FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > THE REAL COST OF OIL /FUEL ..
THE REAL COST OF OIL /FUEL ..
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"it costs money to run the country and pay for everything you take for granted as being free. If they didn't take it from fuel duty they would take it out of our pockets some other way. I hate the price of fuel as much as anyone (100 mile commute daily) but everything costs money. many people slag this country off, and yes it's not perfect, but it also is a good place to live. Would you rather live somewhere with no nhs, no social care, police who are constantly on the take and corruption ruling the country whilst lining their own pockets? And where our chosen way of life is met with beatings and stonings instead of raised eyebrows and a snigger? ok rant over" Hiya , good point ..,BUT that aint a solution , how long are they going to make Our Brave Troops , already fighting for the country on £16,000 a year drive these tankers ?, perhaps we should put everyones wages except bankers , on a £16,000 pa rate , just incase they decide to go on strike ...just a thought  | |||
| |||
"not quite sure what solution you are looking for here. Do you take away somebodies right to protest because of their job? Remember they are neither police or essential services. Or do you prevent a body of people from holding the country to ransom? If the problem is what the tanker drivers earn it is nothing to do with the government, if it is what the tanker drivers are capable of doing then the government have provided a solution. " The gouverment are the Problem , they need to put alternative means of energy and transport , before they bring the country to a complete standstill with the fuel price , the tanker drivers are not stupid , they know 90% of the country will back a strike .. even if it's right or wrong , if we dont sort the countries transport problems out the country as we know it will be in crisis , we are on the verge of a WATER SHORTAGE...wake UP ... | |||
"The wheels of the nation have to be kept turning and as much as we all hate the astronomical price of fuel I don't see any other way the govt can get us out of the mess our nation's finances are in by reducing fuel duty, and to keep that duty coming in the govt have to keep supply lines open - which means using the army during a strike. I wonder how many people would still castigate strikers who prevent fuel getting to the forecourts when holidays have to be cancelled for lack of fuel to get there." Umm because as the price of crude rises the income they get rises in proportion with tax on the oil producers/ company profits and VAT so they are already getting far more income than they envisaged when they came to power so adding additional fuel duty at this time is not necessary - it's just taking the piss  | |||
| |||
"not quite sure what solution you are looking for here. Do you take away somebodies right to protest because of their job? Remember they are neither police or essential services. Or do you prevent a body of people from holding the country to ransom? If the problem is what the tanker drivers earn it is nothing to do with the government, if it is what the tanker drivers are capable of doing then the government have provided a solution. The gouverment are the Problem , they need to put alternative means of energy and transport , before they bring the country to a complete standstill with the fuel price , the tanker drivers are not stupid , they know 90% of the country will back a strike .. even if it's right or wrong , if we dont sort the countries transport problems out the country as we know it will be in crisis , we are on the verge of a WATER SHORTAGE...wake UP ... "Were on the verge of a water shortage because the water companies in the south east filled in reservoirs and built houses on them to make a quick £. Yes we need new energy and fuel solutions but the government are hardly going to disrupt a very lucrative revenue stream are they? | |||
"not quite sure what solution you are looking for here. Do you take away somebodies right to protest because of their job? Remember they are neither police or essential services. Or do you prevent a body of people from holding the country to ransom? If the problem is what the tanker drivers earn it is nothing to do with the government, if it is what the tanker drivers are capable of doing then the government have provided a solution. The gouverment are the Problem , they need to put alternative means of energy and transport , before they bring the country to a complete standstill with the fuel price , the tanker drivers are not stupid , they know 90% of the country will back a strike .. even if it's right or wrong , if we dont sort the countries transport problems out the country as we know it will be in crisis , we are on the verge of a WATER SHORTAGE...wake UP ...
Were on the verge of a water shortage because the water companies in the south east filled in reservoirs and built houses on them to make a quick £.
Yes we need new energy and fuel solutions but the government are hardly going to disrupt a very lucrative revenue stream are they?"Good Answer , but market forces will very soon make them have to rethink the policy , you cant get blood out of a stone , everything is geared up by fuel price and transport , ie , if it dont arrive on time ,well these days it aint no good ,not my take on life but thats how the rat race as evolved us , my point is that we cant keep asking our Brave Troops to drag us out the shit that the unsuccessful goverments of the past place us in , The Water shortage WILL COST LIFES ... Tanker drivers will be in demand ...mark my words ..we are going to have to suffer for these so called Experts folly ..end of ..p.s. thanks for your imput ..i think i'm sober now ...lol  | |||
| |||
"alternate energy supplies are long term strategies. The whole world turns on oil not just the uk. Our reliance on oil is endemic, how many of us use biodiesel or electric or hydrogen cars? If WE bought into this technology earlier then things may be different, but we carried on relying on the oil companies so it is our own fault as much as anyone else's. Yes some technologies have been hidden and suppressed but they have always been out there, we just decided their proponents were crackpots. As for the water shortage, we have localised water shortages because of money. Thirty years ago a national pipe network was proposed for transporting water around the country but was shelved for being too expensive. Desalination plants are being built to harvest water from the sea, on a planet which is 70% water, and is the best water recycler imaginable, how the hell can we have a water shortage. I'm an in no way pro government but they cannot be blamed for problems which have been brewing for decades when they have been in control for a couple of years. And as for tax revenue, have you all forgotten how close we came to collapse a short while ago? Our international credit rating is under threat of dropping. As a country we are still in deep shit financially, but not as bad as southern ireland and greece. Capitalism is peaks and troughs, we have had the boom years now we have the troughs (helped by a system of greed within tne banking industry agreed) but we knew it was going to be painful getting out of it and it is." I'll say again all of the Above is correct ... now tell me why the Fcuking Toops are being fcuking ordered to drag us out the shit ???? | |||
| |||
