If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC) NewsFlash Iron Lady rusts in peace   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 1136
    More: NewsFlash, Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Britain, party conference, Reaganomics, Britain's Ronald Reagan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom  
•       •       •

16350 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 8:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 05:06:17 AM
DeArmondVI:

*I want a democracy, not a republic.

Well, then, you're an idiot.  If America were a democracy, rather than a republic, in the 1940s African-Americans would have been rounded up and shipped back to Africa.  Nice.

Be less ignorant...
 
2013-04-09 05:10:41 AM
She lived her life like a candle in the wind.


/Sputtering and waxy.
 
2013-04-09 05:49:47 AM

GeneralJim: Epoch_Zero: Considering the majority of farkers are either from north america (still suffering from reaganomics) or the uk (still getting over the 80's thatcher drearies),This is one of the dumber lines of reasoning ever seen on Fark.  Going back 30 years to find a Republican to blame?  Obama only thinks he inherited a mess from the Democratic Congress of 2006 -- Take some time, and look at the horrific crap that Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress left Reagan.  But as crispy as things were then, when proper methods are applied, things will get better, and within a few years.  That's what happened.  You're off by an order of magnitude -- it takes about three years to recover from a recession, if it is repaired using a bit of reason.  The way to do it, that has worked for Democrat and Republican Presidents?  Allow a bit of debt to creep up; make sure interest rates are not confiscatory, give some tax breaks, and rein in government spending.  That has worked every time -- within 3 years, massive improvement can be seen.  An "alternate" plan was used twice: Once by FDR, and once by Obama.  The alternate plan involves cranking up government spending, increasing regulation, increasing taxes, and doing stupid crap to make people feel better.  FDR's recession turned into the Great Depression, and Obama's recession turned into the "Great Recession," and despite smoke and mirrors with the numbers, things are not getting any better after four years.  I bet Obama can keep this one going as long as FDR did, just by doing the same stupid shiat that didn't work then, and hasn't worked this time.


[raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com image 530x357]
[mashedpotatobulletin.files.wordpress.com image 450x292]


I love how the left and right scales aren't the same on that top graphic.

Seriously, doesn't that dishonesty bother you at all?
 
2013-04-09 05:59:51 AM
Jesus, even the bottom scale is intentionally misleading. Reagan's term i. Office begins off the chart to the left, while Obama's starts partway in.

And yet, it doesn't bother people they are being lied to: they'll happily pass along the lie. I guess honor just doesn't matter to some people.
 
2013-04-09 06:10:16 AM

lohphat:

She kicked away the ladder for her female colleagues. Her administration had the fewest (or near-so) female members of any recent PM.

Wow!   Just like Obama!
 
2013-04-09 06:27:17 AM

rewind2846:

When the car is heading toward a cliff, "stay the course" is usually a very bad idea... but as you fly off the edge to your death, at least the people who show up at your funeral will be able to say that you "stood by your convictions", right?
Both Thatcher and Reagan inherited countries in truly horrible shape, both executed massive changes in direction, and both left countries in much better shape than when they got them.  Should we have "stayed Carter's course?"  Should the U.K. have continued until there was outright war with the unions?
 
2013-04-09 06:30:22 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah:

Destroying the mental health care system of the country overwhelms that. Also, I thought the President couldn't create jobs. That's what Mitt Romney said, anyway.
That's true -- but the President can do dumbass things to PREVENT job creation.  For examples, see Obama or FDR.
 
2013-04-09 06:39:33 AM

vygramul:

GeneralJim: BMulligan: Her name was an anagram for "that great charmer." I know, because that was the Final Jeopardy question I got wrong when I appeared on the program. Just one more thing I hold against Margaret Thatcher.

And your screen name is an anagram for "Bung ill ma."  The point?  Another one for Thatcher is "charm great threat."  Again, the point?

Yours is REIGN JEMAL.

I knew you were a secret Islamist.


Oh, wise up.  That's my rap name.
 
2013-04-09 06:45:13 AM

vygramul:

I love how the left and right scales aren't the same on that top graphic.

