> MarkBau1 wrote in message
> <1998040815301001.LAA05781@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Hopefully no self respecting unionist will not touch the train.
>
> Hmm - a double negative - "no self respecting" and "will not touch" - the
> negatives cancel each other out, and thereforea self-respecting unionist
> WOULD touch the train.
>
> Seriously, these wharfies were having themselves on - 5 weeks annual leave
> with 27.5% loading? And the money they were on! For the job they did? It was
> pathetic! 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.
>
> 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? The MUA are nothing more than gangsters, and
> needed to be brought into line!
>
I agree, it is about time the company took back some control of what they have.
It will teach the stirkers that they can't have everything there way. I'd love
to be on half of what they have and wouldn't argue.
-- Bye for now, Eben.