Red Robbo

[carryfast]

David Miller:
In my other career, the Merchant Navy, I did see the total damage that a politically motivated strike could do. I was not personally involved in the 1966 Seamans Strike being at the time sailing on Dutch Ships but we watched it unfold. The Union undoubtedly won and much delight there was. They really fixed the Owners, screwed them to the wall, keep the Red Flag flying etc etc. But what actually happened was that they signed the death warrent of the British Merchant Navy because the Owners, faced with completely unworkable labour conditions that would have meant them keeping two, exclusively British, crews on each ship simply to have ensured safe operation, simply moved their ships onto flags that gave them the choice of who they employed and how much they paid them. Another massive sucess for the Labour movement.

How is the idea of Brit ships using exclusively Brit crews supposedly ‘politically motivated’.As opposed to just doing what’s in the interests of Brit workers.Which is actually a Nationalist argument not a Socialist one.Bearing in mind that flagging out to take advantage of cheap foreign labour also took place under so called ‘Labour’ governments.

As for flagging out.You obviously think that the best way for workers to keep their job is to join the race to the bottom by trying to undercut the lower wage expectations of foreign workers. By that logic you’re saying that Brit drivers need to accept East Euro wage rates and terms and conditions to save their jobs when cabotage restrictions are removed.

[carryfast]

ramone:
Getting the even keel of a good fair relationship between employer and employee should be the aim.

So long as employers don’t wish to realise that their turnover and profit is directly related to how much money the workers have in their pockets to spend and how many are employed and a wish to maximise employment levels to share the workload to minimise the hours spent at work and to maximise leisure time to spend the money earn’t,you’re talking about two totally opposing irreconcilable differences.In which case the early 1970’s were as good as it ever got for the working class of this country.While the Germans luckily had the luxury of an employer class going by the former logic and a geopolitical agenda that was happy to go along with it in their case.Unlike the unfortunate Brits.

[fodenway]

Throughout my driving days, I never drove for a unionised transport firm, except one of the National Bus member companies, but my experience of unions came mainly in manufacturing companies where “closed shop” was the norm. A good few of the union reps and shop stewards I came across seemed to use their position as an excuse for not doing any proper work, or as a stepping-stone to becoming a local councillor so that they could represent the downtrodden British worker by going on “fact-finding missions” (free jollies) to see first-hand how one-legged lesbian coalminers were treated in some banana republic or other. That, of course, is when they were not calling us out on strike over some ridiculous point and demanding unsustainable wage rises that would eventually finish the company. Having said all that, I am fully in favour of the Unions as long as they act reasonably for their members, preferably leaving politics to the politicians. I can dream…

[carryfast]

fodenway:
That, of course, is when they were not calling us out on strike over some ridiculous point and demanding unsustainable wage rises that would eventually finish the company. Having said all that, I am fully in favour of the Unions as long as they act reasonably for their members, preferably leaving politics to the politicians. I can dream…

At what point does the excuse of ‘unsustainable wage rises’ become some employers under cutting higher paying employers by lumbering their workforces with lower wages for more hours.

While it’s naive in the extreme to think that the interests of the working class can be totally seperated from the government process just as the Conservatives are first and foremost all about looking after the interests of the CBI.That based on a corrupted version of so called ‘Capitalism’ which is all about the antithesis of Keynesian economics and makes China’s Communist ruling elite richer at our expense.The problem in this case being the issue of Socialism having hijacked that agenda on the basis that only their solutions are the correct and valid ones and only they have the god given right to speak for the working class.Ironically that anti nation state agenda being closer to the interests of that corrupted agenda of the employers,than the interests of Brit workers.

[david_miller]

You know carryfast that you are really going to have to start reading the posts and understanding the questions before honouring us with your opinions.

At no time did I say that the crewing of British ships with British crews was ‘Politically motivated’ It was just the way things were before the 66 Seamans Strike. The question of political motivation came from the Saintly H Wilson who believed, probably correctly, that the strike was formented and supported by the Communists with the aim of bringing down his Government. Labour you will note.

