Carryfast:
I’m talking about the unionised loads of work and money Detroit etc of the 1950’s/60’s not the post Reagan global free market zb up wasteland.
So you never heard the story about the goose that laid golden eggs?
Well, the goose got well and truely [zb].
Have you actually got any idea what you’re saying.The fact is the US unions ( like ours did to a much lesser extent ) managed to turn what was effectively an economic waste land during the 1920’s-30’s depression into the industrial powerhouse with the resulting economic growth of the 1950’s-60’s despite the best efforts of those with your views to return it to where it was.Then Reagan ( and Thatcher ) got in and the rest is history.
taffytrucker:
O CF a lot of drivers (myself included) dont want to team or double man as you put it and IF you have done it I doubt you would want to either. When doing team work the truck is on the got 24 hrs a day and you get paid for what work the truck does not each mile that YOU would drive
I’m not talking about double manning it’s the employers who are looking into that as,they say,a way to solve the issues of drivers not getting home enough.
I’m saying if they want to employ two drivers and if the issue is all about drivers spending too long away then use them to run on a rota like 2,3 or 4 weeks on 2,3 or 4 weeks off for example just like 4 days on 4 days off rotas on local work in some places here.Nothing to do with double manned running which wouldn’t solve the problem anyway.
lmaoo you really havent a clue have you!! no that wasnt a question that was a statement!!! dont you think if drivers could afford to do that then we would!!! o and dont bother start to spout on about doubling the pay etc it will not work think about it before you type…
It wasn’t me who ‘spouted’ anything about doubling mileage based wage rates it’s actually one of the options that I’ve seen put out by the North American trucking industry itself as a way of making the the long haul sector more attractive to prospective drivers.Maybe you should read what I’ve written before bothering to type a so called ‘answer’.
I did and 2 drivers on a rota?? come on wake up how is that going to work over here. The average trip I do is between 7 - 10 days so i go do that trip i come back spend half a day moving everything out of my truck as I wont trust anybody with it I go on my time off. Driver 2 jumps in and off he goes to say Texas drops reloads for Toronto then comes back over the TCH weather is bad and closed for a day o bugger thats now turned into a 16 day trip and I’ve had to take an extra f4 or 5 days off which again I’m not getting paid for. The distances over here are to grand for something like that to work unless its a regular run but even on thios runs you can waste over a day waiting to be loaded at some places… So you think that the big wigs who comes up with ideas like that have a clue■■? they really dont in the UK what makes it any different over here and you was the one that bought that onto the forum but I cant remember what thread it was on…
If you drive long haul and what time at home then book a couple days off and have them as your reset. There are guys at my company who do this for almost every weekend. Its upto the companies to change the way they think
Carryfast:
I’m talking about the unionised loads of work and money Detroit etc of the 1950’s/60’s not the post Reagan global free market zb up wasteland.
So you never heard the story about the goose that laid golden eggs?
Well, the goose got well and truely [zb].
Have you actually got any idea what you’re saying.The fact is the US unions ( like ours did to a much lesser extent ) managed to turn what was effectively an economic waste land during the 1920’s-30’s depression into the industrial powerhouse with the resulting economic growth of the 1950’s-60’s despite the best efforts of those with your views to return it to where it was.Then Reagan ( and Thatcher ) got in and the rest is history.
I corrected you, paraphrasing: The US unions and our unions managed to turn what were industrial powerhouses, following the rebuilding after WW2, into economic wastelands by overmilking the golden goose, because not being satisfied with the golden eggs, they thought they could get chocolate milk to go with the nice golden eggs. The goose said ■■■■ this and died. If the unions had been satisified with the nice little earner the golden eggs provided, the goose would have survived. So now they have no chocolate milk and no golden eggs either. Stupid unions!