"£45 k a year,must be a lot more in england my cuson makes £19 k before tax nat ,he delivers out of grangmouth.I seem to remember the miners strikes where coal was moved by other means to keep the power stations going ,why do tory goverments always see the only answer to industrial action is bring in the troops and starve people back to work,whats wrong with sorting it out round the table .instead of bringing in the troops and having police do the same .Tel me who hear if they had a dispute with there enployers about wages or conditions ,would be happy if there action or discutions were brought too a close by a outside influance .i dont think so " DITO.... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"it costs money to run the country and pay for everything you take for granted as being free. If they didn't take it from fuel duty they would take it out of our pockets some other way. I hate the price of fuel as much as anyone (100 mile commute daily) but everything costs money. many people slag this country off, and yes it's not perfect, but it also is a good place to live. Would you rather live somewhere with no nhs, no social care, police who are constantly on the take and corruption ruling the country whilst lining their own pockets? And where our chosen way of life is met with beatings and stonings instead of raised eyebrows and a snigger? ok rant over" The problem with fuel tax, is like VAT, its a regressive tax - ie it puts a greater burden (relative to income) on the poorest than the rich. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Fcuk Um ! i sorted my old bike out , fixed a puncture , and Me and Meg been Walkies /run .. she's fast on those pedals tho , i had a job running behind keeping up with her ... "try roller skates and a piece of string next time
Wolf
| |||
| |||
| |||
"unfortunately it is only the government who can call in the troops, not private employers, and they only do it to keep the country functioning. We do not live in a society where people dissapear at night becuase of their views. Each product has a value and if that price is too high then the product becomes unsellable and the producer will cease producing. The miners were egged on by a party who were determined, and so very nearly succeeded in bringing the government down. They were unfortunately no more than pawns, abused by their own union and slaughtered by a political party who were fighting for their existence. Thousands lost livelihoods but the union officials at the top, eg arthur scargill didn't do too badly. The men on the ground were encouraged into the wrong fight at the wrong time. It is because of how close the miners (read labour party) came to winning that the laws around striking were changed and subsequent governments have reacted so forcefully to strikes in sensitive professions or sectors " | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv" Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"How much should our troops earn an hour ..? "i couldnt put a price on it, but they should be getting way more than the pen pushing twats in the mod. | |||
| |||
"I say go for the strike. Something needs to be done. The gov. Don't listen to the voters or tax payees And the cost of fuel effects all of us in one way or. Another. The price of the food on your. Table is going up because the cost of getting it to the shops is going up. Ambulances fire engines and police get a reduced rate fuel price if they done the same for trucks then the costs for what we enjoy everyday would come down. It's time to be heard. "Would the price of Oxygen fall? Or the benefits go up? | |||
| |||
"How much should our troops earn an hour ..? " How much would YOU want or work for - just to be Shot at occasionally ??? These guys / gals - deserve better salaries than they get. .. the job is 24hrs a day and seven days and nights a week .. !! | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. " laughable for a start you cant just use any old driver have to have an ADR licence to drive tankers cost £700+ every five years to the driver not the company and ask yourself do you want a tanker filled with several tousand gallons of highley dangerous and explosive fuel being driven dangerousley to keep times through your town or village ? because thats what you will get if the drivers loose this . and just how much do they "DESERVE" to earn for driving a high explosive bomb on britains roads with the appalling driving standards shown by most car drivers let alone the high standards of safety they have to show during loading and unloading but hey there just being greedy and holding the country to ransome  | |||
"How much should our troops earn an hour ..? How much would YOU want or work for - just to be Shot at occasionally ??? These guys / gals - deserve better salaries than they get. .. the job is 24hrs a day and seven days and nights a week .. !! " i'm an ex Army royal engineer ,i've built bridges , drove oil tankers , water tankers , food trucks ,explosive filled trucks WHILST BEING FCUKING FIRED AT ..,for less than the minimum wage if you woek it out on hours on duty !! i find it an insult that this goverment is preparing to use our troops (some who are about to be made redundant , when they return from Afganistan )to drag them out the shit . because they cant be arsed to talk , strange how they are prepared to talk to the Taliban ??? | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. " i have not heard anything from either side, i drive trucks for a living and know tanker drivers. i also know drivers that are on nowhere NEAR £40k a year, yet have delivery bonuses and economy bonuses taken into account and even having to sign up to pay 10% of any damages incurred to vehicles/loads whilst in their care. where is your precious union there? exactly, they only care when they can fuck the rest of the country up and make a name for themselves. | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. laughable for a start you cant just use any old driver have to have an ADR licence to drive tankers cost £700+ every five years to the driver not the company and ask yourself do you want a tanker filled with several tousand gallons of highley dangerous and explosive fuel being driven dangerousley to keep times through your town or village ? because thats what you will get if the drivers loose this . and just how much do they "DESERVE" to earn for driving a high explosive bomb on britains roads with the appalling driving standards shown by most car drivers let alone the high standards of safety they have to show during loading and unloading but hey there just being greedy and holding the country to ransome "and have you seen the way tanker drivers drive? sorry, a tanker goes over its driver error almost EVERYTIME, they drive like loonies, with the most unstable and volotile load around. | |||
"How much should our troops earn an hour ..? "A soldier's salary is calculated to an hourly rate based upon 24/7/365. As members of the armed services they are on call at a moment's notice to go wherever they have to be sent, hence the 24-hour rate they are paid. With regards to Unite, there was a report out last week about the twat in charge of that union who has been jockeying for position within the Labour Party in a bid to wrest yet more power for himself. He is a first rate militant with his own agenda and these poor saps who deliver fuel have been sucked in by his rhetoric in much the same way Scargill fucked the miners way back when. It'll cost jobs and Unite will try and blame the govt somehow, but it should be remembered that this is a battle between Unite and the fuel companies, not Unite and the Govt. | |||
"How much should our troops earn an hour ..?
A soldier's salary is calculated to an hourly rate based upon 24/7/365. As members of the armed services they are on call at a moment's notice to go wherever they have to be sent, hence the 24-hour rate they are paid.