Whoever was behind it it certainly wasn’t the Britsh Seamen. They had no interest in striking but the NUS got the number of votes they needed mostly from people who worked in Ports where membership of the National Union of Seamen was a requirement to get their jobs.

The real damage was the insistance of the Union on a 40 hour working week for Seamen. For many, many years crew on ships worked 8 hours in 24 with an overtime payment for working Sundays. I’m sure that you will be able to figure that 7 x 8 is more than 40 and the Union were very clear that overtime was only ever optional and could be refused. A ship at sea would find itself in a difficult position if nobody was prepaired to work after Friday evening. Hence the Owners were faced with having to employ more people to cover the shortage.

I also have never said that anyone should join in the race to the bottom to protect jobs. And lets be clear that the Owners made it quite clear that they had no interest in flagging their ships out. Although it might reduce the wages they had to pay it meant employing people they could not communicate directly with and who had qualifications that might or might not have any value. No. They were forced to do so by the brilliant actions of the Union.

Oh and another thing; exactly what are these cabotage regulations that are going to be removed, by who and when?

David

[chrisarbon]

I was a steward for the T & G, small depot of a nationwide company; 20 drivers/15 union members. I never had them out on strike or negotiated the pay rises but I think the Union helped with driver retention. Drivers came to me with their problems and management came to me about problem drivers. Everything got sorted out and nobody got frustrated or bullied or jacked-in on the spur of the moment. I’m proud that I saved drivers from moving on for no good reason and that the management respected what I said.

[carryfast]

David Miller:
You know carryfast that you are really going to have to start reading the posts and understanding the questions before honouring us with your opinions.

At no time did I say that the crewing of British ships with British crews was ‘Politically motivated’ It was just the way things were before the 66 Seamans Strike. The question of political motivation came from the Saintly H Wilson who believed, probably correctly, that the strike was formented and supported by the Communists with the aim of bringing down his Government. Labour you will note.

Whoever was behind it it certainly wasn’t the Britsh Seamen. They had no interest in striking but the NUS got the number of votes they needed mostly from people who worked in Ports where membership of the National Union of Seamen was a requirement to get their jobs.

The real damage was the insistance of the Union on a 40 hour working week for Seamen. For many, many years crew on ships worked 8 hours in 24 with an overtime payment for working Sundays. I’m sure that you will be able to figure that 7 x 8 is more than 40 and the Union were very clear that overtime was only ever optional and could be refused. A ship at sea would find itself in a difficult position if nobody was prepaired to work after Friday evening. Hence the Owners were faced with having to employ more people to cover the shortage.

I also have never said that anyone should join in the race to the bottom to protect jobs. And lets be clear that the Owners made it quite clear that they had no interest in flagging their ships out. Although it might reduce the wages they had to pay it meant employing people they could not communicate directly with and who had qualifications that might or might not have any value. No. They were forced to do so by the brilliant actions of the Union.

Oh and another thing; exactly what are these cabotage regulations that are going to be removed, by who and when?

It seems clear that the union’s reasonable demand in that case could only be have been met by actually removing the option of overtime then employing more labour to create a rota.Together with a wage increase to compensate for the lost over time payments.Therefore more seamen employed,working less hours,on a higher hourly rate.Which is/should be the object of any union worth its salt.It’s also clear that it would have taken regulation to make sure that loads bound inward to or outward from UK had to be carried on Brit registered ships using Brit crews to make that massive leap in terms and conditions stick.Together with Brit registered ships having to be built in Brit yards using Brit steel.IE the antithesis of the race to the bottom global free market economy which is what has really wrecked the country.

While as I said the Labour Party have always been about stitching up Brit workers in that regard.As part of its anti nation state agenda in which looking after the national interest of Brit workers is less of a priority than looking after foreign ones and its foreign Marxist elite masters among others.With the idea of Wilson calling Brit workers Commies being a laughable joke when many of them rightly preferred Benn,Shore or even Enoch Powell to that slimy zb and his lap dog Callaghan.

As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.In addition to limited but still reasonably viable domestic cabotage operations including the use of flagged out trucks and their drivers.With plans to totally remove what restrictions remain in the pipeline.