taffytrucker:
and as for time away I used to spend more time away in one hit driving EU then I do over here and still make a comfy living
It’s not me who’s arguing about the situation of drivers being away for weeks and then turning around again after 2 days at home.That’s what some people are saying is happening and is why the long haul sector is subject to driver shortages there. While others are obviously saying something else.However regardless of that there is obviously an issue in that regard or the topic and the content of the radio interview wouldn’t be here would it. In which case,if it’s true what they’re saying,then it’s obvious that the type of fixes which they’re looking at won’t solve those issues.While I’d say that my ideas would be more likely to do that.Assuming that is they intend to employ more drivers as a way to do it bearing in mind that using their ideas they’ll just replace the issue of one driver not getting home enough with two and paying more to do it.
It seems to me that they all need to make up their minds what the problems are and even if those so called problems actually exist.However maybe they’d do a lot better just doing what I’ve said in opening up their driver jobs market to the British without restrictions and allowing the transfer/exchange of UK LGV licences for Canadian ones and forgetting all about the ‘experience’ and the proposed ‘professional’ entry qualifications for the job.That would probably sort the problem while at the same time sorting out wether there is really an issue,regarding so called too long away and not enough time at home,or wether it’s just a load of whingers who can’t hack the job.
Carryfast:
I’m talking about the unionised loads of work and money Detroit etc of the 1950’s/60’s not the post Reagan global free market zb up wasteland.
So you never heard the story about the goose that laid golden eggs?
Well, the goose got well and truely [zb].
Have you actually got any idea what you’re saying.The fact is the US unions ( like ours did to a much lesser extent ) managed to turn what was effectively an economic waste land during the 1920’s-30’s depression into the industrial powerhouse with the resulting economic growth of the 1950’s-60’s despite the best efforts of those with your views to return it to where it was.Then Reagan ( and Thatcher ) got in and the rest is history.
I corrected you, paraphrasing: The US unions and our unions managed to turn what were industrial powerhouses, following the rebuilding after WW2, into economic wastelands by overmilking the golden goose, because not being satisfied with the golden eggs, they thought they could get chocolate milk to go with the nice golden eggs. The goose said [zb] this and died. If the unions had been satisified with the nice little earner the golden eggs provided, the goose would have survived. So now they have no chocolate milk and no golden eggs either. Stupid unions!
Er no because the economic figures both here and in the States of the 1920’s/30’s and then 1950’s/60’s then 1979-to date prove me right.You seem to forget that the Reagan and Thatcher defeated the US and British unions and went for the global free market economy.So where’s the promised land that they told everyone it would bring them.It’s been well over 30 years and there’s still no sign of it.Although parts of America,as you’ve said,now look like it’s the 1920’s/30’s all over again.With the western economies which follow the US one going the same way fast.
Carryfast:
There’s obviously no room in your ideas then for any view which would say that the place is just an extension of Britain in which the only reason to regard one as ‘home’ and one not,would be in the same way as I’d view Surrey as home compared to anywhere else in Britain.Somehow I think your view goes against everything that Canada’s British colonial founders intended for it and is an insult to those British troops who died fighting with the French etc to make the place what it was and became over the years.I think they’d now be turning in their graves to see such a load of seperatist anti British bs being put out by those who regard the place as a totally seperate entitity with entry there now being based on some abitrary elitist ideas of those like yourself.All of which I might have expected and understood from a French Canadian colonist but not a British one.
You can put that ■■■■■■■ violin away CF. Fact is the world continually evolves. Most of our ancestors would turn in their graves if they saw how all of us live our lives. Too bad, we live in the present day. Like it or not your opinions are outdated. Either get with the program or get knotted. Nothing you rant on about is going to change how Canadians run their country. The fact that Canada was once a French colony and then a British colony is not relevant today. Canada has the same Queen as Britain and that is about it now. Britain is not revered in Canada by Canadians. They do like hearing English and Scottish accents though, especially in the tourist areas. $$$
Carryfast:
I’m talking about the unionised loads of work and money Detroit etc of the 1950’s/60’s not the post Reagan global free market zb up wasteland.
