I don't have a problem with him.
Change union to corporation and members to shareholders.
Then he's done a great job increasing the value for the shareholders, it's at the expense of the public I agree but compare that to any other utility provider like BP or British gas, they make massive profits for their shareholders at the cost of the public and no one wants their job abolished and corporations banned in law.

/made this argument here before.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:05, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

But he's on telly all the time and speaks like he does
rather than sit behind the scenes and talks posh so obviously, awful man.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:09, Reply)

It's a poor argument for many, many reasons
but just at the basic levle, because you can't make the changes you have done with union/corporation etc. Because there is no competition in the union sector. Consequently, the public's choice is "accept RMT's blackmail or don't travel" as opposed to "accept British Gas raising the prices or switch to another provider".

Crow and RMT rely on holding the country to hostage because they KNOW there is no alternative for the public. Ergo, blackmailing cunts.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:22, Reply)

Some tube drivers salaries will rise to over £50k next year

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:25, Reply)

I wonder how he's taking the prospect of driverless tube trains within ten years

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:25, Reply)

Three lines in london already run fully auto, or at least are able to.
they just have drivers in because PR surverys suggest the public are more comfortable with a train that has someone sat at the front in a uniform.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:26, Reply)

Knowing there's some fat wanker sat playing snake on his phone isn't really all that comforting.
They'll be out for ages over the Health and Safety implications whenever it is rolled out.
( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:32, Reply)

there are no words for how much of a cock bob crow actually is
dammit rory, i was just going to say that!

hopefully he'll be dead by then. you know. of a heart attack. only when he calls for an ambulance, they're all on strike.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:25, Reply)

Hang on, you've really undermined your argument by comparing unions to utilities there.
You don't have a choice in utilities either, and you know it, the whole thing is as big a cartel as you think the unions are.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:26, Reply)

Well, you might have a bit of a point
although you still have a choice, even if it's a minor one.

That doesn't in the slightest bit negate my argument, though, but I can't be arsed to go and change "british gas" to "tesco" so humour me, eh?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:28, Reply)

No, you don't have a choice, and even if you change it to Tesco, you still don't really have a choice.
Didn't you hear about that report recently where they said the only way you could save money was if you had never ever changed suppliers, if you had, then there was nothing significant between the different utility suppliers.

It's the same as "competition" in the railways, it doesn't exist.

And since Tesco and the other major supermarkets have the stranglehold on most suppliers, the actual difference between them is really minimal, the only way you would make serious savings is to change how you plan your food shopping.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:36, Reply)

if you say so. I think you're being overly tinfoil hatted, myself
either way it doesn't change the incorrectness of the original analogy
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:40, Reply)

I think it's a useful analogy,
because it compares something that is seen as very left wing to something that is right wing. From that you can see the difference in reaction. Anyway an analogy doesn't have to be perfect, it wasn't a direct comparison
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:43, Reply)

no, it doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to have some accuracy.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:45, Reply)

Also, you "think" the unions are?
You're seriously suggesting that RMT aren't holding London to ransom every time they strike?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:30, Reply)

I never suggested they weren't
but as Chompy says, the point of the union is to get the best deal for it's members, and it does that very well.

If you were a member of the union, you'd probably be quite pleased with them.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:34, Reply)

yeah, but chompy's analogy is poor.
and you know it.

And, worryingly for me, I'm in the kind of profession that most needs the protection of a union but I'm not a member precisely because of the kind of cuntery that RMT and occasionally others perform. So, I'm not sure I would be pleased, because I'm not an utterly selfish arsehole.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:36, Reply)

No, if you think you need union help and you don't join then you're a fool.
You label unions as selfish aresholes, but you don't think that employers should be able to just fire anyone at a whim. But can't you see that without the threat that unions wouldn't stand for it, the government would happily remove all employment law that benefits the worker over the employer.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:45, Reply)

It's not a black and white argument.
There are unions that work perfectly well without striking at the drop of a hat, for instance. Unions do, as you point out, exist to look after their member's interest. The problem is when they do it to the direct detriment of everyone apart from their members.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:49, Reply)

I would say that the people who are meant to consider every side of the argument
would be the government, the union is only meant to consider one side.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:52, Reply)

so, following that logic, you think then it's acceptable for the RMT to take more public money for tube drivers
leaving, say, UNISON unable to get more for nurses or teachers, simply because a tube strike is a more powerful driver, because of the financial damage it does to the economy?

There's only a fixed amount of money. Do you think it's acceptable by the union ethos to fuck over others in the same position simply because they, effectively, have a bigger threatning sword?

And before you say that's the governments problem to find more money - In an ideal world, you'd be entirely correct, but we aren't in an ideal world - you totally accept that when it comes to competition/monopoly of corporations so presumely you accept that here, too?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:00, Reply)

I don't accept it when it comes to corporations, so that's your argument kicked into a hat.
We're coming at this from different sides, I know you're a lot more right wing that me, certainly when it comes to economics, so it's not surprising we're disagreeing about this.