Seriously, doesn't that dishonesty bother you at all?
No, because it's not dishonest.  What DOES bother me is your lack of ability to read graphs.  There are more people now, so we start with higher numbers.  If you check the scales, they are identical, not different as you claim -- the origin point is different, so that the curves appear together for easy comparison.   Some people.
 
2013-04-09 06:48:01 AM

GeneralJim: vygramul: I love how the left and right scales aren't the same on that top graphic.

Seriously, doesn't that dishonesty bother you at all?No, because it's not dishonest.  What DOES bother me is your lack of ability to read graphs.  There are more people now, so we start with higher numbers.  If you check the scales, they are identical, not different as you claim -- the origin point is different, so that the curves appear together for easy comparison.   Some people.


Check again. The numbers do increment by two on both sides. But the ones on the right are not on the lines like the ones on the left. 88 lines up with 129, but 96 does NOT line up with 137, even though both incremented by 8.

Two different scales.
 
2013-04-09 06:48:18 AM

vygramul:

Jesus, even the bottom scale is intentionally misleading. Reagan's term i. Office begins off the chart to the left, while Obama's starts partway in.

And yet, it doesn't bother people they are being lied to: they'll happily pass along the lie. I guess honor just doesn't matter to some people.

Wow!  All-purpose stupid.  Oh, please tell me it comes in orange-scent!

The chart, my ignorant friend, is about recovery after the end of a recession.  So, the graphs start at the end of the recession.  Check the strap on your tin-foil hat...

 
2013-04-09 06:53:30 AM

vygramul:

GeneralJim: vygramul: I love how the left and right scales aren't the same on that top graphic.

Seriously, doesn't that dishonesty bother you at all?

No, because it's not dishonest.  What DOES bother me is your lack of ability to read graphs.  There are more people now, so we start with higher numbers.  If you check the scales, they are identical, not different as you claim -- the origin point is different, so that the curves appear together for easy comparison.   Some people.

Check again. The numbers do increment by two on both sides. But the ones on the right are not on the lines like the ones on the left. 88 lines up with 129, but 96 does NOT line up with 137, even though both incremented by 8.

Two different scales.

NO, one scale - by percentage of workforce, converted to absolute numbers.  Is your tire swing broken? Now, I've come to the bottom of the thread.... FINALLY. Nitey-nite. If you have any other nonsensical objections, I'll get to them in the morning.... Well, LATER in the morning.
 
2013-04-09 07:11:16 AM

GeneralJim: vygramul: GeneralJim: vygramul: I love how the left and right scales aren't the same on that top graphic.

Seriously, doesn't that dishonesty bother you at all?

No, because it's not dishonest.  What DOES bother me is your lack of ability to read graphs.  There are more people now, so we start with higher numbers.  If you check the scales, they are identical, not different as you claim -- the origin point is different, so that the curves appear together for easy comparison.   Some people.

Check again. The numbers do increment by two on both sides. But the ones on the right are not on the lines like the ones on the left. 88 lines up with 129, but 96 does NOT line up with 137, even though both incremented by 8.

Two different scales.
NO, one scale - by percentage of workforce, converted to absolute numbers.  Is your tire swing broken? Now, I've come to the bottom of the thread.... FINALLY. Nitey-nite. If you have any other nonsensical objections, I'll get to them in the morning.... Well, LATER in the morning.


That's not what it states on the graph.

But I'd be fine with the more liberty answer of going back to Reagan tax rates. Clearly, his tax plan was better for the economy.
 
2013-04-09 11:30:08 AM
This was a fun thread.
 
2013-04-09 12:33:31 PM
"Stroke, stroke stroke..."
 
2013-04-09 02:06:34 PM
Apparently the mods forgot to post this admonition from when Ted Kennedy died so I'll do it for them...

i.imgur.com

/R.I.P. Dear lady
 
2013-04-09 02:17:08 PM

Slaxl: This was a fun threadt

This was the biggest thread that I ever submitted.  WOW!  Lots of butt hurt to go around.  I saw this break on TV and none of the web sites but ABC had it posted yet.  I thought for sure that a TFER was going to get the green on this story.
 
2013-04-09 02:36:45 PM

illannoyin: Apparently the mods forgot to post this admonition from when Ted Kennedy died so I'll do it for them...

