraceful, arrogant and patronising attitude of socialists to people, and especially to "their own", the working classes and unemployed. They have no trust that people can look after themselves, given reasonable prospects to do so.
Chris Paul, sometimes you write such outrageous falsehoods in such a patronising fashion that it is a real strain not to retort with utter contempt and derision. Somehow I always manage to persuade myself to delete my denunciations before posting them; probably for the best, as I wouldn't want to make you cry. Please though, for all our sakes, stop being such a downright baby all the time.
For that select breed of people who are paid by the taxpayer, don't eat bread & butter or drive a car, and have an obsession with electronic gadgets and cheap furniture, then indeed I'm sure they've 'never had it so good'. But those of us with a vague acquaintance with reality all know people who are struggling with the escalating cost of living, even if it does not affect us personally just yet.
Oh sorry, there was a point to this thread wasn't there? (Note to self: do not feed the troll!) Well I could not loathe the NUT any more that I do (unless Hazel Blears were heading it up), and it's about time we stopped having to hear about their conference every year, as though it were 'news'. And what exactly have the teaching unions done over the years to resist declining standards of education and the near-eradication of the concepts of competition or genuine merit?
Yes I suppose it's a shame this chap died, but we all have to go some time and it's usually a shame from somebody's perspective. Quite frankly to say 'we're going ahead with the strike as a tribute' is just as ridiculous as saying 'we're cancelling the strike as a tribute'; both utterly vacuous except for the fact that the former option leaves some children without teachers during the strike.
Incidentally I remember a teachers' strike in the mid-80s (I was too young to remember now precisely when it was) and the headmaster of my primary school announced at assembly that although all the teachers in the school (there were only 3) were Union members, we could not expect to be given a day off school for the forthcoming strike because the staff did not agree with disrupting our education to prove a point. Presumably there are still plenty of teachers who are nominally union members but still have a sensible bone in their bodies, so with any luck this 'tribute' will be damp squib it ought to be.
Trollymolly, the teaching Unions (all 4 or more of them!) do an enormous amount of lobbying to improve education, to re-focus it on teaching knowledge rather than 'to the test', to give teachers power to improve discipline, to give teachers freedom beyond the narrow boundaries of the NC, and to get rid of pointless testing and focus energy of children's welfare and learning. Just take a look at their websites; personally, I would have voted against this strike as I think there are more important issues in teaching to strike about, but the teaching unions really do want to improve education - they are not the stupid liberal hand-wringers you imagine.
Richard Dale, have yoy thought of emigrating?
John
Indeed they do. However they also campaign against true reform that would actually help the education of children, and in favour of trendy teaching practice that has harmed children. We need selection, we need private provision in the state system, with parental choice by voucher. We need the to be able to remove crap teachers more easily, and employ good ones even if they don't have the "approved" qualifications.
All of this is opposed by some teaching unions. They are opposed on political basis, regardless of the effect on children. The unions don't care about children - they want to run education for their members and to their political aims.
The trade unions were one of the most nasty, illiberal organisations in this country. The closed shop, an affront to freedom, was gladly abolished under the Tories and it was the Tories who democratised the unions often in the face of opposition from their leaders who wanted to concentrate power in their own hands and who looked upon union members as merely cannon fodder for strike action. Richard Cobden said the truth long ago when he proclaimed:
"Depend upon it, nothing can be got by fraternizing with trades unions. They are founded upon principles of brutal tyranny and monopoly. I would rather live under a Dey of Algiers than a Trades Committee."
"Brutal tyranny and monopoly"--that sums up the contribution trade unions have made to this country.
anon 9:38
Not a lot of use when the whole point is that I enjoy my job, that I couldn't legally do in any of the very few countries where the situation is better. If I wanted to earn more I could in a month, and live where I want. I just don't see why I should be driven out of my own country by idiots in government and fools like you.
Did you not see the point where i said that my job (which would be difficult for my employers to fill, considering our regulators insisted on me for the position) helps the UK economy and treasury? How does driving people like me out with high taxes and socialist principles help anyone?
John whines: "I remain convinced that only Labour will ever embody the values I was raised on ...".
Who the hell GAF about the values you were raised on, John?
Who cares about how your deluded parents brought you up? "... in short, decency and a better quality of human relationships."
Compared with what? Judged by whom? And who are you to be adjudicating on "human relationships", you impudent individual?
I find your belief system ignorant,angry and uppity. You socialists have been unable to debate for a hundred years now - ONE HUNDRED YEARS of deconstructing my country and my heritage - and yet you are still whining and snivelling around real people's ankles and peeing on the skirting board.
So you think 'do as you'd be done by' is deluded claptrap? It's only the basis of every religion, and arguably of human society itself, but hey, I guess Tories are the only people who don't agree. I fail to see how socialists have been destroying your heritage for 100 years, and it's our country as much as yours, surely? And decency compared with what? Compared with the kind of people who would gladly condemn millions to poverty, who would gladly destroy thousands of communities and lives, and who think the rich getting richer is the epitome of economic success - it's really not a hard standard to improve on. Do us a favour and buy a villa in Spain, and don't come back love.
John said...
"the trade union movement is the largest democratic grouping of any kind in the UK"
democratic - trade unions?
Ha ha ha ha.
Anonymous said...2:58 PM
"Most people know that they are better off than they were 9 years ago."
Utterly delusional leftoid syndrome.
Verity could be a pseudonym for a commenter of either (or is it correct now to say 'any'?,) gender.
Yet repeatedly personal attacks on this commenter, not attacks on the arguments but attempts at contemptous dismissal of the person, are couched in horrifyingly anti-woman terms.
'..don't come back love.' is the most recent from someone commenting as 'John', who has provided some remarkably ill-founded claims for the English and Scottish trade union movement and its founding myths.
Attack the argument not the person making it; and trade union apologists should remember that a great deal of the distaste for their 'movement' results from its masculinist aggression towards women.
Um, hatfield girl, I think you'll find the attack on me by Verity was rather more vicious than mine on her/him. I don't think the word love is gender-specific - certainly not in Somerset anyway!
So John Scotland must suffer Tory Governments it doesn't elect and New Labour ones it eventually rejects because we have to stand by the (Tory/New Labour voting) working man in England.
What about France? Russia? Mongolia? Botswana?
Just how are we going to help their working man? Or is it imposing policies on the oeople of England against their democratic wishes that you want?
Nothing about democracy? And nothing about learning from mistakes?
Just a "we know better" attitude despite what the people may prefer.
Post a Comment