UK STRIKE DAY 30TH NOVEMBER

[Tiberius]

And more of your chest beating, suggesting that because you dont strike you are a harder worker than others, and then drag in children needing to be educated to spice up the guilt.

I'm not chest beating. I just respect people who work rather than strike. I think strike action is ridiculous; you are wanting the government to give you more money, and you're doing it by taking money away from them. Sense that does not make.

I bring up children because it is affecting them. Yes, it's spicing up the guilt, because these people should be feeling guilty.

I work HEAVY industrial labor. I deal with huge and heavy sticks of ridgid conduit on a daily basis, suspended up 50+ foot in the air screwing these pipes together, in the hot summer sun or fighting the ice of winter. Then I have to pull in huge cables and introduce high voltage to them, which I sometimes have to work on them live. Lately I have been jack hammering concrete in order to sink these pipes far enough under ground for them to be safe from people who dig. All this while welders lift tons of metal over my head with welding sparks flying all over me...and I do this at 60+ hours per week. Sometimes I do this work standing on boats underneath peirs of military bases. Sometimes I am in the manhole doing work with the equivalent of one million+ volts surrounding me, that merely needs a single pin prick in their insulation to cause an explosion that will take my life, not to mention the snakes and black widow spiders. I face a very painful death as a real situation every day I walk onto my job.

Then you deserve a large paycheque. I'm fully in support of you getting that paycheque, but I think striking is precisely the wrong way to go about it.

Since we are discussing who works hard at their job and who doesnt, I will ask you this: If the employer tries to fuck me because of my wages, and tries to keep them stagnant, and I go on strike because of it (and therefore cost my own family money in the process) does that make you a harder worker than I because you decided not to strike from your inside computer job?

Not necessarily. My job is less physically difficult, but more mentally difficult that yours. I'm sure we both work hard at our jobs, just in different ways. That said, I still think striking isn't the way to go about things. At the end of the day, your employer is in charge of your wages, and you sign a contract to agree to them. If you aren't happy with your wages, you can either complain and hope for a raise, or you can go get another job. Perhaps it would be better to have more solid laws concerning contracts, to make it harder for companies to go against them.

As far as I am concerned, if you are willing to co-op with society, then your job is equal to mine and you deserve equal outcome. Let me explain...

If the world worked like this, most people would go and get the easiest job they could; spend hardly any time working, and would get as much money as the person who works 14 hour shifts. I'll say it again: that doesn't sound fair to me.

I very much believe it. I dont even expect you to comprehend it, nor study it, nor even care about it. It IS fair, it is very fair. In fact, giving every human on this planet an equal slice of the pie is the fairest system in the world. The fact that you cannot see the truth of this is because your eyes are blinded by greed.

It isn't fair to give everyone and equal slice of the pie, especially when some people contribute nothing, and others contribute far more than anyone else. The fact that you cannot see the truth of that is because your eyes are blinded by ideology. Any economy that is set up to operate on such terms wouldn't last a day.

Currently, I feel that you flip flop so much when you talk that you arent even sure what you stand for. I stand for labor. I stand for people being the value of a society.

When have I flip-flopped? It is you that has misunderstood things I've said, taking my personal choices to mean something I'd like to see applied everywhere. I can't be held responsible if you don't read what I write properly.

Now, feel free to respond to this. Once you have responded, I suggest that both of us back away from each other for a time being..as we are obviously upsetting some of the members...even though we are pretty much staying on topic, its getting a bit heated. I will let you have the last word on me for our discussion as a promisory note that, even though we may not agree, I still consider your freedom of speech to be important.

You can back away if you want to; that's your right. I'm staying in the topic to discuss things. I don't care if things get heated; this is a discussion over personal choices, and so that is practically a given. I appreciate you allowing me my freedom of speech; however I still oppose the way you painted me, especially with regard to your comment on me being fine with the death of families and children. It was totally uncalled for; I hope there is a decent side of you that can see past our disagreements and understand what a disgusting move that was.

This is a reply to arsehole.

I'll ask you politely. Please stop calling me that. I've called you out for not having a sense of humour, or for being what I perceived as "borderline-fascist" for your views on freedom of speech, but I've never flung an insult at you.

