Liverpool FC Forum

[Judge]

the recession is global, not of labours doing solely

it would not matter who was in, the product would still be the same

the cut backs in both the budget and manpower started a long time before the recescion mate .

that was in response to impending recession

[loopyliverpool]

I cannot believe any true Liverpool fan would defend that horrible autocrat Thatcher. She looked after the middle classes and shat on the working classes saying at one time 'there is no such thing as society'. Instead of closing pit after pit and breaking up communities in the manner she did, it could have been done in a far more understanding, humane fashion. Creating training programmes for those who were to lose their jobs over a gradual closure period would have at least given the miners a chance. People say she did this and that for our country but I don't see it. We rely virtually solely on the service and financial sector for our industry and manufacture few 'British' products. Rather than protecting British jobs back then she just closed down industries if they were not cost effective and that philosophy continues today. Workers have lost all their power and are subjugated to whatever their bosses decide to impose on them. It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had. It is shocking that the Labour Govt. has spent god knows how many billions suring up the banks with tax payers money when industries are crumbling before their eyes. I obviously blame Thatcher for all that is wrong in the world....

[Big Niall]

Her great "victory" was turning Labour into the tories.

I don't really like unions though, they tend to believe promotions should go to the people who have been there the longest instead of the best. They rarely support the sacking of the incompetent and don't understand that sometimes cuts in pay are required (as now) in order for companies and countries to survive downturns.

they also seem to hate change and often try to screw us out of our money e.g over here train drivers tried to get more money for an extra carriage being put on the train as if it changed their job. They claimed they had more responsibility now - many scumbags run unions.

[SouthCoastShankly]

I do agree that the north of England got the rough end of Thatcherism. But when you consider what the Conservatives were trying to achieve - "forcing Labour to give up socialism by moving the country permanently away from excessive respect for the power of the state towards a preference for the free market"

It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had.

Its not shocking - its common sense, that is why virtually no national economies have powerful trade unions anymore.

In the UK, trade unions accumulated some extraordinary legal privileges over the course of the twentieth century. For example, they could not be sued for damages caused by their industrial action. Perhaps the worst feature of this was the fact that employers who were not involved in any dispute were often caught up in 'secondary picketing' as public-sector union activists attempted to spread disruption more widely in order to force governments to concede to their demands.

The Thatcher reforms were progressive and remorseless. Six successive Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 reflected four key principles:

(1) Reforming the closed shop.
Trade unions forced people to join a union and meant that anyone who disobeyed union orders and was driven out of membership then had to be dismissed by the employer. The Act made it illegal to dismiss an employee for not being a union member.

(2) Secret ballots.
Unions were required to hold a ballot before they launched industrial action such as strikes. Previously, strike decisions had often been taken in open meetings where the closed-shop dismissal threat could be used on dissenters, which dragged on late at night, leaving only the activists present at the final vote. The government felt that secret postal ballots would provide outcomes that were more representative of real shop-floor opinion.

(3) Secondary picketing banned.
The 1984 Act also banned unions from extending their disputes to anyone besides their members' employers.

(4) Legal immunities curbed.
If unions failed to observe these rules on strike ballots or secondary picketing, they lost immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by industrial action.

I defy anyone to argue that these measures were not common sense

[crazyhorse]

I grew up under Thatcher, and I grew up poor.

I hate her as much now as I did then!

[bigmick]

I do agree that the north of England got the rough end of Thatcherism. But when you consider what the Conservatives were trying to achieve - "forcing Labour to give up socialism by moving the country permanently away from excessive respect for the power of the state towards a preference for the free market"

It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had.

Its not shocking - its common sense, that is why virtually no national economies have powerful trade unions anymore.

In the UK, trade unions accumulated some extraordinary legal privileges over the course of the twentieth century. For example, they could not be sued for damages caused by their industrial action. Perhaps the worst feature of this was the fact that employers who were not involved in any dispute were often caught up in 'secondary picketing' as public-sector union activists attempted to spread disruption more widely in order to force governments to concede to their demands.

The Thatcher reforms were progressive and remorseless. Six successive Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 reflected four key principles:

(1) Reforming the closed shop.
Trade unions forced people to join a union and meant that anyone who disobeyed union orders and was driven out of membership then had to be dismissed by the employer. The Act made it illegal to dismiss an employee for not being a union member.