So who are the real commies.When it’s obvious that everything since Wilson and Callaghan helped to smash the Unions has been mostly to the benefit of the old Communist East Euro states and China,among others,at the expense of Brit workers.

[ramone]

ChrisArbon:
I was a steward for the T & G, small depot of a nationwide company; 20 drivers/15 union members. I never had them out on strike or negotiated the pay rises but I think the Union helped with driver retention. Drivers came to me with their problems and management came to me about problem drivers. Everything got sorted out and nobody got frustrated or bullied or jacked-in on the spur of the moment. I’m proud that I saved drivers from moving on for no good reason and that the management respected what I said.

Thats where it works correctly Chris , give n take with large amounts of common sense , something the H&S people could do with looking at

[fodenway]

Carryfast:

fodenway:
That, of course, is when they were not calling us out on strike over some ridiculous point and demanding unsustainable wage rises that would eventually finish the company. Having said all that, I am fully in favour of the Unions as long as they act reasonably for their members, preferably leaving politics to the politicians. I can dream…

At what point does the excuse of ‘unsustainable wage rises’ become some employers under cutting higher paying employers by lumbering their workforces with lower wages for more hours.

While it’s naive in the extreme to think that the interests of the working class can be totally seperated from the government process just as the Conservatives are first and foremost all about looking after the interests of the CBI.That based on a corrupted version of so called ‘Capitalism’ which is all about the antithesis of Keynesian economics and makes China’s Communist ruling elite richer at our expense.The problem in this case being the issue of Socialism having hijacked that agenda on the basis that only their solutions are the correct and valid ones and only they have the god given right to speak for the working class.Ironically that anti nation state agenda being closer to the interests of that corrupted agenda of the employers,than the interests of Brit workers.

CF, in one case in the 1970’s, I worked at the largest carpet factory in Europe, if not the world. Britain had just been admitted to the Common Market (without asking the electorate first) on the promise of ever-expanding business opportunities and a level playing field for exporters. In reality, our previously healthy European sales, particularly in the Low Countries, declined rapidly. At home, we were deluged with poor quality Italian-made carpet at rock-bottom prices. Sadly for the company, most people chose to buy on price rather than quality or any sense of loyalty towards British-made goods. Because the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers had negotiated (i.e. bullied) very high rates of pay for us, the workers, although we were getting fat paypackets we could see that the writing was on the wall. Redundancies and contraction soon followed, with eventual closure inevitable. A scenario repeated many times throughout manufacturing industries, with a knock-on effect on others such as transport that served them. Unions had become too powerful, and managements were in a catch 22 situation whereby if they met the unions demands costs would be crippling, and if they stood fast, the ensuing work-to-rules and strikes would cause massive harm to the company. I don’t ever recall being at a union meeting where politics or idealism were mentioned, just disputes over demarcation where men had been called out because someone pushed a barrow or did some other little thing that “wasn’t his job”, or to push for a wage hike because some other company had got one. Commonsense and reason had gone out of the window. As I have said before, I fully support the Trade Union cause when it is justifiable and reasonable, like currently with the dispute over driver-only trains.

[dieseldave]

David Miller:
You know carryfast that you are really going to have to start reading the posts and understanding the questions before honouring us with your opinions.

Carryfast… it looks like somebody else has noticed.

+1

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:
As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.

Sorry Carryfast, but (as usual ) your argument implodes upon itself because you fail to grasp what’s actually being said before you begin to reply.

Third country work is NOT cabotage.

Cabotage is NOT third country work.

The part I’ve quoted makes no sense whatsoever, therefore I submit that it’s NONsense.

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.

Third country work is NOT cabotage.

The part I’ve quoted makes no sense whatsoever, therefore I submit that it’s NONsense.

I might be wrong.But I think a Mexican based operator and reg truck would be stopped from hauling a load from the US to Canada and a backload from Canada to the US and that would be seen as a form of cabotage involving those two countries for all intents and purposes.Or at least the Canadians had better hope that I’m right. While I think the idea of what I mean’t,regarding Brit jobs for Brit workers ( or Canadian/US ones ),is clear enough regardless.With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?. To stop the type of situation we’ve got now of the West Euro,especially UK,international fleet being taken out by East Euro third country operations ?.