[i.imgur.com image 850x82]

/R.I.P. Dear lady


Who asked you?
 
2013-04-09 04:56:51 PM

Jackson Herring: vernonFL: Margaret Thatcher invented soft serve ice cream.

everybody likes soft serve


The hell they do!

Soft serve ice cream is the Devil's diarrhea.
 
2013-04-09 05:47:42 PM

Mouldy Squid: Jackson Herring: vernonFL: Margaret Thatcher invented soft serve ice cream.

everybody likes soft serve

The hell they do!

Soft serve ice cream is the Devil's diarrhea.


This was a fun read:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-margaret- th atcher-ice-cream-myth.html
 
2013-04-09 06:06:51 PM

Wooly Bully: Mouldy Squid: Jackson Herring: vernonFL: Margaret Thatcher invented soft serve ice cream.

everybody likes soft serve

The hell they do!

Soft serve ice cream is the Devil's diarrhea.

This was a fun read:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-margaret- th atcher-ice-cream-myth.html


Ha. I had never heard that myth before. Nice little article, thanks.

Soft serve ice cream is still the Devil's diarrhea, though.
 
2013-04-09 09:17:39 PM

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 640x545]


I so can't wait to recycle this one for #NowThatChersDead in a few weeks.
 
2013-04-09 09:30:03 PM

Oldiron_79: Am I really the first to go here? Margret Thatcher naked on a cold day.


Great.  Now I get to spend the next few weeks trying to coax my genitalia out of hiding.
 
2013-04-10 01:14:10 AM
GeneralJim:  Should the U.K. have continued until there was outright war with the unions?

Thatcher did wage war with the unions.  Compared them to the Argentines as well in order to get a sympathy response - so that she could unload everything on them from then until now.  Then you wonder why you have a lot of jobless people despite her (hello, blacklists) as well as their descendants being more likely to be part of today's "chav" population.  That, and the overkill response toward the unions spilled over into the non-unionized - where you have job classfication(forever-on-call) and work-for-the-dole abuse(starring Tesco and G4S's infinitely auditioned workers).

At least Reagan didnt go all out through the entire 1980's - opting for only one anti-union event (where the blacklisting was reversed in the 1990's) that did nothing on the scale of Ms. Thatcher's.   Anything that happened after that in the US was done by the states and private sector to union and non-union alike - such as the proliferation of a (one-way) RTW law that was not designed to provide choice but an avenue for destruction.

She didn't stop socialism, she simply changed the benefactor - as evidenced by the country over her term and beyond.
 
2013-04-10 10:39:06 AM

sethstorm: GeneralJim:  Should the U.K. have continued until there was outright war with the unions?

Thatcher did wage war with the unions.  Compared them to the Argentines as well in order to get a sympathy response - so that she could unload everything on them from then until now.  Then you wonder why you have a lot of jobless people despite her (hello, blacklists) as well as their descendants being more likely to be part of today's "chav" population.  That, and the overkill response toward the unions spilled over into the non-unionized - where you have job classfication(forever-on-call) and work-for-the-dole abuse(starring Tesco and G4S's infinitely auditioned workers).


The unions declared war first. Leaders like Scargil were open about their aims to use union power to bring down governments. That's what unions did through most of the seventies. Margaret Thatcher was the first to have the courage to stand up to them.
 
2013-04-10 01:33:18 PM

Flint Ironstag: sethstorm: GeneralJim:  Should the U.K. have continued until there was outright war with the unions?

Thatcher did wage war with the unions.  Compared them to the Argentines as well in order to get a sympathy response - so that she could unload everything on them from then until now.  Then you wonder why you have a lot of jobless people despite her (hello, blacklists) as well as their descendants being more likely to be part of today's "chav" population.  That, and the overkill response toward the unions spilled over into the non-unionized - where you have job classfication(forever-on-call) and work-for-the-dole abuse(starring Tesco and G4S's infinitely auditioned workers).

The unions declared war first. Leaders like Scargil were open about their aims to use union power to bring down governments. That's what unions did through most of the seventies. Margaret Thatcher was the first to have the courage to stand up to them.