(2) Secret ballots.
Unions were required to hold a ballot before they launched industrial action such as strikes. Previously, strike decisions had often been taken in open meetings where the closed-shop dismissal threat could be used on dissenters, which dragged on late at night, leaving only the activists present at the final vote. The government felt that secret postal ballots would provide outcomes that were more representative of real shop-floor opinion.

(3) Secondary picketing banned.
The 1984 Act also banned unions from extending their disputes to anyone besides their members' employers.

(4) Legal immunities curbed.
If unions failed to observe these rules on strike ballots or secondary picketing, they lost immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by industrial action.

I defy anyone to argue that these measures were not common sense

Southcoast you can be assured I will come back to the thread tomorrow and dispiute all your points. Not now though, I've had too many to make sense.

[Judge]

I do agree that the north of England got the rough end of Thatcherism. But when you consider what the Conservatives were trying to achieve - "forcing Labour to give up socialism by moving the country permanently away from excessive respect for the power of the state towards a preference for the free market"

It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had.

Its not shocking - its common sense, that is why virtually no national economies have powerful trade unions anymore.

In the UK, trade unions accumulated some extraordinary legal privileges over the course of the twentieth century. For example, they could not be sued for damages caused by their industrial action. Perhaps the worst feature of this was the fact that employers who were not involved in any dispute were often caught up in 'secondary picketing' as public-sector union activists attempted to spread disruption more widely in order to force governments to concede to their demands.

The Thatcher reforms were progressive and remorseless. Six successive Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 reflected four key principles:

(1) Reforming the closed shop.
Trade unions forced people to join a union and meant that anyone who disobeyed union orders and was driven out of membership then had to be dismissed by the employer. The Act made it illegal to dismiss an employee for not being a union member.

(2) Secret ballots.
Unions were required to hold a ballot before they launched industrial action such as strikes. Previously, strike decisions had often been taken in open meetings where the closed-shop dismissal threat could be used on dissenters, which dragged on late at night, leaving only the activists present at the final vote. The government felt that secret postal ballots would provide outcomes that were more representative of real shop-floor opinion.

(3) Secondary picketing banned.
The 1984 Act also banned unions from extending their disputes to anyone besides their members' employers.

(4) Legal immunities curbed.
If unions failed to observe these rules on strike ballots or secondary picketing, they lost immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by industrial action.

I defy anyone to argue that these measures were not common sense

heres the link to the info above in SCS post where he plaigiarised his ideas from. word for word

shame on you SCS

[Roger Red Hat]

southcoastshankley you fking cheating lying little tick turd. fancy copying and pasting it  - tut tut

[112-1077774096]

I cannot believe any true Liverpool fan would defend that horrible autocrat Thatcher. She looked after the middle classes and shat on the working classes saying at one time 'there is no such thing as society'.

I didn't realise all liverpool fans had to be working class

[SouthCoastShankly]

I do agree that the north of England got the rough end of Thatcherism. But when you consider what the Conservatives were trying to achieve - "forcing Labour to give up socialism by moving the country permanently away from excessive respect for the power of the state towards a preference for the free market"

It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had.

Its not shocking - its common sense, that is why virtually no national economies have powerful trade unions anymore.

In the UK, trade unions accumulated some extraordinary legal privileges over the course of the twentieth century. For example, they could not be sued for damages caused by their industrial action. Perhaps the worst feature of this was the fact that employers who were not involved in any dispute were often caught up in 'secondary picketing' as public-sector union activists attempted to spread disruption more widely in order to force governments to concede to their demands.

The Thatcher reforms were progressive and remorseless. Six successive Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 reflected four key principles:

(1) Reforming the closed shop.
Trade unions forced people to join a union and meant that anyone who disobeyed union orders and was driven out of membership then had to be dismissed by the employer. The Act made it illegal to dismiss an employee for not being a union member.

(2) Secret ballots.
Unions were required to hold a ballot before they launched industrial action such as strikes. Previously, strike decisions had often been taken in open meetings where the closed-shop dismissal threat could be used on dissenters, which dragged on late at night, leaving only the activists present at the final vote. The government felt that secret postal ballots would provide outcomes that were more representative of real shop-floor opinion.

(3) Secondary picketing banned.
The 1984 Act also banned unions from extending their disputes to anyone besides their members' employers.

(4) Legal immunities curbed.
If unions failed to observe these rules on strike ballots or secondary picketing, they lost immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by industrial action.

I defy anyone to argue that these measures were not common sense

heres the link to the info above in SCS post where he plaigiarised his ideas from. word for word

shame on you SCS

Hang on, since when did I claim those words for myself. I'm not a politician I just read a lot.

