Bob Crow announces yet another rail strike

[jon0844]

I have to say I'm torn on the issue. Yes, people should try and get the best for themselves, but sometimes doing the 'right thing' is actually more important. Can the railway (or any other industry) afford inflation-busting pay increases (well, demands, as they don't always get them!) even if it means problems in the future?

Isn't some of this similar to politicians who only care about the short term?

I'm someone who hasn't had a pay rise in two years, but I don't expect one as we've had some tough years - falling ad revenue and increased costs. If I did demand one, I'm sure I'd be able to get it (I know it sounds arrogant, but if I left they'd fall apart) but I could potentially make things even tougher.

The other factor is; to be honest, I'm paid pretty well and the recession hasn't affected me hugely as I have no real debts (besides a mortgage and an overdraft) and try hard to live within my means. If I do move, there's a good chance I'll fall back in salary a bit.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the unions asked for other benefits for staff, or assurances (cast iron ones) that when things pick up, staff will be rewarded. Or put them on profit related pay (except, that runs the risk of people kicking off if profits fall), give them shares in the company they work for - or other things that share the risk, and the benefits, with staff. What about a delayed payrise, with backpay, on condition of certain targets being met (targets that the staff can influence) which might just motivate staff in the process. What about giving staff assurances on job security in lieu of pay rises, which (to me) would be worth far more in these uncertain times.

I can see why the media is outraged, along with Joe Public, when already well paid people appear to be demanding money at the completely wrong time. It may be that they've not had a pay rise for years, during the good times, and there may be many other factors - but can anyone be surprised that people looking in from the outside will think the worst?

It's not helped by the arrogant, smug, way that Bob Crow acts and talks. I really don't like the guy, and I am so glad that the union I am a member of doesn't act in the same way, or have the same reputation.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

with the cost of gas/electric/fuel/insurance going up I certainly am not well paid compared to other people doing the same job in other toc,s northern guards are the lowest paid in the country i pay out almost 300 a month more then i did a year ago with rises no way near covering it, i dont have expensive holidays, i dont own a fast car, i just want a rise that would atleast go somewhere near covering the rises i certainly am not greedy, i just want a fair wage

 

[WatcherZero]

I must admit sometimes union demands or rather union leaders demands look retarded to me, for example Bob Crow saying that because DLR trains were lengthend from 2 car to 3 car the drivers (Passenger Service Assistant) should recieve a 30% pay rise.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit sometimes union demands or rather union leaders demands look retarded to me, for example Bob Crow saying that because DLR trains were lengthend from 2 car to 3 car the drivers (Passenger Service Assistant) should recieve a 30% pay rise.

You can't blame him for trying I mean the supermarkets getting thier customers to do thier job for them is seen as an improvements (self service checkouts)

 

[moonrakerz]

I must admit sometimes union demands or rather union leaders demands look retarded to me, for example Bob Crow saying that because DLR trains were lengthend from 2 car to 3 car the drivers (Passenger Service Assistant) should recieve a 30% pay rise.

I wonder what his justification for his 12% pay rise was ? Must be really hard trying to get by on £145K a year !

 

[9K43]

I normally email Bob Crow with these types of posts.
If you think that TOCs are going to remember what you did this year, you must be somewhat silly.
I have been a member of the RMT for 3 decades and in that time, I have been on strike quite a few times.
It would appear that there are a lot of posts from Nelly Know it alls, that put the curly bit of a shunt pole under their arms, and wonder why they cant hook off.

 

[Oswyntail]

with the cost of gas/electric/fuel/insurance going up I certainly am not well paid compared to other people doing the same job in other toc,s northern guards are the lowest paid in the country i pay out almost 300 a month more then i did a year ago with rises no way near covering it, i dont have expensive holidays, i dont own a fast car, i just want a rise that would atleast go somewhere near covering the rises i certainly am not greedy, i just want a fair wage