So you never heard the story about the goose that laid golden eggs?
Well, the goose got well and truely [zb].
Have you actually got any idea what you’re saying.The fact is the US unions ( like ours did to a much lesser extent ) managed to turn what was effectively an economic waste land during the 1920’s-30’s depression into the industrial powerhouse with the resulting economic growth of the 1950’s-60’s despite the best efforts of those with your views to return it to where it was.Then Reagan ( and Thatcher ) got in and the rest is history.
I corrected you, paraphrasing: The US unions and our unions managed to turn what were industrial powerhouses, following the rebuilding after WW2, into economic wastelands by overmilking the golden goose, because not being satisfied with the golden eggs, they thought they could get chocolate milk to go with the nice golden eggs. The goose said [zb] this and died. If the unions had been satisified with the nice little earner the golden eggs provided, the goose would have survived. So now they have no chocolate milk and no golden eggs either. Stupid unions!
Er no because the economic figures both here and in the States of the 1920’s/30’s and then 1950’s/60’s then 1979-to date prove me right.You seem to forget that the Reagan and Thatcher defeated the US and British unions and went for the global free market economy.So where’s the promised land that they told everyone it would bring them.It’s been well over 30 years and there’s still no sign of it.Although parts of America,as you’ve said,now look like it’s the 1920’s/30’s all over again.With the western economies which follow the US one going the same way fast.
You really are thick aren’t you? Why would Reagan and Thatcher have any need or desire to defeat the unions, eh? Not because the unons had pushed too far or too hard, then? Stupid greedy unions got ■■■■■■ because we the people got fed up with being shafted and voted for someone who would take them on. Maybe the stupid ■■■■■■■■ will learn that when you push too hard you provoke a strong reaction in retaliation. You ever hear how to boil frogs?
Carryfast:
I’m talking about the unionised loads of work and money Detroit etc of the 1950’s/60’s not the post Reagan global free market zb up wasteland.
So you never heard the story about the goose that laid golden eggs?
Well, the goose got well and truely [zb].
Have you actually got any idea what you’re saying.The fact is the US unions ( like ours did to a much lesser extent ) managed to turn what was effectively an economic waste land during the 1920’s-30’s depression into the industrial powerhouse with the resulting economic growth of the 1950’s-60’s despite the best efforts of those with your views to return it to where it was.Then Reagan ( and Thatcher ) got in and the rest is history.
I corrected you, paraphrasing: The US unions and our unions managed to turn what were industrial powerhouses, following the rebuilding after WW2, into economic wastelands by overmilking the golden goose, because not being satisfied with the golden eggs, they thought they could get chocolate milk to go with the nice golden eggs. The goose said [zb] this and died. If the unions had been satisified with the nice little earner the golden eggs provided, the goose would have survived. So now they have no chocolate milk and no golden eggs either. Stupid unions!
Er no because the economic figures both here and in the States of the 1920’s/30’s and then 1950’s/60’s then 1979-to date prove me right.You seem to forget that the Reagan and Thatcher defeated the US and British unions and went for the global free market economy.So where’s the promised land that they told everyone it would bring them.It’s been well over 30 years and there’s still no sign of it.Although parts of America,as you’ve said,now look like it’s the 1920’s/30’s all over again.With the western economies which follow the US one going the same way fast.
You really are thick aren’t you? Why would Reagan and Thatcher have any need or desire to defeat the unions, eh? Not because the unons had pushed too far or too hard, then? Stupid greedy unions got [zb] because we the people got fed up with being shafted and voted for someone who would take them on. Maybe the stupid [zb] will learn that when you push too hard you provoke a strong reaction in retaliation. You ever hear how to boil frogs?