Would that mean parliamentary procedure or the complete destruction of the country throughout all its departments?  One could "bring down" a government much like how the Tories were in 1973, the IRA through their various incidents throughout their history, or one could bring in Islamists to bring down a government through their [super]imposition of sharia law as done in the past decade.   There is a slight difference - where one of those is considered relatively "peaceful" and the others a threat to the country and its freedom.

The problem is that she ended up giving that same kind of power to bankers and employers while not getting rid of the socialism that was in place.   Prior to Thatcher, employers were abused by employees; after Thatcher, employers went open season on everyone not them.   Where's the Thatcher that brings them into line while not going back to full-on union control?  Or will Britons have to wait until the country finds some sort of prosperity not known to them since their days as an Empire?

I'll at least give her points for foreseeing the problems in Australia with Asia and being right about Argentina.  In each case, conquest of something was the goal whether it was a small protectorate or a larger country.   Australia, despite their smackdown of Huawei, is siding a bit far with the PRC without question - instead of a vigorous defense.
 
2013-04-10 03:13:53 PM

sethstorm: The problem is that she ended up giving that same kind of power to bankers and employers while not getting rid of the socialism that was in place.   Prior to Thatcher, employers were abused by employees; after Thatcher, employers went open season on everyone not them.   Where's the Thatcher that brings them into line while not going back to full-on union control?  Or will Britons have to wait until the country finds some sort of prosperity not known to them since their days as an Empire?


Considering that the UK has employee rights today, and during Margaret Thatchers time, that US most workers can only dream of, like statutory redundancy entitlement, right to claim constructive dismissal, four weeks holiday etc plus free healthcare, unemployment benefits etc all suggest she did not go anywhere close to taking away workers rights of giving employers unlimited power.

How exactly did "employers (go) open season on everyone not them"?  I worked through most of the Thatcher government. I was never made to work unpaid overtime, never denied sick pay, never threatened with being fired without cause, never denied benefits, never denied redundancy payments. Just how was I badly mistreated?
 
2013-04-11 03:16:05 AM

Flint Ironstag: Considering that the UK has employee rights today, and during Margaret Thatchers time, that US most workers can only dream of, like statutory redundancy entitlement, right to claim constructive dismissal, four weeks holiday etc plus free healthcare, unemployment benefits etc all suggest she did not go anywhere close to taking away workers rights of giving employers unlimited power.


How about the classification abuse - where there are two tiers below the already second-class agency worker?  There's the zero-hour, "on-call" job that gets used to get around the generous agency worker protections.  Below that, is the job-tryout worker that is strung out as if they were paid - which was something done by Tesco and by Close Protection UK.

That said, there's a difference between the intent of each and the actual practice of each.

(The impression that I get is that employers in the UK are deathly afraid of the full-time classification just for how well-protected people would be when having it.   It's bad enough that it's made agency work a given - where it is the benefit dodge in places like the United States -  to the point where employers use on-call workers as the new benefit dodge.  If they protected the zero-hour and try-out tiers, there'd be someone under *those* tiers.)


How exactly did "employers (go) open season on everyone not them"?  I worked through most of the Thatcher government. I was never made to work unpaid overtime, never denied sick pay, never threatened with being fired without cause, never denied benefits, never denied redundancy payments. Just how was I badly mistreated?

You didn't utter the five-letter U-word in an unfavorable way during your employment or otherwise indicate it in a way that employers (and employers' groups) could pick up.  That, and you're likely not to have been involved in the industries that Thatcher attacked or privatized.

Basically you weren't one of the groups targeted by Thatcher's government(which for the sake of limiting it to employment, does not include the Irish).

Now my question to you is how did the banks(excluding the killed-by-Soros Bank of England) and employers end up doing so well in terms of  being given the power that unions had, with no reversal of course away from socialism?  All those benefits exist(as you stated above such as constructive dismissal), but have done not much to stem the abuse that already exists.
 
2013-04-11 06:17:06 PM

sethstorm: Flint Ironstag: Considering that the UK has employee rights today, and during Margaret Thatchers time, that US most workers can only dream of, like statutory redundancy entitlement, right to claim constructive dismissal, four weeks holiday etc plus free healthcare, unemployment benefits etc all suggest she did not go anywhere close to taking away workers rights of giving employers unlimited power.