I have never directly accused anybody on this forum of being a racist.
However, from your contributions on the subject down the years I suspect you are a racist in denial.

I hate to break it to you, but your second sentence there just invalidated the first. That's a direct accusation, and it isn't the first one you've flung at me during the last three years. I'm not a racist; never have been, never will.

Far from attacking you I actually just respond to your attacks on me. Check it out and prove me wrong.

I attack your position. You attack both my position and me personally. I made a tongue in cheek comment about your lack of a sense of humour, taking what was evidently a joke as something very serious, and you came back with "Fuck you, arsehole". You've proceeded to call me an arsehole repeatedly, and now a "scab".

Because you know I will respond robustly, you adopt the sly, sneaky tactic of playing to the gallery, usually saying something like " you see how bozo.. "Check it out and prove me wrong.

I fail to see how I have not responded robustly either. I object to the accusation I am playing to the gallery, unless playing to the gallery includes the common debate tactic of taking what your opponent has said and refuting it...

You remind me of the sly kid at school who, when a fight breaks out, hides behind the rest shouting " go on hit him " whilst avoiding the fists yourself.

Exactly how am I relying on anyone else here? This is me versus you and rev jeremiah. I'm discussing every point you make, and you are returning with insult after insult. How exactly aren't I using my fists?

I'm not against free speech, far from it, but the law is necessary to protect people from harrassment either verbal or physical.

That's fine, but you've stated before you are against hate speech, even indirect hate speech. Harassment doesn't enter into it; it's just a matter of you being pro-censorship of speech that annoys you personally.

Now your employment. Once again you disappoint. You fuck around with computers. Big deal. Full of your own importance once again.

I don't "fuck around with computers". How dare you presume to talk about my employment, when you have absolutely no idea what I do. There are no jobs in I.T where people just "fuck around". In order to get this job, I had to go to university and get two degrees, putting me in debt by about £30,000. 4 years of studying, just to get to the point where a company would look at me as a potential candidate. Not only that, but I had to pass the company interview, which lasted 3 hours. My job involves lots of research, most of it reading through papers and manuals, all to learn how a particular operating system works, and then to write a 30+ page report on each one. Then, we have to figure out which security checks we should implement, and we need to code them properly so that the clients we sell too don't complain, or have any reason to move to our competitors. In addition to that, I have to find defects in our current company products, before hackers can find them and exploit them. This usually involves days of testing before I find one, minor vulnerability. You can see that as "fucking around with computers" all you like, but you clearly don't know jack about this industry.

Now the strike. You obviously missed my joke in suggesting you come out on strike on Wednesday. I realise striking is anathema to the likes of you.

Not only that; I wouldn't be able to strike even if I wanted to. Remember my previous comment about what happens when one person strikes? They get fired...

Fact: when workers take strike action people suffer some inconvenience. If no disruption occurs, what's the point of a strike? A clever fellow like you must see that.

Oh sure, I see that. The disruption also costs the company money, which is exactly what you want not to happen if you want the company to consider giving that money to you. If the government can't afford to give you better pensions (which in this economic climate, they can't), then taking more money away from them is an anti-solution. A clever fellow would see that; pity there aren't more of them working as teachers.

Fact: strike action is never taken lightly. It is an action of last resort. Usually, as in this instance, when MEANINGFUL negotiation isn't happening.

Ever wonder why meaningful negotiation isn't happening? Because the demands are ridiculous. The government is in debt; there is no extra money that can go into pensions.

Fact: this action is just 1 day. Not much disruption I suggest.
As regards cost to the economy, I don't recall that being a concern on 29 April when a certain royal wedding stopped the country!

I was as against that as you were. It's one of the only things we seem to agree on. It's not this much disruption this time, but what happens when the government doesn't relent? There will be more strikes.

Finally, well not for ever obviously, the issue of the scab.
A scab is a worker who does the job of a striking worker. He is the lowest of the low and deserves whatever ill becomes him for his actions.
It just might affect you someday, you never know.

Great, so a worker who is given the chance to fee his family, rather than face one more day of unemployment, is the "lowest of the low". I disagree. I think that is the highest of the high. If I had my way, I'd have the striking workers fired, and replaced with the "scabs" who obviously want to work more than they do.

It won't affect me someday, because (to excuse the expression) it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever go on strike.