So you’re saying that the Reaganites and Thatcherites ‘retaliated’ against their fellow American and British people,who don’t forget were/are those who made up the unions,because ( in those Thatcherites view ) those unions were pushing too far too hard.Like figures of 8 % economic growth here in the early 1970’s and even higher in the States of the 1960’s.
That retaliation then resulted in China etc etc getting richer while employment levels and wages,both here and in the industrial heartlands of the States,now lag behind prices with the resulting effects on economic growth,trade deficits and debt levels.It all depends on who you mean by ‘we the people’ but you’re certainly not speaking for any of the ‘people’ who I was lucky enough to grow up with and work with amongst previous generations.
Carryfast:
There’s obviously no room in your ideas then for any view which would say that the place is just an extension of Britain in which the only reason to regard one as ‘home’ and one not,would be in the same way as I’d view Surrey as home compared to anywhere else in Britain.Somehow I think your view goes against everything that Canada’s British colonial founders intended for it and is an insult to those British troops who died fighting with the French etc to make the place what it was and became over the years.I think they’d now be turning in their graves to see such a load of seperatist anti British bs being put out by those who regard the place as a totally seperate entitity with entry there now being based on some abitrary elitist ideas of those like yourself.All of which I might have expected and understood from a French Canadian colonist but not a British one.
You can put that [zb] violin away CF. Fact is the world continually evolves. Most of our ancestors would turn in their graves if they saw how all of us live our lives. Too bad, we live in the present day. Like it or not your opinions are outdated. Either get with the program or get knotted. Nothing you rant on about is going to change how Canadians run their country. The fact that Canada was once a French colony and then a British colony is not relevant today. Canada has the same Queen as Britain and that is about it now. Britain is not revered in Canada by Canadians. They do like hearing English and Scottish accents though, especially in the tourist areas. $$$
Am I elitist? Maybe, but only if you are a hoser.
All of which says everything about the bs and hypocricy of sending British people out to ‘fight for their country and the so called Queen’ when in fact she represents nothing and being British means absolutely nothing to match.At least you’ve admitted to being elitist which at least lets everyone know exactly where your arguments have their basis.At the very least if your views are representative of the majority in Canada then maybe it’s time for those provinces which still fly the British flags to remove them.Being that they’re only there for the benefit of Japanese tourists and to make the Brits feel at home.When in fact we should have just let the French have the place and saved the money and the lives fighting for it.
flat to the mat:
Spot on ? no way matey Haven’t locked the house since the day we moved in Sept 2006 , never lock our vehicles , people look you in the face and say good morning whilst holding open the door , no anti social behavior around here , kids come out of school and are bright happy and pleasant company , the media are positive , success is celebrated rather than mocked or frowned upon ,there are seldom any traffic issues other than weather related , oh and you can walk around downtown on the weekends without being spewed on or having to slap a chav .
I could go on in Carryfast style but am quite content to call Canada home ,the thought of tolerating life in PC ridden Britain with all it’s negativity even before the next influx from Eastern Europe would fill me with horror . This place isn’t Utopia but in comparison I know where I’d rather live and that’ll be in a free world .Yeap this is home now .
That is how I remember Canada from my time growing up. Canada will always be where I think of as home. My sons, having heard me talk about Canada while they were growing up, all moved to Canada themselves when they were old enough and things here were sliding downhill. I always said that if things went bad in England I would go back to Canada. I was born in the UK, emigrated at age 3 and returned aged 13, so although I only lived there for 10 years, I still think of myself as more Canadian than British. I’m proud to be Canadian, I’m not nearly so proud to be British even though I’ve been living in Britain since 1967. My sons all say they have no intention of ever moving back to England and want me to move back to Canada too. I probably will when my retirement beckons but at the moment I live in a reasonably nice area with little social problems and I’m earning more here than I could in Canada simply because the population density in Canada is too low for my business to be viable there and they don’t have the same H & S culture which helps me get work here.
