>Seriously, these wharfies were having themselves on - 5 weeks annual
leave
>with 27.5% loading?
What's wrong with that? Shift workers get 5 weeks. 17.5% would hardly
make up for lost income whilst on holidays. I wish the PTU had some of
the balls the MUA has.
>And the money they were on! For the job they did? It was pathetic!
Don't believe all you read.
I am a unionist (and a union rep too!), but the "rights" enjoyed
>by the wharfies were way too extreme, and they needed to go, in the
>interests of the national economy and an efficient waterfront.
If you were my Union rep I'd be demanding you step down.
>Why should the union have a veto over who is employed? Such an issue is
one
>for management, not the union, yet the MUA had the right to say "Yes,
you
>can employ that person" or "No, you cannot employ him". Also, why
should the
>employer have to foot the bill for every new employee to attend a
half-day
>union orientation course?
PTU delegates start with a 3 day course, paid for by the employer. Then
there are more advanced courses. It's to teach them about industrial
issues and to learn negotiating etc.
> The MUA are nothing more than gangsters, and needed to be brought into
line!
reith and corrigan are the gangsters. They should be hauled before the
courts for their illegal actions.