Planetarion Forums

ChubbyChecker · 15 May 2003, 16:58

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3029547.stm

Is it just me or does everybody think these guys are bunch of losers?

xtrasyn · 15 May 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3029547.stm

Is it just me or does everybody think these guys are bunch of losers?

SET FIRE TO THEIR HOMES

ChubbyChecker · 15 May 2003, 17:00

That wouldn't work, they're trained to put them out.

Unless they're striking of course....

xtrasyn · 15 May 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Unless they're striking of course....

That´s what I meant my man.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 17:02

I think whatever public receptiveness there was to them originally will have just about dried up by now.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 15 May 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker

Is it just me or does everybody think these guys are bunch of losers?

they're more important to society than you are, or ever will be.

xtrasyn · 15 May 2003, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
they're more important to society than you are, or ever will be.

What an utterly stupid thing to say.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 15 May 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by xtrasyn
What an utterly stupid thing to say.

indeed, but then so was the original comment.

Dilly_D · 15 May 2003, 17:19

aren't the fire folk already on strike in the UK?

ChubbyChecker · 15 May 2003, 17:24

They've been striking on and off for months now.

The government has actually offered them a pretty good deal already but since they are losers they haven't accepted it so will continue to strike until the government changes the law to make them agree to a worse deal than what they have actually already been offered.

losers

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 19:03

The government should fire (ho ho ho) them all, change the law to make firemen striking illegal, and hire new ones.

pablissimo · 15 May 2003, 19:08

The emergency services should never be allowed to go on strike.

I await flaming for my inconsistent policies.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
The government should fire (ho ho ho) them all, change the law to make firemen striking illegal, and hire new ones.

Why would you need to make striking illegal if they're all sacked?

Obviously I support the firemen in their efforts, as an aside.

Deffeh · 15 May 2003, 19:15

I think the army should be trained to be the firefighting force, like in France.

The whole FBU argument fell flat on its greedy face when the stats from france came out.

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Why would you need to make striking illegal if they're all sacked?

Obviously I support the firemen in their efforts, as an aside.

Because they put people's lives at risk, that's why.

We hired them and paid them to put out fires, which can kill us, and they refused.

As an aside, I don't like strikes. Or unions. Or Andy Gilchrist.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
The whole FBU argument fell flat on its greedy face when the stats from france came out.

I don't see how that works, tbh. So, the firefighters in France get paid less...so what? Are we holding France to be some kind of ultimate example of what's right in the world, and if so, why?

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Because they put people's lives at risk, that's why.

I'm still not getting this. You're saying we should sack all the firefighters. Fair enough. But why would you need to ban striking after they've all been sacked. What are they going to do, strike after they've been sacked?

Plus, I'd put it as a human right to withdraw your labour on a temporary basis if you feel the desire. There is an argument that their employers should be able to terminate their contract immediately if they strike, which I would listen to if other state restrictions on picketing (etc.) were withdrawn.

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm still not getting this. You're saying we should sack all the firefighters. Fair enough. But why would you need to ban striking after they've all been sacked. What are they going to do, strike after they've been sacked?

So the new ones can't strike.

I thought that was obvious. Sorry.

Gayle29uk · 15 May 2003, 19:25

Andy Gilchrist was interviewed on 5 Live last Sunday and he was complaining that the Labour party 'owed them' (his words) for all the support from the unions and now they 'expect something back' (his words again). No political party ever owes anyone anything for their support, that's basic to the democratic ideal and he just doesn't seem to get it.

I thought he was a tosser anyway but this just confirmed it.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
No political party ever owes anyone anything for their support, that's basic to the democratic ideal and he just doesn't seem to get it.

One of the key points about democracy is that people can put pressure on their representatives either at the ballot box or through supporting a political party.

"Owing" is a stupid term yes, and Mr Gilchrist was wrong to use it, but the general principal holds. If a constituency supports (either by voting or whatever) a political party and this political party then goes against the original spirit which they were embued with, then it's hardly surprising said constitutency is annoyed.

Having said that, anyone who supported the Labour Party for the last eighty years or so deserves everything they get.

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
One of the key points about democracy is that people can put pressure on their representatives either at the ballot box or through supporting a political party.

"Owing" is a stupid term yes, and Mr Gilchrist was wrong to use it, but the general principal holds. If a constituency supports (either by voting or whatever) a political party and this political party then goes against the original spirit which they were embued with, then it's hardly surprising said constitutency is annoyed.

Having said that, anyone who supported the Labour Party for the last eighty years or so deserves everything they get.

Surely government should be "for the people", rather than "for the people who elected us"?

The idea that the government could be acting in a particular way because one of their donors (which is essentially what the TUC is) wants them to act that way is disgusting.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 19:38

We don't 'owe' the FBU anything. If they want to to support the party, fine, but if they think that we're going to hand them a big bag with 'SWAG' on it to them, then they're mistaken.

I hate this notion that we should pander to every piddly little sectional intrest going. When you start to do that, you start to lose elections.

Does the party 'owe' me anything personally because I support it, and also pay the membership fee?