There’s obviously no room in your ideas then for any view which would say that the place is just an extension of Britain in which the only reason to regard one as ‘home’ and one not,would be in the same way as I’d view Surrey as home compared to anywhere else in Britain.Somehow I think your view goes against everything that Canada’s British colonial founders intended for it and is an insult to those British troops who died fighting with the French etc to make the place what it was and became over the years.I think they’d now be turning in their graves to see such a load of seperatist anti British bs being put out by those who regard the place as a totally seperate entitity with entry there now being based on some abitrary elitist ideas of those like yourself.All of which I might have expected and understood from a French Canadian colonist but not a British one.
Are you just bitter you couldn’t make a go of it over there?
Carryfast:
There’s obviously no room in your ideas then for any view which would say that the place is just an extension of Britain in which the only reason to regard one as ‘home’ and one not,would be in the same way as I’d view Surrey as home compared to anywhere else in Britain.Somehow I think your view goes against everything that Canada’s British colonial founders intended for it and is an insult to those British troops who died fighting with the French etc to make the place what it was and became over the years.I think they’d now be turning in their graves to see such a load of seperatist anti British bs being put out by those who regard the place as a totally seperate entitity with entry there now being based on some abitrary elitist ideas of those like yourself.All of which I might have expected and understood from a French Canadian colonist but not a British one.
You can put that [zb] violin away CF. Fact is the world continually evolves. Most of our ancestors would turn in their graves if they saw how all of us live our lives. Too bad, we live in the present day. Like it or not your opinions are outdated. Either get with the program or get knotted. Nothing you rant on about is going to change how Canadians run their country. The fact that Canada was once a French colony and then a British colony is not relevant today. Canada has the same Queen as Britain and that is about it now. Britain is not revered in Canada by Canadians. They do like hearing English and Scottish accents though, especially in the tourist areas. $$$
Am I elitist? Maybe, but only if you are a hoser.
All of which says everything about the bs and hypocricy of sending British people out to ‘fight for their country and the so called Queen’ when in fact she represents nothing and being British means absolutely nothing to match.At least you’ve admitted to being elitist which at least lets everyone know exactly where your arguments have their basis.At the very least if your views are representative of the majority in Canada then maybe it’s time for those provinces which still fly the British flags to remove them.Being that they’re only there for the benefit of Japanese tourists and to make the Brits feel at home.When in fact we should have just let the French have the place and saved the money and the lives fighting for it.
Jesus wept! You are wittering on about events that happened 200 years ago.
More recently, Great Britain turned away from Canada in favour of Europe so no surprise that the Canadians aren’t very keen on giving special rights to British subjects.
This may help you understand why Great Britain is no longer regarded as particularly important to today’s Canadians. youtube.com/watch?v=bV_041oYDjg
As for me being elitist, I answered maybe, which is not an admission at all, so once again you are twisting things to be as you wish they were.
Perhaps you could explain just what you mean by elitist and why being elitist would be regarded as a bad thing.
I attended Grammar school in the UK. Does that make me elitist? Possibly to those that failed the 11 plus exam and couldn’t go to a Grammar school. Did you not get into a good school Geoffrey?
Remember that success is encouraged and rewarded in Canada, rather than being sneered at and disparaged as it is in Great Britain.
If being elitist means being the best of the best, then why not? We can’t all be hosers, eh Geoffrey?
flat to the mat:
Spot on ? no way matey Haven’t locked the house since the day we moved in Sept 2006 , never lock our vehicles , people look you in the face and say good morning whilst holding open the door , no anti social behavior around here , kids come out of school and are bright happy and pleasant company , the media are positive , success is celebrated rather than mocked or frowned upon ,there are seldom any traffic issues other than weather related , oh and you can walk around downtown on the weekends without being spewed on or having to slap a chav .
I could go on in Carryfast style but am quite content to call Canada home ,the thought of tolerating life in PC ridden Britain with all it’s negativity even before the next influx from Eastern Europe would fill me with horror . This place isn’t Utopia but in comparison I know where I’d rather live and that’ll be in a free world .Yeap this is home now .