With regards to Unite, there was a report out last week about the twat in charge of that union who has been jockeying for position within the Labour Party in a bid to wrest yet more power for himself. He is a first rate militant with his own agenda and these poor saps who deliver fuel have been sucked in by his rhetoric in much the same way Scargill fucked the miners way back when. It'll cost jobs and Unite will try and blame the govt somehow, but it should be remembered that this is a battle between Unite and the fuel companies, not Unite and the Govt."BATTLE ..lol..wake up ,This is Dog eat Dog this aint no battle ... your gonna be lucky to get the scraps they throw you ... the gov are not in control .. in a month peeps will be dying in this country through a shortage of clean drinking water ...they have no fcuking idea how to run a raffle .. | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. i have not heard anything from either side, i drive trucks for a living and know tanker drivers. i also know drivers that are on nowhere NEAR £40k a year, yet have delivery bonuses and economy bonuses taken into account and even having to sign up to pay 10% of any damages incurred to vehicles/loads whilst in their care. where is your precious union there? exactly, they only care when they can fuck the rest of the country up and make a name for themselves." Are these other drivers you speak of in a union? because if they aren't then off course Unite wont give a flying fuck, they are there to look after there members not every Tom, Dick & Harry that happens to have a similar profession. From what ive heard the £40K is the exception not the rule and most earn much less, the companies are imposing ridiculous delivery targets that the drivers cant meet if they drive safely and carefully and they are linking this to pay as well as cutting training time down for new employees, so it has little to do with them getting increased pay. The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance | |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. i have not heard anything from either side, i drive trucks for a living and know tanker drivers. i also know drivers that are on nowhere NEAR £40k a year, yet have delivery bonuses and economy bonuses taken into account and even having to sign up to pay 10% of any damages incurred to vehicles/loads whilst in their care. where is your precious union there? exactly, they only care when they can fuck the rest of the country up and make a name for themselves. Are these other drivers you speak of in a union? because if they aren't then off course Unite wont give a flying fuck, they are there to look after there members not every Tom, Dick & Harry that happens to have a similar profession. From what ive heard the £40K is the exception not the rule and most earn much less, the companies are imposing ridiculous delivery targets that the drivers cant meet if they drive safely and carefully and they are linking this to pay as well as cutting training time down for new employees, so it has little to do with them getting increased pay. The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance" CORRECT .. | |||
"The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance" That's not the govt's job either. The services you mention have their own staff for purchasing fuel and getting it delivered, which often means the very drivers who will be striking will usually deliver it. If Unite won't let them then the govt are duty bound to arrange for an alternate delivery method while the dispute is ongoing. The govt is a customer after all, and if it's usual supplier can't meet the demand then it must look elsewhere for the fuel needed to run our ambulances, police cars, and, heaven forbid, the fire trucks you'll phone for if your house catches fire and your wife and children are caught upstairs. How would the government defend itself if it DIDN'T arrange for alternative fuel deliveries for the emergency services. | |||
"The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance That's not the govt's job either. The services you mention have their own staff for purchasing fuel and getting it delivered, which often means the very drivers who will be striking will usually deliver it. If Unite won't let them then the govt are duty bound to arrange for an alternate delivery method while the dispute is ongoing. The govt is a customer after all, and if it's usual supplier can't meet the demand then it must look elsewhere for the fuel needed to run our ambulances, police cars, and, heaven forbid, the fire trucks you'll phone for if your house catches fire and your wife and children are caught upstairs. How would the government defend itself if it DIDN'T arrange for alternative fuel deliveries for the emergency services." You've just answered your own point there, the government is bound by its own laws which include not bringing in outside workers to cover the jobs of those on strike. Its not looking else where for a supply its sending in its own drivers to pick up the fuel. Of course it can negotiate emergency supply's with Unite as it represents the NHS/Fire service/Police Service at the very least it can ask the two parties to come to an arrangement about emergency supplies. Yes it would be remiss of it not to make arrangements but that doesnt mean it has to go on full on strike busting mode. | |||
"The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance That's not the govt's job either. The services you mention have their own staff for purchasing fuel and getting it delivered, which often means the very drivers who will be striking will usually deliver it. If Unite won't let them then the govt are duty bound to arrange for an alternate delivery method while the dispute is ongoing. The govt is a customer after all, and if it's usual supplier can't meet the demand then it must look elsewhere for the fuel needed to run our ambulances, police cars, and, heaven forbid, the fire trucks you'll phone for if your house catches fire and your wife and children are caught upstairs. How would the government defend itself if it DIDN'T arrange for alternative fuel deliveries for the emergency services." o Lol.you just dont get it do you , they wont they cant , they are in denial like you , people are going to die if you dont let the people who are trained properly to do the job do it , i'm afraid ,you have been brainwashed too , these guys are not going on strike cos they want too, they are trying to draw attention to the downward spirol of the health and safety issues , you seem to be happy for any fcuker to drive these bombs around our streets ?are you Mad ??  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Lol.you just dont get it do you , they wont they cant , they are in denial like you , people are going to die if you dont let the people who are trained properly to do the job do it , i'm afraid ,you have been brainwashed too , these guys are not going on strike cos they want too, they are trying to draw attention to the downward spirol of the health and safety issues , you seem to be happy for any fcuker to drive these bombs around our streets ?are you Mad ?? "ooo gee, all them tanks n things the army has got. Does Doug the Tankerman with his hairy arse hanging out the back of his jeans pop along to Iraq to drop a few gallons off when it's needed. You ever heard of the Logistics Corp? Sheesh! | |||
"The govt isn't buying it's fuel from Unite. This strike isn't between the govt and Unite, and therefore the govt can use it's own personnel, ie the army, to get the fuel it needs when it needs it. But to cut you some slack, if the govt would be remiss not to make arrangements for fuel supplies to the emergency services but at the same time mustn't go on "full strike busting alert" - which hospitals, police stations, and fire stations should receive fuel during this strike? And on which days? How can the govt make that decision when all hospitals need fuel, all police cars need petrol and all fire engines have to answer an emegency no matter where it is." FFs ,Lol just cos they say they can .that dont make it happen .HELLO ??, let the people who know what they are doing ,do the job , and other jobs too, not the cheapest fcukers .. | |||
"is it against the law to bring in outside workers when your own workforce is on strike?" Yes ost definitely. | |||
"FFs ,Lol just cos they say they can .that dont make it happen .HELLO ??, let the people who know what they are doing ,do the job , and other jobs too, not the cheapest fcukers .. "The people who 'know what they are doing' know they won't be doing their jobs, hence why the govt are compelled to use public servants - the army - to do it for them. Are you being deliberately obtuse? | |||
"is it against the law to bring in outside workers when your own workforce is on strike? Yes ost definitely." No, it most definately is not. Where do you think the term 'blackleg' comes from? | |||
"The govt isn't buying it's fuel from Unite. This strike isn't between the govt and Unite, and therefore the govt can use it's own personnel, ie the army, to get the fuel it needs when it needs it. But to cut you some slack, if the govt would be remiss not to make arrangements for fuel supplies to the emergency services but at the same time mustn't go on "full strike busting alert" - which hospitals, police stations, and fire stations should receive fuel during this strike? And on which days? How can the govt make that decision when all hospitals need fuel, all police cars need petrol and all fire engines have to answer an emegency no matter where it is." Not if the people its buying it from also employ the drivers
So how is offering a limited service run by army drivers any different? The emergency services will have plans laid out for fuel shortages, they will have reserves its about making sure those reserves are topped up not about trying to carry on as usual, and yes unite would let the drivers deliver vital supplies, its called life and limb cover. | |||
"is it against the law to bring in outside workers when your own workforce is on strike? Yes ost definitely. No, it most definately is not. Where do you think the term 'blackleg' comes from?" As someone that has been on strike and helped organise one i can tell you the law is quite clear about using agency workers or staff from outside the organisation and the answer is that they cant. | |||
"Lol.you just dont get it do you , they wont they cant , they are in denial like you , people are going to die if you dont let the people who are trained properly to do the job do it , i'm afraid ,you have been brainwashed too , these guys are not going on strike cos they want too, they are trying to draw attention to the downward spirol of the health and safety issues , you seem to be happy for any fcuker to drive these bombs around our streets ?are you Mad ??