No. I wouldn't expect that anything, anyway. I support the party because I believe in it to deliver for everybody, not just for people that think they can donate their way to a chushy deal.

If The FBU can't see over their own conks and aren't willing to support a group effort then they can bugger off to Socialist Labour or some other monkey of a party for all I care.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Having said that, anyone who supported the Labour Party for the last eighty years or so deserves everything they get.

Most Communists in the west have merely spent the last eighty years arguing.

At least The Labour Movement got off it's arse and did something.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Surely government should be "for the people", rather than "for the people who elected us"?

Why? There are inevitably going to be disagreements over distribution of resources (and other matters) - why wouldn't supporters support the party that best suits their interests?

If for example, you voted for a party thinking you would get low taxes, and they increased them (without extentuating circumstances), wouldn't you be annoyed to an extent?

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
At least The Labour Movement got off it's arse and did something.

The Labour Party != Labour Movement.

Which is kinda the point here.

queball · 15 May 2003, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

If The FBU can't see over their own conks and aren't willing to support a group effort then they can bugger off to Socialist Labour or some other monkey of a party for all I care.

I looked up conk in a dictionary and it said nose, but what's this group effort you speak of? The union wants a fair deal. What they are "owed" is to be treated fairly and not screwed around by politicians. They are not asking for "swag", they have been let down by a political party that's given up its tradition and integrity etc.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Why? There are inevitably going to be disagreements over distribution of resources (and other matters) - why wouldn't supporters support the party that best suits their interests?

There's a difference between a party that suits your intrests, and then also expecting said party to hand over large quantities of cash to you when it gets in power, simply because you gave it some funds.

Considering some of these unions try to paint themselves as the ultimate uphoalders of Socialism, they have a bizzare and mean little attitude.

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Why? There are inevitably going to be disagreements over distribution of resources (and other matters) - why wouldn't supporters support the party that best suits their interests?

There is a difference between supporting a party that you think will do the best things for you and expecting that party to take your views into account more than anyone else's just because you supported them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If for example, you voted for a party thinking you would get low taxes, and they increased them (without extentuating circumstances), wouldn't you be annoyed to an extent?

Annoyed, maybe, but to think that the party "owes you" anything, or should have acted for your benefit rather than the country's benefit is stupid.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
The union wants a fair deal.

Fair on their terms, apparently.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
What they are "owed" is to be treated fairly and not screwed around by politicians.

Why are they owed any more, than say, what, say Bernie Eccelston was 'owed' when he gave the party a million?

You can't have it both ways.

I doubt half of these people have even done any bloody campaigning for the party, let alone anything else, either. Often the affiliation to the party is in name only.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
They are not asking for "swag", they have been let down by a political party that's given up its tradition and integrity etc.

Or, alternatively, it's gone for a more universal approach, instead of pandering to a ever decreasing and unrepresentative constituency.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Annoyed, maybe, but to think that the party "owes you" anything, or should have acted for your benefit rather than the country's benefit is stupid.

Well, I think perhaps the difference here is that the fireman don't actually think they are making outrageous demands, and don't think that by getting their pay rise it will bankrupt the country. You know, they're insane like that...

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Fair on their terms, apparently.

I think this could be said about any request ever. If I ask by boss for something, I'm quite obviously going to think it's fair "on my terms". This is fairly obvious.

MP's are paid a hell of a lot more than a fireman. I'm sure this is fair in their mind, and probably in yours too. But it ain't necessarily so....

LHC · 15 May 2003, 20:06

Surely they know what they are going to get paid before they start the job.

Proteus · 15 May 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Well, I think perhaps the difference here is that the fireman don't actually think they are making outrageous demands, and don't think that by getting their pay rise it will bankrupt the country. You know, they're insane like that...

Oh, so their demands are acceptable because they think they're acceptable? Of course they do - they involve them getting more money.

The firemen appear to be greedy public workers who demand a massive pay increase (just compare their pay with soldiers, for instance) simply because they can bring the country into chaos when they strike.

Maybe they are just being fooled into thinking they do actually deserve such a massive increase by Andy Gilchrist and his chums, and aren't actually malevolent, but I certainly don't think we should give them it.

queball · 15 May 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Fair on their terms, apparently.

Right, it tends to come down to what level of pay you think is appropriate. I'm not sure whether you are taking the "I believe the FBU's demands are ridiculous" line or the "the FBU shouldn't argue with the wise politicans" line.

Quote:

Why are they owed any more, than say, what, say Bernie Eccelston was 'owed' when he gave the party a million?

You can't have it both ways.

I doubt half of these people have even done any bloody campaigning for the party, let alone anything else, either.

You keep making this sound like backscratching. It isn't.
The FBU represents the interests of firefighters. If New Labour circumvent the union, they are saying that they know better than the union. It's painfully obvious they don't, but if you think the FBU are just trying to get their "swag", then maybe you don't see this.

Quote:

Or, alternatively, it's gone for a more universal approach, instead of pandering to a ever decreasing and unrepresentative constituency.

Both descriptions seem accurate.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think this could be said about any request ever. If I ask by boss for something, I'm quite obviously going to think it's fair "on my terms". This is fairly obvious.