That is how I remember Canada from my time growing up. Canada will always be where I think of as home. My sons, having heard me talk about Canada while they were growing up, all moved to Canada themselves when they were old enough and things here were sliding downhill. I always said that if things went bad in England I would go back to Canada. I was born in the UK, emigrated at age 3 and returned aged 13, so although I only lived there for 10 years, I still think of myself as more Canadian than British. I’m proud to be Canadian, I’m not nearly so proud to be British even though I’ve been living in Britain since 1967. My sons all say they have no intention of ever moving back to England and want me to move back to Canada too. I probably will when my retirement beckons but at the moment I live in a reasonably nice area with little social problems and I’m earning more here than I could in Canada simply because the population density in Canada is too low for my business to be viable there and they don’t have the same H & S culture which helps me get work here.
There’s obviously no room in your ideas then for any view which would say that the place is just an extension of Britain in which the only reason to regard one as ‘home’ and one not,would be in the same way as I’d view Surrey as home compared to anywhere else in Britain.Somehow I think your view goes against everything that Canada’s British colonial founders intended for it and is an insult to those British troops who died fighting with the French etc to make the place what it was and became over the years.I think they’d now be turning in their graves to see such a load of seperatist anti British bs being put out by those who regard the place as a totally seperate entitity with entry there now being based on some abitrary elitist ideas of those like yourself.All of which I might have expected and understood from a French Canadian colonist but not a British one.
Are you just bitter you couldn’t make a go of it over there?
taffytrucker:
and as for time away I used to spend more time away in one hit driving EU then I do over here and still make a comfy living
It’s not me who’s arguing about the situation of drivers being away for weeks and then turning around again after 2 days at home.That’s what some people are saying is happening and is why the long haul sector is subject to driver shortages there. While others are obviously saying something else.However regardless of that there is obviously an issue in that regard or the topic and the content of the radio interview wouldn’t be here would it. In which case,if it’s true what they’re saying,then it’s obvious that the type of fixes which they’re looking at won’t solve those issues.While I’d say that my ideas would be more likely to do that.Assuming that is they intend to employ more drivers as a way to do it bearing in mind that using their ideas they’ll just replace the issue of one driver not getting home enough with two and paying more to do it.
It seems to me that they all need to make up their minds what the problems are and even if those so called problems actually exist.However maybe they’d do a lot better just doing what I’ve said in opening up their driver jobs market to the British without restrictions and allowing the transfer/exchange of UK LGV licences for Canadian ones and forgetting all about the ‘experience’ and the proposed ‘professional’ entry qualifications for the job.That would probably sort the problem while at the same time sorting out wether there is really an issue,regarding so called too long away and not enough time at home,or wether it’s just a load of whingers who can’t hack the job.
At the moment it’s easy enough for a Brit to go to Canada as a driver but there’s still a massive shortage of OTR drivers.
It’s open to lots of nations but still a problem.
It’s the job and t&c that is the problem.
Just for CF: Canada’s Queen in Canada on Canada Day 1st July 2010. Great Britains Queen too (same person!) Notice that there is not a single Union Flag to be seen? That’s because the Union Flag is the flag of Great Britain and no longer part of the flag of Canada nor important enough to be flown when the Queen of Great Britain was there. Bad luck old fella. ■■■■■ when you don’t get what you want, eh?
kr79:
I thought she was German her husbands a bubble multi cultural Britain at its best lol
The Queen is only German if you follow CF’s idea of ancestory being more important than place of birth or cultural values.
I have a card that says I’m Canadian, and a paper that says I’m Brtish. I prefer being Canadian so that is what I am.
The Queen says she is Canadian so that is good enough for me.
According to CF though I’m German as some of my ancestors came from what is now Germany. Most of my ancestors came from the UK but that won’t faze CF will it?