ooo gee, all them tanks n things the army has got. Does Doug the Tankerman with his hairy arse hanging out the back of his jeans pop along to Iraq to drop a few gallons off when it's needed.
You ever heard of the Logistics Corp?
Sheesh! "LOl. yeah i've been left out in the cold by the logistics corp more times than enoughj , the paper work to GET A FUEL PERMIT TAKES THEM A MONTH TO GET THROUGH , THEY ARE ON A BUDGET OF £300 PER MAN PER WEEK , NOT SURE WHAT THE FUEL BUDGET WOULD BE , BUT I'M GUESSING AFTER THEY SEND IN ALL THE MOD PEN PUSHERS ON £35,000 A YEAR TO SIGN FOR ALL THE DOCKETS , AND HOT AND COLD WORK PERMITS , ,THE CLEAN UP BILLS ON THE PETROL STATION FORECOURTS , I COULD GO ON ,BUT YOUR JUST NOT WORTH THE EFFORT ...  | |||
| |||
"not read the whole thread, but the strike is all about wages, NOT about the cost of fuel. what boils my piss is Unite are pulling the tanker drivers out on strike, because they want (not deserve i might add) more than the £40/40k a year they already get, yet Unite wont pull drivers out of other places on strike, that are getting just over half that, and why? because pulling drivers out of, say, Stobarts on strike, other companies would just take up the slack and it wouldnt have an impact. suprise suprise, the rest of us suffer because of a very small amount of greedy bastids. athough, saying that, once again it costs to work, and is £600+ to get a licence to drive a petrol tanker, on top of the £3k you have already paid for your hgv Actually if you saw the interviews with the tanker drivers themselves on the news this afternoon you will have seen it's not all about increased wages at all.... Some companies that are hauling the fuel tankers are penalising drivers on a regular basis by dropping the hourly rate by up to 20% and converting that money into performance bonuses, which they then take away at the drop of a hat for the most ridiculous of reasons. £15 lost from their bonus everytime they don't make a delivery on time....regardless of traffic or weather.....just one example. So don't be so hasty in hearing just one side of the story....as it's often not as simple as the government or the bosses make out. i have not heard anything from either side, i drive trucks for a living and know tanker drivers. i also know drivers that are on nowhere NEAR £40k a year, yet have delivery bonuses and economy bonuses taken into account and even having to sign up to pay 10% of any damages incurred to vehicles/loads whilst in their care. where is your precious union there? exactly, they only care when they can fuck the rest of the country up and make a name for themselves. Are these other drivers you speak of in a union? because if they aren't then off course Unite wont give a flying fuck, they are there to look after there members not every Tom, Dick & Harry that happens to have a similar profession. From what ive heard the £40K is the exception not the rule and most earn much less, the companies are imposing ridiculous delivery targets that the drivers cant meet if they drive safely and carefully and they are linking this to pay as well as cutting training time down for new employees, so it has little to do with them getting increased pay. The government shouldn't be using the army to deliver fuel, that's not there job. It should be negotiating with the drivers to still deliver crucial supplies for Police/Fire/Ambulance" yes, excession, i work shoulder to shoulder with union drivers and they are only of any use if you have a grievience NOT to sort out a decent living wage for themselves, imo. | |||
"Hold on a sec here. Which organisation? This dispute is between Unite and the petrol companies. All the govt are doing is ensuring that the the garages are kept open, which they have every right to do to keep this economy moving. If the country stops because 2,000 tanker drivers down tools then that's going to have a colossal impact on the economy - and McCluskey knows it. He wants to bring down the govt the same way Scargill did, and he's using the petrol tanker drivers to take a shot at it. Only 77% of tanker drivers voted in the ballot, and of those only 69% voted in favour of it. That's 1062 out of 2,000 voted for this action. Just over 50%." No the government is supplying drivers to replace those on strike. Which is on dodgy legal footing if the company which is selling the petrol is the one employing the drivers. If its not then its a bit of a different question. Dont be absurd, this is an argument thats been going on for well over a year, it was brewing even before the last general election. If he wanted to do a Scargill he'd have to pull out more than a few thousand tanker drivers. if this was an election getting 51% of the vote would be seen as a massive win and a 77% turnout as a resounding success. It is in fact more than our current government got. | |||
"excession, i work shoulder to shoulder with union drivers and they are only of any use if you have a grievience NOT to sort out a decent living wage for themselves, imo." What exactly does that mean? | |||
| |||
"excession, i work shoulder to shoulder with union drivers and they are only of any use if you have a grievience NOT to sort out a decent living wage for themselves, imo. What exactly does that mean?" what i say. unite are only in it for the biggest amount of publicity they can get. anyone working in an industry that wont get you on the front of the dailies, they aint interested, FULL STOP!!! i have been with them in 2 seperate places, and both times went out on strike with my 'union brothers' and both times we were called out on strike just AFTER work dropped, so the management werent bothered, whilst we, the workers, were losing money. where were the area reps from unite? standing shoulder to shoulder with those that pay them? not at all. didnt see them for dust. and its the same now. i know drivers that are treated badly and they get represented at tribunals and so on, fair enough, do a decent job there, but getting decent wages for people that wont get you publicity? you havent a chance! | |||
"excession, i work shoulder to shoulder with union drivers and they are only of any use if you have a grievience NOT to sort out a decent living wage for themselves, imo. What exactly does that mean? what i say. unite are only in it for the biggest amount of publicity they can get. anyone working in an industry that wont get you on the front of the dailies, they aint interested, FULL STOP!!! i have been with them in 2 seperate places, and both times went out on strike with my 'union brothers' and both times we were called out on strike just AFTER work dropped, so the management werent bothered, whilst we, the workers, were losing money. where were the area reps from unite? standing shoulder to shoulder with those that pay them? not at all. didnt see them for dust. and its the same now. i know drivers that are treated badly and they get represented at tribunals and so on, fair enough, do a decent job there, but getting decent wages for people that wont get you publicity? you havent a chance!" Ah i get what you mean now. I cant comment on the internal workings of Unite, its not the one im in but i can safely say id be id be contacting my local branch complaining if the one i was in was messing me about! | |||