[david_miller]

Further it would seem that if we manage to leave the EU then it would be up to us who was allowed to carry what where. Thats kind of the idea, isn’t it?

David

[bullitt]

I am in no way a union man or supporter but…if I heard correctly today on the radio, the train drivers on a particular rail network have just won a 28.5% pay rise which equates to around £14000 per year increase on their already substantial wages!!!

28.5% £14k a year increase

Ok, so it wont be fully in effect until 2020, but even so!!!..

[carryfast]

bullitt:
I am in no way a union man or supporter but…if I heard correctly today on the radio, the train drivers on a particular rail network have just won a 28.5% pay rise which equates to around £14000 per year increase on their already substantial wages!!!

28.5% £14k a year increase

Ok, so it wont be fully in effect until 2020, but even so!!!..

More like divide and rule tactics of paying off ASLEF to stitch up the RMT and they took the cash and ran. The best possible outcome would be truck drivers joining the RMT which would then probably be a lot more sympathetic to road transport v rail with rail losing its undeserved prima donna status among the union movement.

[carryfast]

fodenway:

Carryfast:
At what point does the excuse of ‘unsustainable wage rises’ become some employers under cutting higher paying employers by lumbering their workforces with lower wages for more hours.

While it’s naive in the extreme to think that the interests of the working class can be totally seperated from the government process just as the Conservatives are first and foremost all about looking after the interests of the CBI.That based on a corrupted version of so called ‘Capitalism’ which is all about the antithesis of Keynesian economics and makes China’s Communist ruling elite richer at our expense.The problem in this case being the issue of Socialism having hijacked that agenda on the basis that only their solutions are the correct and valid ones and only they have the god given right to speak for the working class.Ironically that anti nation state agenda being closer to the interests of that corrupted agenda of the employers,than the interests of Brit workers.

CF, in one case in the 1970’s, I worked at the largest carpet factory in Europe, if not the world. Britain had just been admitted to the Common Market (without asking the electorate first) on the promise of ever-expanding business opportunities and a level playing field for exporters. In reality, our previously healthy European sales, particularly in the Low Countries, declined rapidly. At home, we were deluged with poor quality Italian-made carpet at rock-bottom prices. Sadly for the company, most people chose to buy on price rather than quality or any sense of loyalty towards British-made goods. Because the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers had negotiated (i.e. bullied) very high rates of pay for us, the workers, although we were getting fat paypackets we could see that the writing was on the wall. Redundancies and contraction soon followed, with eventual closure inevitable. A scenario repeated many times throughout manufacturing industries, with a knock-on effect on others such as transport that served them. Unions had become too powerful, and managements were in a catch 22 situation whereby if they met the unions demands costs would be crippling, and if they stood fast, the ensuing work-to-rules and strikes would cause massive harm to the company. I don’t ever recall being at a union meeting where politics or idealism were mentioned, just disputes over demarcation where men had been called out because someone pushed a barrow or did some other little thing that “wasn’t his job”, or to push for a wage hike because some other company had got one. Commonsense and reason had gone out of the window. As I have said before, I fully support the Trade Union cause when it is justifiable and reasonable, like currently with the dispute over driver-only trains.

Hopefully Rjan will read that.So let’s get this right joining the EEC opened the floodgates to under cutting imports thereby weakening the position of Brit workers.To which your solution is obviously join in the race to the bottom rather than closing the doors to maintain the better terms and conditions won by the Brits.How is that good for the working class of this country.

As for demarcation yes that’s all part of the agenda of maximising employment opportunities, therefore less money being paid in benefits and more money being spent in the economy,which means more employment.What’s wrong with that.Oh wait it doesn’t help our ‘competitiveness’ in the race to the bottom free markets model that you obviously support.

[windrush]

bullitt:
I am in no way a union man or supporter but…if I heard correctly today on the radio, the train drivers on a particular rail network have just won a 28.5% pay rise which equates to around £14000 per year increase on their already substantial wages!!!

28.5% £14k a year increase

Ok, so it wont be fully in effect until 2020, but even so!!!..