Actually, no. I suppose it depends on definitions, really.

What I was alluding to, was their apparent inflexibility in the whole matter.

There's a difference between "your terms" and "your terms reconciled with reality and a bit of a willingness to be flexible."

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
MP's are paid a hell of a lot more than a fireman. I'm sure this is fair in their mind, and probably in yours too. But it ain't necessarily so....

Actually, the irony is that if their original pay demands had been met, then their incomes would actually have been only £26,000 behind MP's.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Right, it tends to come down to what level of pay you think is appropriate. I'm not sure whether you are taking the "I believe the FBU's demands are ridiculous" line or the "the FBU shouldn't argue with the wise politicans" line.

Neither, really.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
You keep making this sound like backscratching. It isn't.

The FBU represents the interests of firefighters. If New Labour circumvent the union, they are saying that they know better than the union.

So what? The Union is an interest group.

Are you suggesting that the government should acceed to the demands of every intrest group going, whenever they want something?

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
It's painfully obvious they don't, but if you think the FBU are just trying to get their "swag", then maybe you don't see this.

If their basis is that Labour 'owes' them something, then yes, they are.

If their basis is that they feel that they are being genuinely underpaid, then that's perfectly legitimate.

Although Mr Gilchrist apparently agrees with the former over the latter, if we are to go by his earlier statements.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Actually, the irony is that if their original pay demands had been met, then their incomes would actually have been only £26,000 behind MP's.

Only £26,000 huh?

(btw : I'm not sure why this is ironic)

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "reconciled with reality". The government quite clearly could pay the firefighters original demand. They chose not to. The Firefighters wish to withdraw their labour because of this.

OMG, they're evil bastards...

LHC · 15 May 2003, 20:19

They could pay for a car for me too. Doesn't mean I deserve it.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by LHC
They could pay for a car for me too. Doesn't mean I deserve it.

What does deserving mean?

JonnyBGood · 15 May 2003, 20:22

I told you those union things would only bring trouble, but did you listen? Nooooooo, you were all caught up in the big equality of opportunity thing. Be a patriot, oppose choice!

JonnyBGood · 15 May 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What does deserving mean?

Justice.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
(btw : I'm not sure why this is ironic)

You think you're underpaid, so you attempt to push you're salaries through the roof?

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "reconciled with reality". The government quite clearly could pay the firefighters original demand. They chose not to.

Reconciled with the reality that such an extortionate demand would not be agreed to by any government with sense, perhaps?

Sure, it could have paid them the money. But we're not living in a Socialist Workers state, however much The FBU would like one. This is my point.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Justice.

OK, in this context, with regards to pay, what does justice mean?

JonnyBGood · 15 May 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
OK, in this context, with regards to pay, what does justice mean?

They are paid according to the value of their work to others.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You think you're underpaid, so you attempt to push you're salaries through the roof?

Erm...what?

How is £26,000 less than an MP through the roof? Also, how the hell is asking for more money when you think you're underpaid ironic? Blood obvious behaviour I'd have thought...

Yes, we're not living in a Socialist Workers state. But what's that got to do with it? Various other people are paid that amount (there are numerous non-qualified, non-technical people in my office who earn approximately £40,000). If your point that manual labourers (whatever that means) could only earn that much in a Socialist state, then sure let's bring on socialism.

Dante Hicks · 15 May 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
They are paid according to the value of their work to others.

In state monopolies, how is this directly assessed?

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
They are paid according to the value of their work to others.

Who decides?

queball · 15 May 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
So what? The Union is an interest group.

Are you suggesting that the government should acceed to the demands of every intrest group going, whenever they want something?

That's rather general. If the interest group are experts on the service needed, and the government are experts on the budget, then they should negotiate accordingly. If the government can't meet the union's demands they should clearly state that. They should not tell the firefighters "hey guys, this is how much you're worth

". The problem is when the government go to war against their own people just because they want to look good or cut tax.

Quote:

If their basis is that Labour 'owes' them something, then yes, they are.

If their basis is that they feel that they are being genuinely underpaid, then that's perfectly legitimate.

Although Mr Gilchrist apparently agrees with the former over the latter, if we are to go by his earlier statements.

Did you watch the show Gayle mentioned? I didn't, but Gayle quotes seem rather selective, and hardly a basis for a discussion. I'd like to know exactly what he meant.

Marilyn Manson · 15 May 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
How is £26,000 less than an MP through the roof?

What, a thrirty percent increase in one go isn't just a slight attempt to throw caution to the wind?

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Also, how the hell is asking for more money when you think you're underpaid ironic? Blood obvious behaviour I'd have thought...

It's the amount that's important.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Yes, we're not living in a Socialist Workers state. But what's that got to do with it?

That you're not going to likely recieve extortinate pay rises from government?

JonnyBGood · 15 May 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
In state monopolies, how is this directly assessed?

By the government and by the people if necessary. Of course I'm relying on people making relatively intelligent judgements rather than mindlessly pursuing short-term gain. If they don't want to work they don't have to though. If the government doesn't want to pay them they don't have to work. In the end the individual decides.