The government should, in an ideal world, regulate corporations to ensure proper competition (energy suppliers is a good example where I think stronger regulation is needed) and they should negotiate with the unions to ensure that the unions don't use their powers unfairly.

The difference here is that I don't believe the unions are using their powers unfairly, you do, and we aren't going to resolve that, so we might as well stop.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:05, Reply)

Sorry, I meant you accept it happens
not that you accept it's fair. You do accept it happens, you just said so down there.

But otherwise, yes, spot on. Anyway, Chompy's played the Godwin card, so we can shake hands and settle down with our pints. Well played all round.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:08, Reply)

Good game.

(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:09, Reply)

Were I a member of the RMT
I would struggle to look my employers - by which I mean the long-suffering public - in the eye. They are fucking cunts.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:52, Reply)

Well there is internal competition for unions,
and there is no law saying that people working on the underground have to join the RMT or any union.
And it's not as simple as don't travel, it's don't travel as easily. And the idea that if Centrica put their prices up EDF, E.ON and npower won't follow just simply doesn't happen.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:29, Reply)

Consumers have a choice with corporations, no matter how tinfoil hatted you and Al want to get about it.
There is only one public transport system in London. Remove it or hamper it and the public has nothing else to turn to. It's a piss poor analogy and you know it.

If you want an accurate corporation comparison by your analogy of RMT strike action, it would be like British Gas cutting off your personal gas supply until the goverment agreed to pay their shareholders more for supplying the gas.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:34, Reply)

It's not tinfoil hats
it's six massive corporations who, even if they aren't actually sharing price information, still all keep their prices virtually the same (must be magic).
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:37, Reply)

They don't have to share them in secret backroom meetings, all their prices are published.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:40, Reply)

Jesus fucking wept
OK, yeah, the world is secretly controlled by a giant lizard cartel who fix the price of everything. Fine. I'm still a little unsure as how this makes the original analogy anything less than wrong?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:42, Reply)

You keep banging on about it being an analogy, so I'll counter your claim that it was wrong with
IT WAS A FUCKING ANALOGY!
(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:45, Reply)

it was a shit analogy.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:49, Reply)

It's a reasonable comparison between two things that are similar, but not identical.

(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:50, Reply)

There's not much point continuing if you start throwing around "tinfoil hats".
There has been a government report out that has shown that there is no significant difference between what you pay between different gas and electricity companies, and that they are actively trying to make it confusing for the consumer.

Now, that is just capitalism in action, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's just how big corporations work, they want to take as much money off people as possible, and they do that by maboozeling the customer and relying on them not noticing that prices are creeping up, they don't have to conspire together.

The fact that all the prices are the same simply demonstrates that there is no competition in the market.

But I disagree, the analogy isn't wrong, the union exists to help it's members. It's members are doing well so the union is doing it's job.

Corporations exist to make money for shareholders, they make money any way the legally (or illegally if the punishment means it's more cost effective) can.

Large corporations will do anything they can to avoid any more regulation, which is why the CBI always pipe up when anyone talks about it.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:50, Reply)

If there was only one supplier
they would charge much more. That's also capitalism in action. the prices all being the same might indicate not enough competion. It doesn't indicate none. The choices might be minimal, but there is some choice. There is, however, no option/competition/choice/call it what the fuck you like for "people who drive tube trains in london".

Nothing about the rest of what you've said is untrue, and I'm not going to argue with it at all, but it's got nowt to do with the original point.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 16:55, Reply)

Irrespective of the original point, which is being addressed above,
your cries of "tinfoil hat" are totally unjustified.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:00, Reply)

you were using a debatable minor inaccuracy in an otherwise perfectly valid point
to deflect the direction of the discussion. I just went for a throwaway game-upper.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:02, Reply)

The sort of thing the Nazi's did.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:04, Reply)

YES!
You totally win. I've been waiting for this for ten minutes. This is the problem with internet debate. It can only be settled by Godwin's Law.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:06, Reply)

No I didn't
I've continued the original discussion elsewhere, I just take umbridge at your unjustified attempt to portray me as an idiot for believing in non existent conspiracies.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:06, Reply)

I don't actually regard tinfoil hat as an insult, at least certainly not of intelligence.
maybe of perspective occasionally. Anyway, I hereby withdraw any previous accusations of a foil or lizard nature.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:12, Reply)

I stand by my comment about my friends in British Gas.

(Bazongaloid, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:12, Reply)

there's got to be some reason the cunts can never get my address right.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:15, Reply)

I keep on meaning to buy RobertCrowIsACock.com with a picture of him on a rooster's body and me singing cartman style.
Weeeeeelll... Robert Crow is a cock, he's a big fat cock, he's the biggest cock in whole god damn world, if ever there was a cock, robert would be that cock, he's the biggest cock to the boys and girls.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 17:26, Reply)