"Hold on a sec here. Which organisation? This dispute is between Unite and the petrol companies. All the govt are doing is ensuring that the the garages are kept open, which they have every right to do to keep this economy moving. If the country stops because 2,000 tanker drivers down tools then that's going to have a colossal impact on the economy - and McCluskey knows it. He wants to bring down the govt the same way Scargill did, and he's using the petrol tanker drivers to take a shot at it. Only 77% of tanker drivers voted in the ballot, and of those only 69% voted in favour of it. That's 1062 out of 2,000 voted for this action. Just over 50%. No the government is supplying drivers to replace those on strike. Which is on dodgy legal footing if the company which is selling the petrol is the one employing the drivers. If its not then its a bit of a different question. Dont be absurd, this is an argument thats been going on for well over a year, it was brewing even before the last general election. If he wanted to do a Scargill he'd have to pull out more than a few thousand tanker drivers. if this was an election getting 51% of the vote would be seen as a massive win and a 77% turnout as a resounding success. It is in fact more than our current government got." There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%. | |||
"Dont be absurd, this is an argument thats been going on for well over a year, it was brewing even before the last general election. If he wanted to do a Scargill he'd have to pull out more than a few thousand tanker drivers. " Lem McCluskey is 62 years old and he knows that his useful(less?) working life is almost at an end. He's a known rabble rouser and he sees this as his last ditch attempt to go out in a blaze of glory. He's well aware of the widespread disruption the fuel protests brought in 2000 and back then there was a lot more support for it. This time, however, he's pulling drivers out on some hair-brained Health & Safety ticket when he knows that Hoyer, one of the comapnies involved in the dispute said Unite had walked away from discussions designed to settle the dispute. Red Len's agenda is quite clear to anyone with half a brain cell. | |||
"Hold on a sec here. Which organisation? This dispute is between Unite and the petrol companies. All the govt are doing is ensuring that the the garages are kept open, which they have every right to do to keep this economy moving. If the country stops because 2,000 tanker drivers down tools then that's going to have a colossal impact on the economy - and McCluskey knows it. He wants to bring down the govt the same way Scargill did, and he's using the petrol tanker drivers to take a shot at it. Only 77% of tanker drivers voted in the ballot, and of those only 69% voted in favour of it. That's 1062 out of 2,000 voted for this action. Just over 50%. No the government is supplying drivers to replace those on strike. Which is on dodgy legal footing if the company which is selling the petrol is the one employing the drivers. If its not then its a bit of a different question. Dont be absurd, this is an argument thats been going on for well over a year, it was brewing even before the last general election. If he wanted to do a Scargill he'd have to pull out more than a few thousand tanker drivers. if this was an election getting 51% of the vote would be seen as a massive win and a 77% turnout as a resounding success. It is in fact more than our current government got. There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%." And your point? So the 5 going on strike had a yes vote above 50% | |||
"Dont be absurd, this is an argument thats been going on for well over a year, it was brewing even before the last general election. If he wanted to do a Scargill he'd have to pull out more than a few thousand tanker drivers. Lem McCluskey is 62 years old and he knows that his useful(less?) working life is almost at an end. He's a known rabble rouser and he sees this as his last ditch attempt to go out in a blaze of glory. He's well aware of the widespread disruption the fuel protests brought in 2000 and back then there was a lot more support for it. This time, however, he's pulling drivers out on some hair-brained Health & Safety ticket when he knows that Hoyer, one of the comapnies involved in the dispute said Unite had walked away from discussions designed to settle the dispute. Red Len's agenda is quite clear to anyone with half a brain cell." I think your reading into this far too much and of course Hoyer are going to say that, there hardly going to sit there and say that they don't give a toss and the drivers should be grateful for a job and that they refuse to negotiate. It might be that Hoyer are one of the depots not on strike. | |||
" There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%. And your point? So the 5 going on strike had a yes vote above 50%" Ah right, so in an industrial ballot you can conveniently ignore those that don't support an action yes? 2,000 drivers were balloted, 77% of them answered it, 69% of those were in the five depots that voted in favour of the strike. That's less than 50% of the original 2,000 if my maths is correct. Unless, of course, the other two depots only had a couple of workers in them, but because we don't know how many were in each depot, for the sake of argument, let's split it equally, and the maths works out thus: 2000 / 77% = 1540 (total turnout) 2000 / 7 = 286 (No. per depot) 286 * 5 = 1428 (number of those in in the five depots that voted for it) 1428 / 69% = 985 (number of those who voted in favour) 2,000 / 985 = 49.25% (less than half of those originally balloted, (a no-vote still counts as a vote for No)) | |||
" There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%. And your point? So the 5 going on strike had a yes vote above 50% Ah right, so in an industrial ballot you can conveniently ignore those that don't support an action yes? 2,000 drivers were balloted, 77% of them answered it, 69% of those were in the five depots that voted in favour of the strike. That's less than 50% of the original 2,000 if my maths is correct. Unless, of course, the other two depots only had a couple of workers in them, but because we don't know how many were in each depot, for the sake of argument, let's split it equally, and the maths works out thus: 2000 / 77% = 1540 (total turnout) 2000 / 7 = 286 (No. per depot) 286 * 5 = 1428 (number of those in in the five depots that voted for it) 1428 / 69% = 985 (number of those who voted in favour) 2,000 / 985 = 49.25% (less than half of those originally balloted, (a no-vote still counts as a vote for No))" Ok you win , send the troops in ...  | |||