How about the classification abuse - where there are two tiers below the already second-class agency worker?  There's the zero-hour, "on-call" job that gets used to get around the generous agency worker protections.  Below that, is the job-tryout worker that is strung out as if they were paid - which was something done by Tesco and by Close Protection UK.

That said, there's a difference between the intent of each and the actual practice of each.

(The impression that I get is that employers in the UK are deathly afraid of the full-time classification just for how well-protected people would be when having it.   It's bad enough that it's made agency work a given - where it is the benefit dodge in places like the United States -  to the point where employers use on-call workers as the new benefit dodge.  If they protected the zero-hour and try-out tiers, there'd be someone under *those* tiers.)


How exactly did "employers (go) open season on everyone not them"?  I worked through most of the Thatcher government. I was never made to work unpaid overtime, never denied sick pay, never threatened with being fired without cause, never denied benefits, never denied redundancy payments. Just how was I badly mistreated?

You didn't utter the five-letter U-word in an unfavorable way during your employment or otherwise indicate it in a way that employers (and employers' groups) could pick up.  That, and you're likely not to have been involved in the industries that Thatcher attacked or privatized.

Basically you weren't one of the groups targeted by Thatcher's government(which for t ...


To your first points the people I directly know who work at my local Asda tell me that they do not have agency workers at there, but to be fair I don't know about other stores. As for job try out "that is strung out" all said they worked for about half a shift, maybe four hours. And when they were hired they were paid for those hours. I assume people not hired would not be paid. In any case it is hardly a productive business model to use people for four hours where they will require more supervision than had you just got an employee to do the job themselves.

As to unions during Margaret Thatchers time and now I live here and your idea that anyone "mentioning the U-word" would be picked on is laughable. Did you know that Asda hands out union literature in their staff canteens? I have no idea whether they are forced to do so, though I can't imagine how, but they do  The union is the GMB  Like any employer/union relationship they have had disagreements but your vision is something that is simply not recognisable here and I lived through this time.

As for during the Thatcher government I was not a member of a union where I then worked, but the point is I didn't need to be. I had rights, the right to redundancy pay if I was made redundant, the right to claim unfair or constructive dismissal, right to sick pay and 4 weeks holiday pay, right to claim unemployment or welfare if I was made unemployed and so on. I was never been asked to work unpaid overtime. Those rights have stayed much the same up to today, through Conservative and Labour governments. (The maximum 48 hour working week being introduced is about the only major change.)

Not saying it's some workers paradise here. But it is not, and was not under Thatcher, a workers hell either. Millions or working class people loved Thatcher and voted for her again and again. Millions of ordinary workers earned good money, bought their own houses and saw their standard of living rise hugely.
 
2013-04-11 08:01:36 PM

Flint Ironstag: To your first points the people I directly know who work at my local Asda tell me that they do not have agency workers at there, but to be fair I don't know about other stores. As for job try out "that is strung out" all said they worked for about half a shift, maybe four hours. And when they were hired they were paid for those hours. I assume people not hired would not be paid. In any case it is hardly a productive business model to use people for four hours where they will require more supervision than had you just got an employee to do the job themselves.

As to unions during Margaret Thatchers time and now I live here and your idea that anyone "mentioning the U-word" would be picked on is laughable. Did you know that Asda hands out union literature in their staff canteens? I have no idea whether they are forced to do so, though I can't imagine how, but they do The union is the GMB Like any employer/union relationship they have had disagreements but your vision is something that is simply not recognisable here and I lived through this time.


Well, I'm coming from the US perspective where there is a more adversarial relationship - in that UK-style cooperation is considered a weakness and the strategic location of industry in union-unfriendly states (mostly the Southeast).  While there are some exceptions, such as Costco, Meijer, and Kroger in the US, the default posture for a business is to smite unions out of existence with litigation.

Then again, it comes from a long history of adversarial attitudes that stretch for over a century - where it went from outright government sponsored exterminations to mild cooperation/outcompetition to litigation.   In essence, the underlying dislike never went away, it just simply returned under the right conditions (such as those exposed under Reagan).