In fact the earlier posts I named my sources and quoted accordingly. Just because I rushed a post out in response to another post, and in doing so forget to name my source, doesn't make it plagiarism.

Instead of creating a witch hunt why don't you focus on the point being made.

[SouthCoastShankly]

southcoastshankley you fking cheating lying little tick turd. fancy copying and pasting it  - tut tut

Great first post to the thread, thought provoking.

[Judge]

plaigiariser  

[Judge]

I do agree that the north of England got the rough end of Thatcherism. But when you consider what the Conservatives were trying to achieve - "forcing Labour to give up socialism by moving the country permanently away from excessive respect for the power of the state towards a preference for the free market"

It is shocking that this Labour Govt. has not restored any of the union powers workers once had.

Its not shocking - its common sense, that is why virtually no national economies have powerful trade unions anymore.

In the UK, trade unions accumulated some extraordinary legal privileges over the course of the twentieth century. For example, they could not be sued for damages caused by their industrial action. Perhaps the worst feature of this was the fact that employers who were not involved in any dispute were often caught up in 'secondary picketing' as public-sector union activists attempted to spread disruption more widely in order to force governments to concede to their demands.

The Thatcher reforms were progressive and remorseless. Six successive Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 reflected four key principles:

(1) Reforming the closed shop.
Trade unions forced people to join a union and meant that anyone who disobeyed union orders and was driven out of membership then had to be dismissed by the employer. The Act made it illegal to dismiss an employee for not being a union member.

(2) Secret ballots.
Unions were required to hold a ballot before they launched industrial action such as strikes. Previously, strike decisions had often been taken in open meetings where the closed-shop dismissal threat could be used on dissenters, which dragged on late at night, leaving only the activists present at the final vote. The government felt that secret postal ballots would provide outcomes that were more representative of real shop-floor opinion.

(3) Secondary picketing banned.
The 1984 Act also banned unions from extending their disputes to anyone besides their members' employers.

(4) Legal immunities curbed.
If unions failed to observe these rules on strike ballots or secondary picketing, they lost immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by industrial action.

I defy anyone to argue that these measures were not common sense

heres the link to the info above in SCS post where he plaigiarised his ideas from. word for word

shame on you SCS

Hang on, since when did I claim those words for myself. I'm not a politician I just read a lot.

In fact the earlier posts I named my sources and quoted accordingly. Just because I rushed a post out in response to another post, and in doing so forget to name my source, doesn't make it plagiarism.

Instead of creating a witch hunt why don't you focus on the point being made.

no witch hunt mate. you made an error, you explained it - thats fine

however, before you respond with a rant of your own, think first ok

dont rush your post and cite your sources, otherwise we will think its your own work

or perhaps, you didnt rush it and claimed it for your own, and when you realised you were rumbled, you backtrack with aspat of your own 

[loopyliverpool]

I cannot believe any true Liverpool fan would defend that horrible autocrat Thatcher. She looked after the middle classes and shat on the working classes saying at one time 'there is no such thing as society'.

I didn't realise all liverpool fans had to be working class

Its the injustice of it all. Everyone deserves a fair crack my man whether it's Prince Charles claiming tax relief or the bin man knocking off early. To take people's work away was wrong. I think Thatcher ruined many a working man's life, family and community. When 'God' was supporting the Dockers he was looking at these, dare I say, socialist principles rather than the capitalist ones eschewed by Thatcher and her cohorts. I think LFC is all inclusive but I would imagine is made up of predominantly working class folk, it doesn't matter. Standing up for what is right does!

[Big Niall]

I cannot believe any true Liverpool fan would defend that horrible autocrat Thatcher. She looked after the middle classes and shat on the working classes saying at one time 'there is no such thing as society'.

I didn't realise all liverpool fans had to be working class

Its the injustice of it all. Everyone deserves a fair crack my man whether it's Prince Charles claiming tax relief or the bin man knocking off early. To take people's work away was wrong. I think Thatcher ruined many a working man's life, family and community. When 'God' was supporting the Dockers he was looking at these, dare I say, socialist principles rather than the capitalist ones eschewed by Thatcher and her cohorts. I think LFC is all inclusive but I would imagine is made up of predominantly working class folk, it doesn't matter. Standing up for what is right does!

I've nothing against somebody being working class but it always bugged me when people who never worked (even during the boom years) claimed to be working class.