" There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%. And your point? So the 5 going on strike had a yes vote above 50% Ah right, so in an industrial ballot you can conveniently ignore those that don't support an action yes? 2,000 drivers were balloted, 77% of them answered it, 69% of those were in the five depots that voted in favour of the strike. That's less than 50% of the original 2,000 if my maths is correct. Unless, of course, the other two depots only had a couple of workers in them, but because we don't know how many were in each depot, for the sake of argument, let's split it equally, and the maths works out thus: 2000 / 77% = 1540 (total turnout) 2000 / 7 = 286 (No. per depot) 286 * 5 = 1428 (number of those in in the five depots that voted for it) 1428 / 69% = 985 (number of those who voted in favour) 2,000 / 985 = 49.25% (less than half of those originally balloted, (a no-vote still counts as a vote for No))" No usually you cannot but in this case as each depot is being balloted separately ie if they dont vote for action they dont strike then yes you can ignore the two that arent striking so on average of those who are striking 69% of the 77% that responded said yes. | |||
" There are 7 depots involved in the dispute, only 5 of which voted in favour of striking, and I misread the figures; it was in fact 69% those balloted of the five depots that voted in favour, so that's less than 50%. And your point? So the 5 going on strike had a yes vote above 50% Ah right, so in an industrial ballot you can conveniently ignore those that don't support an action yes? 2,000 drivers were balloted, 77% of them answered it, 69% of those were in the five depots that voted in favour of the strike. That's less than 50% of the original 2,000 if my maths is correct. Unless, of course, the other two depots only had a couple of workers in them, but because we don't know how many were in each depot, for the sake of argument, let's split it equally, and the maths works out thus: 2000 / 77% = 1540 (total turnout) 2000 / 7 = 286 (No. per depot) 286 * 5 = 1428 (number of those in in the five depots that voted for it) 1428 / 69% = 985 (number of those who voted in favour) 2,000 / 985 = 49.25% (less than half of those originally balloted, (a no-vote still counts as a vote for No))" oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. If only 49% of people voted in an election you wouldn't say 51% of people voted for no government | |||
| |||
"off topic slightly but why would an MP spend a fortune to get elected into a 60k a year job? the houses of parliment have a subsidised barber , tailor , bar , cafe , resturant to name a few. why they are sat there deciding where they should deploy some mothers son , they are having roast pheasant with all the trimmings as part of a 5 course dinner for nearly 4 quid. well tax has to be spent somewhere " i dont think they are in it for free hair cuts and roast dinners haha, | |||
"off topic slightly but why would an MP spend a fortune to get elected into a 60k a year job? the houses of parliment have a subsidised barber , tailor , bar , cafe , resturant to name a few. why they are sat there deciding where they should deploy some mothers son , they are having roast pheasant with all the trimmings as part of a 5 course dinner for nearly 4 quid. well tax has to be spent somewhere i dont think they are in it for free hair cuts and roast dinners haha, " "The hair cuts are a bit naff but these roast potatoes remind me why i became an MP" :p | |||
| |||
"Slightly off thread also but surely strikes should have been finished in the 80s. So if we get a bit pissed off or not get a 10% pay rise which no one can afford we all go on strike? Who do you think actually pays to put the situation right? Yup us tax payers. Unite are threatening to upset the Olympics also, i dont understand why anyone would try and screw that up as its cost us fortunes and we need a return through tourists.Times are hard and i do understand people that are not happy with there pay but times are very hard, by striking you wont get support you will get 65 million people very very pissed off with you!" And why would the tax payers pay in this case? Its a dispute with a private company! True the man was a plonker forgetting drawn in by some very leading questions about the Olympics. | |||
| |||
"Err who pays for the Army drivers and there overtime???" The government, who would be paying them anyway | |||
| |||
"Not the overtime , the government dont pay the forces, we pay the government through taxes, vat, and every other tax known to man. So in essence we pay people to cover others." Which is again why they shouldn't be using them to cover. | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote." But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite. | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite." Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite. Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade "Are you on medication or something?  | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite. Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade
Are you on medication or something? "this is your last chance you are determained to slag individuals off , i would remind you that this is my thread ,please do not slag , name names on here , i would be very gratful if you did not comment further on here again , you are really not on the same planet ,thanks bye | |||
| |||
| |||
"Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade
Are you on medication or something? this is your last chance you are determained to slag individuals off , i would remind you that this is my thread ,please do not slag , name names on here , i would be very gratful if you did not comment further on here again , you are really not on the same planet ,thanks bye "Can some please explain to this individual about ownership rights of threads on here, ie, nobody owns them. | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite." wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite. Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade "errr you do know how forums work right.... | |||
| |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election?" 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others | |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others" stats from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm | |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite." A low turnout is very common in union leadership elections. Most people simply cant be bothered to vote and don't mind who leads there union. All they see is the support at workplace grievances. I fail to see how your statement changes the fact that 22.3% of people not voting means they "voted no" it just means they didn't care either way. | |||
