How sweet is this?

We are not discussing average reps or members. As with many institutions it’s the minority of bad’ns who spoil it for the gooduns.
Who mentioned bankers? Not me.

Salary, expenses and perks!

Who brought MPs and bankers into the discussion?

Salary, expenses and perks!

Thats NOT your average union rep or member though,headlines just report the top line all the time ,not the good work the majority do.

Salary, expenses and perks!

Reminds me of McCluskey of Unite who orders everyone out on strike, nice position to be in where your wages no doubt continue to be paid while your rank and file struggle.

Yes I agree Trump – I think our various remarks referred to those at the top. Although I have had dealings with a few very pompous and self important local officials over time.

Was it ever thus?!

Not all the time,mostly by the top ones [a bit like politicians really]. Local Union reps who have a good working knowledge can in an open minded industry do alot of good,and yes i do know that to be the case.

Was it ever thus?!

I’m sure the union members will be overjoyed to see what their hard earned union contributions are being spent on!!!

Unaccountable, corrupt bureaucrats. One of a few reasons why I despise trade unions.

This is even more interesting!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25731328

Apart from anything else Scargill has neither been a member or an officer of the NUM for over 10 years, as far as I know. He was a nasty sh%$t then and still is. In fact I think he is an avowed Marxist/Leninist now, isn’t he?

There are two interesting quotes in this article on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20303797

Mr Scargill: “There can be no doubt that 30 years ago I was given an entitlement to a property by the union and that entitlement continued during my retirement, as it had done for all my predecessors including Lord Gormley and, after he died, his widow Lady Gormley.”

The NUM said the flat cost £34,000 a year, which it could not afford.

Quite some time ago, I wrote to my local M.P. and asked him why we import coal from Germany, when we have plenty of stocks here…

Probably for the same reason that we import (or imported) cars from Germany (or anywhere else) when we have (or had) plenty of British manufacturers.

To be objective, Linc, I think I am right in saying that some mines were viably re-opened but most were prohibitively expensive to do so, especially when the price of coal was low. Having said that but for the ridiculous EU policies on emissions, to which Millipede signed us up with a bonus, we could be using coal, some of it ours, to burn in coal fired power stations, moist of which either have or have already been closed. It’s a scandal.

Quite some time ago, I wrote to my local M.P. and asked him why we import coal from Germany, when we have plenty of stocks here, proven by some mines being closed because they were not making a profit, only to be purchased by senior management, and re opened, and making a profit.
He replied that we have large deposits of coal, but the abandoned mines were full with water, and it would cost too much to pump them out, repair machinery, Blah, Blah, Blah, and excuses. Do they think we a GREEN, John?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Precisely. So the fact that he failed to secure a majority of seats left the question rather begging………or you could argue that as he won the popular vote the Government was endorsed.
Either way the scene was set for hats followed a decade later.

Yes and that was the first showdown with the miners when Heath ended up going to the country asking “Who governs Britain”? Despite his attempts to coalesce with the Liberals the answer to the question was Labour…

I’ve always taken Ted Heath’s question to mean ‘who governs Britain; the (elected) government or the unions?’

Thatcher was more interested in breaking the unions than looking after our long term interests… a middle way would have been preferable for all – but it wasn’t to be !!!!

I agree.The unions needed the power reducing but she went too far over the other end of the scale.Middle ground ,fairness for all should have been the way ahead.

With those two clowns running the show – I agree !

Baz – I rather think those two things were mutually inseparable.

it broke the unions power bases

Thatcher was more interested in breaking the unions than looking after our long term interests… a middle way would have been preferable for all – but it wasn’t to be !!!!