The stuff that Thatcher pulled off reminded me of that same adversarial nature, thus the above posts.

As for during the Thatcher government I was not a member of a union where I then worked, but the point is I didn't need to be. I had rights, the right to redundancy pay if I was made redundant, the right to claim unfair or constructive dismissal, right to sick pay and 4 weeks holiday pay, right to claim unemployment or welfare if I was made unemployed and so on. I was never been asked to work unpaid overtime. Those rights have stayed much the same up to today, through Conservative and Labour governments. (The maximum 48 hour working week being introduced is about the only major change.)

So regulation made up for the lack of it, whether it was before or after.


Not saying it's some workers paradise here. But it is not, and was not under Thatcher, a workers hell either. Millions or working class people loved Thatcher and voted for her again and again. Millions of ordinary workers earned good money, bought their own houses and saw their standard of living rise hugely.

If someone managed to make the economic situation better, that wouldn't be a surprise.  Then again, the country could only go up given how bad it was.  That aside, the zero-hour work increase that I'm hearing about in higher-skill work seems to suggest a (recent) change in direction.

My ideal arrangement is where both sides of the table view each other as equals in making the company profit and prosper.  I've had that and seen that - but have yet to see it be more than a rarity at any size, much less in a large company.   Adversarial workplaces just get in the way of profit with all the backstabbing and retaliation.   It doesn't have to be a flat organization, just one that understands how to get people working together instead of against each other.


/Favorited you for at least being sensible about Thatcher.
//The further away that you are from FTE work, the more likely that someone doesn't trust you - good or bad.
///Why yes, I do have a problem with doing precarious work - for seeing it as a second-class citizen in the workplace.
////At least the UK does *something* to regularize it - as you had stated - unlike the US.
 
2013-04-11 08:42:51 PM

sethstorm: Flint Ironstag: To your first points the people I directly know who work at my local Asda tell me that they do not have agency workers at there, but to be fair I don't know about other stores. As for job try out "that is strung out" all said they worked for about half a shift, maybe four hours. And when they were hired they were paid for those hours. I assume people not hired would not be paid. In any case it is hardly a productive business model to use people for four hours where they will require more supervision than had you just got an employee to do the job themselves.

As to unions during Margaret Thatchers time and now I live here and your idea that anyone "mentioning the U-word" would be picked on is laughable. Did you know that Asda hands out union literature in their staff canteens? I have no idea whether they are forced to do so, though I can't imagine how, but they do The union is the GMB Like any employer/union relationship they have had disagreements but your vision is something that is simply not recognisable here and I lived through this time.

Well, I'm coming from the US perspective where there is a more adversarial relationship - in that UK-style cooperation is considered a weakness and the strategic location of industry in union-unfriendly states (mostly the Southeast).  While there are some exceptions, such as Costco, Meijer, and Kroger in the US, the default posture for a business is to smite unions out of existence with litigation.

Then again, it comes from a long history of adversarial attitudes that stretch for over a century - where it went from outright government sponsored exterminations to mild cooperation/outcompetition to litigation.   In essence, the underlying dislike never went away, it just simply returned under the right conditions (such as those exposed under Reagan).

The stuff that Thatcher pulled off reminded me of that same adversarial nature, thus the above posts.

As for during the Thatcher government I was not a member of ...


It was because of the rep Walmart has on Fark that I talked to the people I know who work as my local Asda. From them they all have contracted hours, in fact the whole operation in home delivery drivers, replenishment etc depends on having a fixed number of people every day so they all have set shifts and days. None has ever been asked to work unpaid overtime, if they are asked to work longer than their shifts they are paid for that time. From what I remember if they finish early their time is paid down to the nearest 15 minutes but if they go over it is paid exactly. The person who told me this is a home delivery driver and they can end up finishing a couple of hours early or an hour later than their schedule. Any time after 10PM is a slightly higher rate.  They all say the whole store has an easy going atmosphere and everyone gets on. I've been in store when they do a daily tidy up at three in the afternoon and they have everyone from the actual store manager, the HR people and department heads working the shelves and stacking tins of beans.

All the staff are asda employees except the asda 'Aces', who are the cleaning staff who do the regular cleaning and mop up spills. They are employed by a contract company so I have no idea how they work.