"wonder if their UNITE union will try and also aim to get them an Olympics bonus as well as a pay rise as guessing it must be hard for them to live on just £45K a year "They don't want a pay rise and no they wont try to get them an Olympic bonus, that's the tube drivers and they aren't complaining that the bonus they've been offered is too small they dislike the term "total flexibility" they are being forced to sign up to for the Olympic months | |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others" What is the relevance? We're not talking about the General Election. McCluskey has claimed that 69% of his members voted for the action when that just isn't true. He's manipulated the figures, as they all I'd wage. | |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others What is the relevance? We're not talking about the General Election. McCluskey has claimed that 69% of his members voted for the action when that just isn't true. He's manipulated the figures, as they all I'd wage." Where exactly has he claimed that? A BBC article had the turnout at 77.7% in the 5 striking depots with a yes vote of 69% so he's hardly lying if he says 69% of those who voted supported the action is he? | |||
| |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others What is the relevance? We're not talking about the General Election. McCluskey has claimed that 69% of his members voted for the action when that just isn't true. He's manipulated the figures, as they all I'd wage. Where exactly has he claimed that? A BBC article had the turnout at 77.7% in the 5 striking depots with a yes vote of 69% so he's hardly lying if he says 69% of those who voted supported the action is he?" You're doing it yourself. 69% of the five depots who voted in favour of strike action is not 69% of the entire 2,000 that were balloted across 7 depots. | |||
" wishy can you remind me what percentage of the electorate voted for the cokhansrrvatives in the last election? 36.1% Conservatives 23% LibDem 29% Labour 11.9% Others What is the relevance? We're not talking about the General Election. McCluskey has claimed that 69% of his members voted for the action when that just isn't true. He's manipulated the figures, as they all I'd wage. Where exactly has he claimed that? A BBC article had the turnout at 77.7% in the 5 striking depots with a yes vote of 69% so he's hardly lying if he says 69% of those who voted supported the action is he? You're doing it yourself. 69% of the five depots who voted in favour of strike action is not 69% of the entire 2,000 that were balloted across 7 depots." No it isn't 69% of all those balloted, there were 7 separate ballots. nor is it 69% of the entire membership but it is an average of 69% of the members at the 5 striking depots who voted in those 5 ballots. How is this hard to comprehend? No one has claimed otherwise, the figure of 77.7% turnout is also only for the 5 striking depots. No one is claiming that 69% of the 2000 voted yes you started bandying that figure about earlier. | |||
"and please dont tell me it was the miners own fault" NOPE! It was the fact that deep mining is not(yet!) ecomomical, the money raised from deep mining cannot complete with openxast mining in other parts of the world. Opencast mining need only a few workers to get thousands of tonnes of coal wil deep mining take loads of workers and thes epeople can take hours to get to the coal face and need loads of other workers to support the face workers and is therefore uneconomical. This may not be the case in the future though. Tin mines in Cornwall were all closed for economic reasons but now the tin is of higher value(due to being less about and tecnology to extract the tin has moved on) and therefore they are looking to reopen some of these mines. | |||
"and please dont tell me it was the miners own fault NOPE! It was the fact that deep mining is not(yet!) ecomomical, the money raised from deep mining cannot complete with openxast mining in other parts of the world. Opencast mining need only a few workers to get thousands of tonnes of coal wil deep mining take loads of workers and thes epeople can take hours to get to the coal face and need loads of other workers to support the face workers and is therefore uneconomical. This may not be the case in the future though. Tin mines in Cornwall were all closed for economic reasons but now the tin is of higher value(due to being less about and tecnology to extract the tin has moved on) and therefore they are looking to reopen some of these mines." Will they get troops to get the coal ant copper out ,when the work force get worried about the safety aspects ? | |||
| |||
"and please dont tell me it was the miners own fault NOPE! It was the fact that deep mining is not(yet!) ecomomical, the money raised from deep mining cannot complete with openxast mining in other parts of the world. Opencast mining need only a few workers to get thousands of tonnes of coal wil deep mining take loads of workers and thes epeople can take hours to get to the coal face and need loads of other workers to support the face workers and is therefore uneconomical. This may not be the case in the future though. Tin mines in Cornwall were all closed for economic reasons but now the tin is of higher value(due to being less about and tecnology to extract the tin has moved on) and therefore they are looking to reopen some of these mines. Will they get troops to get the coal ant copper out ,when the work force get worried about the safety aspects ? "No.. because in short... it will have little impact on everyone life over the short term of the stike. But the Tanker drivers will have an ecomonic impact very quickly and therefore in the NATIONAL interest the troops need to deliver the fuel. Don't forget that after the last fuel protest the Government (Labour at the time) brought in new legistation to try to stop this sort of thing happening again... and this government is just applying those changes. | |||
"and please dont tell me it was the miners own fault NOPE! It was the fact that deep mining is not(yet!) ecomomical, the money raised from deep mining cannot complete with openxast mining in other parts of the world. Opencast mining need only a few workers to get thousands of tonnes of coal wil deep mining take loads of workers and thes epeople can take hours to get to the coal face and need loads of other workers to support the face workers and is therefore uneconomical. This may not be the case in the future though. Tin mines in Cornwall were all closed for economic reasons but now the tin is of higher value(due to being less about and tecnology to extract the tin has moved on) and therefore they are looking to reopen some of these mines. Will they get troops to get the coal ant copper out ,when the work force get worried about the safety aspects ?
No.. because in short... it will have little impact on everyone life over the short term of the stike.
But the Tanker drivers will have an ecomonic impact very quickly and therefore in the NATIONAL interest the troops need to deliver the fuel.