Hope it’s Virgin, I might get an even better christmas pressie off of my brother! With all the hassle they have nowadays I wouldn’t want their job, a blooming nightmare at times with all the legislation and delays etc he has to deal with nowadays, much easier just trundling happily along in a lorry!

Pete.

[bullitt]

I think it was something to do with driver only trains versus those with driver AND guard. I think the drivers were initially standing up for and supporting keeping the double manned trains, keeping the guards, then the company went “Oyy, drivers, over here a minute. How about an extra £14k per year each,to make all this go away?”
Suddenly, the “Brotherhood of the Unions” has fallen apart. Money talks apparently!

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.

Third country work is NOT cabotage.

The part I’ve quoted makes no sense whatsoever, therefore I submit that it’s NONsense.

I might be wrong.

You are.

Carryfast:
But I think a Mexican based operator and reg truck would be stopped from hauling a load from the US to Canada and a backload from Canada to the US and that would be seen as a form of cabotage involving those two countries for all intents and purposes.Or at least the Canadians had better hope that I’m right.

There you go again, blimey this is like pulling teeth and very easy since you’re clearly well out of your depth!

Who knows what the rules are between Canada/USA/Mexico and what possible relevance does that have to the situation with EEs■■?

Sliding an unconnected idea into a discussion doesn’t distract a non-random person.

Carryfast:
While I think the idea of what I mean’t,regarding Brit jobs for Brit workers ( or Canadian/US ones ),is clear enough regardless.

Regardless of your quite apparent lack of knowledge??

Carryfast:
With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?.

Blimey, this is even easier than I thought… and you still don’t give up… OK, let’s carry on.

You’ve sneaked in the word “historically,” so do you have a credible reference for that please?

Another failed attempt to deflect attention.

Third country work needed a special permit for third country work, historical examples of such a permit would be an EEC permit (blue book) or an ECMT permit (green book.) TO PERMIT THIRD COUNTRY WORK.

Cabotage (being a completely DIFFERENT operation) needs a cabotage permit, which is a different permit altogether.

Or another way of saying it… Cabotage and Third Country Work are mutually exclusive, and those two terms are not interchangeable.

Cabotage is the act of collecting and delivering a load in the same country by use of a vehicle registered in a different country, which is clearly VERY different to third country work.

I wrote this post slowly so that you might take your time reading it.

[chrisarbon]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.

Third country work is NOT cabotage.

The part I’ve quoted makes no sense whatsoever, therefore I submit that it’s NONsense.

I might be wrong.But I think a Mexican based operator and reg truck would be stopped from hauling a load from the US to Canada and a backload from Canada to the US and that would be seen as a form of cabotage involving those two countries for all intents and purposes.Or at least the Canadians had better hope that I’m right. While I think the idea of what I mean’t,regarding Brit jobs for Brit workers ( or Canadian/US ones ),is clear enough regardless.With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?. To stop the type of situation we’ve got now of the West Euro,especially UK,international fleet being taken out by East Euro third country operations ?.

I don’t know what North American regulations have got to do with a thread about Red Robbo but as I am sitting in Laredo waiting for a trailer load of Mexican goods to be transhipped onto my Canadian trailer; I’ll tell you how it works.

I do three trips a month from Canada down to the Mexican border. Sometimes the trailer goes into Mexico pulled by Mexican unit. Sometimes I unload at a transhipping facility and the stuff goes in a Mexican trailer. This is big business at the border towns and not likely to change any time soon. I can only load back to Canada and either get a transhipped load or one of our own trailers ready loaded and brought back across by a Mexican unit. There are plenty of Mexican units running about in the US but only in the border zone. They could run up to Canada if they wanted and there is scheme for them to have US government trackers fitted at the US government’s expense. The only Mexican registered trucks that I have seen outside the border zone have been owned and operated by Mexican Mennonites.

Everybody seems happy with the way things are. It was minus 13 when I left Winnipeg and plus 30 when I got to Laredo. Why would any Mexican want to run US-Canada? Mexico is prosperous enough for them not to need international haulage work in the Tundra.