Personally the worst experience I had employment wise was when a place I worked went bust and was taken over by another company. This involved TUPE, a law that says the new owner must honour the employment contract of the old company, so if they made me redundant after a week legally "they" have employed me for all the years I worked for the old company and pay me the redundancy due.
In this case they tried to get rid of my post by gradually forcing me to take over another more junior job. I spent almost a year gradually trying to come to agreement with them with things getting worse and worse before I walked out one day and never went back. I filed a case with the employment tribunal, a government body, free to use, who would hold a "trial" to decide the matter. A few days before this was due the company made an offer and I got a nice five figure cheque.  I also got them to agree that any time I used them as a reference they would give the letter I wrote in their name saying I had left on good terms.

I've nothing against unions in principle, just never needed or been asked to join one in twenty five years of working. As a writer I'm a strong supporter of the American WGA and and flew over to walk the picket lines during the strike in 07.

The "anti union" laws Maggie introduced were against things like secondary picketing, so the train drivers couldn't walk out in support of the miners for example, and to make formal secret voting mandatory instead of the usual "raise your hands if you want to strike" method that could easily lead to intimidation.

And above all in the case of the miners it was they who went after Maggie, not she after them. The unions had bought down two governments in the seventies and were open about their aim of bringing down hers. They declared war, not her.

It's amusing to see people claiming that she was on the side of business while at the same time claiming she destroyed the car industry. Aren't they business? Didn't they pay their secret "don't destroy us" bribe?  Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot, the commercially owned British manufacturers at the time, suffered just as much as state owned BL. Peugeot gave up the UK and went back to their French production base and Ford and Vauxhall had their American parents to bail them out with billions and provide economies of scale. They all suffered from huge labour, union and strike problems in the seventies and later. BL went a year where they averaged more than a strike a day. They had cases where the canteen had run out of a certain biscuit at breaktime so they walked out and shut the whole factory down. That is not fighting for basic workers rights and working conditions. That is taking the piss.
 
2013-04-11 09:26:18 PM
Flint Ironstag won the thread.
 
2013-04-11 09:47:34 PM

Slaxl: Flint Ironstag won the thread.


Winning a thread isn't my goal. I love visiting the US and think it's a great country, but it amazes and saddens me that somehow the powers that be in the US have managed to convince seemingly a majority of the population that they cannot have things like universal healthcare and employment rights because they're socialist and evil and the sky will fall in if you even think about it.

Pointing out that a company like Walmart can operate in a country with decent employment laws and trade quite happily and profitably while they at the same time fight those same rights in their home country and argue they couldn't possibly survive with those same laws in the US is just wrong. I think they need a Henry Ford moment and realise that if they paid their workers a decent wage, not a huge increase just better, then they'd end up fuelling a population that would turn around and end up spending a lot more money in their stores.  (Asda employees even get staff discount, 10% on groceries which Walmart employees in the US apparently don't)  Tales like the Fark thread a couple of days ago where it was considered "reasonable" to not call an ambulance when someone was passed out unconscious in the bathroom because you'd be stuck with a $1000 ambulance bill are also something that I find staggering. Here no one would ever even think of anything remotely like that. Ambulance and fire brigade staff would far rather be called out to a honest false alarm and not be needed than not be called out and someone lose their life.
How can you have a country where people could possibly be forced to consider the downside of calling an ambulance before they made the call?
 
2013-04-12 04:49:01 AM
Flint Ironstag: Slaxl: Flint Ironstag won the thread.

Winning a thread isn't my goal. I love visiting the US and think it's a great country, but it amazes and saddens me that somehow the powers that be in the US have managed to convince seemingly a majority of the population that they cannot have things like universal healthcare and employment rights because they're socialist and evil and the sky will fall in if you even think about it.


I'd have to disagree with you a bit on healthcare, but generally agree with you on employment rights.  Healthcare is something from seeing the NHS not exactly do its job well; robust employment rights is from the 1980's and its general introduction of the idea that work is an endless series of matches between you and the entire working age population of the world - known as competitiveness.