Don't forget that after the last fuel protest the Government (Labour at the time) brought in new legistation to try to stop this sort of thing happening again... and this government is just applying those changes."So why haven't the government made sure that a very important thing like delivering fuel as not been made a priority so that everyone including THE FCUKING DRIVERS WHO HAVE TO DELIVER IT EVERY DAY , are happy to do so , or as i said originaly ,will they bring the troops in for every striking business , which how ever way you put it is a business that the gov make money on and have us all over a barrel with , you really cant see where this is going can you ???...... | |||
| |||
| |||
"oh and a failure to vote doesn't count as a vote against it just counts as a failure to vote. But it does in Len McCluskey's corner of the universe, as demonstrated by his posturing about 69% of his members voting FOR strike action. McCluskey was voted as Gen Sec of Unite on a 15% turnout, which should mean that at least 85% of members either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all (assuming he didn't get every single vote of the 15% that did vote) - but in Red Len's world 15% was enough to secure the leadership of Unite. Erm you seemed to have turned this into a name calling thread , the question was , why are they threatening to send the troops in (when we cant afford too , apart from anything else )please dont use my threads to name names whom you wish to slander ,thank you Ade
Are you on medication or something? this is your last chance you are determained to slag individuals off , i would remind you that this is my thread ,please do not slag , name names on here , i would be very gratful if you did not comment further on here again , you are really not on the same planet ,thanks bye "Ok can both of you not get personal when posting please. As long as it is within forum rules...people can post on whatever thread they want and how they want....the OP cannot control what or if people post. | |||
| |||
"Depending on how they strike would be key. If it is long enough to stop the refineries working it will be bad, very bad. It takes a while to shut down and days to re-start them. As for life and limb supplies - from where, there is only limited stock available. The loss of fuel supply for services will be horrific, no flights - yes they could land at other EU airports, but slots are few and far between and cost. Cancelled operations. No imported fresh produce. Container ships will off load elsewhere in europe. Shops will be closed if they have nothing to sell. Internet business will stall, no deliveries. The list is long and painful - use the troops, yes they have fewer vehicles, but will work 24/7 in shifts to deliver, remember there was also a lot and still are more matelots and crabfats trained to deliver after the last strikes. Contingency planning is what the Government expects of the armed forces as well as fighting wars, training goes on behind the scenes for these type of situations, just like the recent possibility of the Prison service strike last year." Airline fuel wonlt be effected. And there are major contingency plans in place to keep essential services moving. The government have been planning to combat this for months. For the ordinary motorist it will be bad, but your doom and gloom scenario is unlikely to happen. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm sure there are a lot of drivers on £45k and a lot more on a lot less than that. As I understand it, Unite are citing Health & Safety issues as the main reason for striking, but I am wondering why it's only the tanker drivers Unite are pulling out if H & S is such an issue. It would be endemic throughout the driving industry would it not? - or all these tanker drivers would go work for someone else. Must be the £45k a year keeping them there. Or maybe because even the Labour Party condemned McCluskey for advocating widespread disruption to the Olympics that this is Red Len's alternative for stamping his feet and beating his chest." such a simplistic veiw of the H&S deficiancies do you even understand the rules laws etc the hgv drivers have to work around ? the things that the drivers are conserned about is being given timmings that are near impposible with out any delays geta dealy due to some numb nut car driver causing a pile up and the tanker driver looses pay for the delay through no fault of his own either that or he drives through his mandatory breaks speeds on minor roads drives recklesley on motorways all of which can incur massive fines and points from vosa .that would consern me and should everybody that the management of the delivery companys are opperating in this way .good on the union for standing upto the employers to keep there members and other useres of the highway safe | |||
| |||
"So people if most of you agree its ok for the goverment to step in and break a dispute by bringing in the troops ,what next,will it be your dispute they involve themselfs in wil it be your strike they stop ,will it be your employment rights they erode .Can you garintee this wont happen to you,dont think so . Most people who work in the public sector ,dont strike lightly IE nurses firemen ,,,,but there comes a time when you have too .this is a erosion of every bodys rights ,and much as some on hear would like to believe . There are a lot of very unscruplos employers out there ,who if had there way would have us step back into the dark ages ,where employers can treat and pay enployees any way amount they wish ,and with the backing of the goverment .Our great country has been built on the backs of the majority of us ,so why is it a small minority own have the most wealth and seem hell bent on screwing us for every lest penny in our pockets ,i have said before a fair days pay for a fair days work ,thats all most of us ask .HOWEVER,sadly this has become a me me me society ,how will this afect me ,not about your work coliuges my naubors ." Ditto , they dont give a fcuk ,but they will when it happens to them .... | |||
| |||
| |||
"such a simplistic veiw of the H&S deficiancies do you even understand the rules laws etc the hgv drivers have to work around ? the things that the drivers are conserned about is being given timmings that are near impposible with out any delays geta dealy due to some numb nut car driver causing a pile up and the tanker driver looses pay for the delay through no fault of his own either that or he drives through his mandatory breaks speeds on minor roads drives recklesley on motorways all of which can incur massive fines and points from vosa .that would consern me and should everybody that the management of the delivery companys are opperating in this way .good on the union for standing upto the employers to keep there members and other useres of the highway safe " I just find it a bit rich when lorry drivers complain about the erosion of health & safety in their workplace, but our health & safety seems to be forgotten when they're weaving all over the fookin road cos they're on their mobiles. And yes, I've seen it myself, countless of times, and had to swerve to avoid a collision, or at least try and second guess what the dopey idiot is going to do next. | |||
"I just find it a bit rich when lorry drivers complain about the erosion of health & safety in their workplace, but our health & safety seems to be forgotten when they're weaving all over the fookin road cos they're on their mobiles. And yes, I've seen it myself, countless of times, and had to swerve to avoid a collision, or at least try and second guess what the dopey idiot is going to do next." | |||
| |||
| |||
"and how many of those drivers were hauling tankers ? don't tar all with the,same brush .so.your happy to see H&S eroded you want drivers with a volatile and dangerous load driving tired or with insufficient rest due to trying to keep to near immposible timmings so they don't loose out on there pay ? you can't see the dangers in this ? how long before a tired driver cocked up whilst rushing to unload and not incited any penalties major fuel weak or explosion ? " if a driver doesnt have sufficient breaks thats his fault, no the employer, whether delivery times are possible or not. i often rock up to work and have a delivery time in london for 3 hours time, which unless i can bend the laws of physics aint gonna happen. what happens? i drive to my normal ways and ring work to tell them im gonna be late, its called 'fuck them!' yes, we all do the job for money, but unless they are stopping a days wage for late deliveries (illegal, immoral and whatever else you want t ocall it) then it is the driver in the wrong (and thats the way the police/VOSA will see it) i have no sympathy with ANY driver being fucked over for driving on the phone, so ot going to back anyone up. bluetooth eadsets only cost a few quid so there is no excuse. and i fill the car every week as i have a 400 mile commute every week. and the bike has plenty | |||
"and how many of those drivers were hauling tankers ? don't tar all with the,same brush .so.your happy to see H&S eroded you want drivers with a volatile and dangerous load driving tired or with insufficient rest due to trying to keep to near immposible timmings so they don't loose out on there pay ? you can't see the dangers in this ? how long before a tired driver cocked up whilst rushing to unload and not incited any penalties major fuel weak or explosion ? " Driving times are already adequately policed by tachographs, and yes, I've driven using a tacho myself so I know what I'm talking about. If the companies involved are forcing drivers to break tacho rules regarding rest stops then it will be discovered the next time H&SE decide to have a little inspection - and you can be sure that will all this recent publicity about it that that's exactly what the H&SE will be doing - and that will prove or disprove Unite's claims regarding drivers being forced to work longer hours than they should be legally doing. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