There is one major downside to nationalized healthcare - it disincentivizes someone from pursuing gainful employment where benefits would be found.    In addition, it emphasizes the more temporary/precarious forms of labor (agency, casual) that both employers and employees(?) pursue when a major benefit is taken out.  In addition, it brings the risk of other benefits being taken away as competitive advantage (i.e. an employer couldn't realistically offer a *better* package without great cost) is removed.

That, and in the US, you get some people that will look to see if you have the wrong person on your bumper sticker and put you first for layoffs.  While these spiteful may not necessarily be the majority of employers, they do echo their general sentiment towards the US's implementation of it - PPACA(which is trying its darndest to die).

I don't particularly like how the insurance agencies are in the US, but I'm not sure that the NHS is something to imitate.  Cultural/political/other differences and all that.

Pointing out that a company like Walmart can operate in a country with decent employment laws and trade quite happily and profitably while they at the same time fight those same rights in their home country and argue they couldn't possibly survive with those same laws in the US is just wrong. I think they need a Henry Ford moment and realise that if they paid their workers a decent wage, not a huge increase just better, then they'd end up fuelling a population that would turn around and end up spending a lot more money in their stores.

The problem is that Ford had a little incident at an overpass between their security department and some union members a while after the initial "Henry Ford" moment.  After that, things went from one direction to the other(between unions and employers), finally having some sort of comfortable middle for a while - until the wonders of globalization ramped up during Reagan's time as President of the United States.  In addition to that, it didn't help that Reagan and "9/11" Giuliani created a union-shattering precedent by firing ~12k air traffic controllers(look up PATCO); this in turn made things *worse* for everyone that worked or hired.  To think of it, things have almost come full circle except for the violence; litigating someone into poverty is much more preferable to having the blood on your hands.

(Unions can be some of the most corrupt things on the Earth, but total destructive warfare on them (to the point where they don't exist) will not make the situation any better.  Something will fill that void formerly occupied by labor unions and it may not be something that is wanted.  It would be far better to just clean up and compete instead of clean out and litigate.)
 
2013-04-12 07:05:14 AM

Fart_Machine: BgJonson79: Fart_Machine: Epoch_Zero: A visual representation of this thread, featuring  FarkedOver:

It's also a pretty good illustration of ad hominem. Nobody is addressing his argument; they're berating his job and retirement plan.

The argument is that he's a hypocrite.

Thank you for making my point.


So you just automatically dismiss comments showing that someone is a hypocrite by saying it is ad hominem and therefore the argument is invalid? Can`t the stating of being a hypocrite be separate from a comment on the validity of their argument?

You do realise that your ground is logically the same, you have not addressed the claim of hypocrisy, instead you have attacked the person...
 
2013-04-12 07:13:24 AM

Flint Ironstag: Slaxl: Flint Ironstag won the thread.

Winning a thread isn't my goal. I love visiting the US and think it's a great country, but it amazes and saddens me that somehow the powers that be in the US have managed to convince seemingly a majority of the population that they cannot have things like universal healthcare and employment rights because they're socialist and evil and the sky will fall in if you even think about it.

Pointing out that a company like Walmart can operate in a country with decent employment laws and trade quite happily and profitably while they at the same time fight those same rights in their home country and argue they couldn't possibly survive with those same laws in the US is just wrong. I think they need a Henry Ford moment and realise that if they paid their workers a decent wage, not a huge increase just better, then they'd end up fuelling a population that would turn around and end up spending a lot more money in their stores.  (Asda employees even get staff discount, 10% on groceries which Walmart employees in the US apparently don't)  Tales like the Fark thread a couple of days ago where it was considered "reasonable" to not call an ambulance when someone was passed out unconscious in the bathroom because you'd be stuck with a $1000 ambulance bill are also something that I find staggering. Here no one would ever even think of anything remotely like that. Ambulance and fire brigade staff would far rather be called out to a honest false alarm and not be needed than not be called out and someone lose their life.
How can you have a country where people could possibly be forced to consider the downside of calling an ambulance before they made the call?


It`s simple economics. If you take all the money then your employees have none to buy your product and you go bust. You have to give your employees enough money to make optional purchases, the exact thing your business relies on to live.
 
Displayed 36 of 1136 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report