I do sympathise, but...
A wage for any job is the lowest price at which an employer can enlist the required number of the right quality employees. If an employer can get away with it, there is absolutely no requirement, legal or moral, on her to give cost of living pay rises. If Northern have enough guards, they are paying "a fair wage". Comparisons with other TOCs are irrelevant, as are your laudable lifestyle details.
And another thing...many other sectors of the workforce (like my wife) have had pay frozen or, in some cases, reduced. These moves have been, for the most part, accepted (even by Unions) because of a belief that, in the long term, the situation will improve. I do get the impression that some Unions and their leaders think we are back in the 1970s - not a pleasant time for anyone.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I do sympathise, but...
A wage for any job is the lowest price at which an employer can enlist the required number of the right quality employees. If an employer can get away with it, there is absolutely no requirement, legal or moral, on her to give cost of living pay rises. If Northern have enough guards, they are paying "a fair wage". Comparisons with other TOCs are irrelevant, as are your laudable lifestyle details.
And another thing...many other sectors of the workforce (like my wife) have had pay frozen or, in some cases, reduced. These moves have been, for the most part, accepted (even by Unions) because of a belief that, in the long term, the situation will improve. I do get the impression that some Unions and their leaders think we are back in the 1970s - not a pleasant time for anyone.

now if Northern were losing money etc etc I would agree........HOWEVER Northern have made very good profits over the last few years, Our dear directors are paid ridiculous amounts of money compared to the rest of their staff (alot are on alot more then Bob Crow) I would have some respect if they were willing to make cuts etc. but they don't and won't, if Northern want their staff to shoulder cuts etc. should come from the top 1st

anyway this argument has been gone through too many times so thats my last word on this thread

 

[northwichcat]

now if Northern were losing money etc etc I would agree........HOWEVER Northern have made very good profits over the last few years, Our dear directors are paid ridiculous amounts of money compared to the rest of their staff (alot are on alot more then Bob Crow)

Northern's stations and rolling stock has seen very little investment compared to other operators. Supermarkets spend money on shop interiors and exteriors and still make huge profits, while the staff that the customers see and interact with are not well paid. I think it was ASDA who got wide spread acclaim for paying their 16 years old employees at the rate of the minimum wage for 18 year olds.

One thing I think the unions representing Northern staff should be asking for is better uniforms. The Northern staff look like they've been given things purchased from Primark while TPE staff look like they've been given things purchased from House of Fraser.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Northern's stations and rolling stock has seen very little investment compared to other operators. Supermarkets spend money on shop interiors and exteriors and still make huge profits, while the staff that the customers see and interact with are not well paid. I think it was ASDA who got wide spread acclaim for paying their 16 years old employees at the rate of the minimum wage for 18 year olds.

One thing I think the unions representing Northern staff should be asking for is better uniforms. The Northern staff look like they've been given things purchased from Primark while TPE staff look like they've been given things purchased from House of Fraser.

so much for my last post on this thread, the uniforms ARE poor quality, they fall apart after a couple of months, typical Northern Directors doing things on the cheap (which costs more in the long run due to uniform requests being thrown in constantly)

 

[CarterUSM]

Northern's stations and rolling stock has seen very little investment compared to other operators. Supermarkets spend money on shop interiors and exteriors and still make huge profits, while the staff that the customers see and interact with are not well paid. I think it was ASDA who got wide spread acclaim for paying their 16 years old employees at the rate of the minimum wage for 18 year olds.

One thing I think the unions representing Northern staff should be asking for is better uniforms. The Northern staff look like they've been given things purchased from Primark while TPE staff look like they've been given things purchased from House of Fraser.

I wear more or less the same uniform as TPE, and i think it horrendous quality , god knows how many uniform requests Northern staff stick in, iI always thought they looked a little scruffy, no offence AnorthernGuard of course!!!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I wear more or less the same uniform as TPE, and i think it horrendous quality , god knows how many uniform requests Northern staff stick in, iI always thought they looked a little scruffy, no offence AnorthernGuard of course!!!

No offence taken lol

 

[Anvil1984]

Things are that tight on Northern uniform costs that our depot can only order trousers if we had our old damaged pair to the team organiser 40 miles away and they won't replace trousers for holes in the pocket as we shouldn't be keeping large amounts of change in their anyway (that's the actual reason)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do any of the staff on here have a positive word about Allen and Douglas

 

[CosherB]

now if Northern were losing money etc etc I would agree........HOWEVER Northern have made very good profits over the last few years, Our dear directors are paid ridiculous amounts of money compared to the rest of their staff (alot are on alot more then Bob Crow) I would have some respect if they were willing to make cuts etc. but they don't and won't, if Northern want their staff to shoulder cuts etc. should come from the top 1st

anyway this argument has been gone through too many times so thats my last word on this thread

What on earth has Northern's profits got to do with what they pay for staff? What worries me is that these powerful unions that hold customers to ransom are protecting their members from a few facts of life! In the current tough times, few employees in the private sector had a pay rise form quite a while - I am retired from work in IT where no pay rise for the last 3 years is common, because that's the state of the market.

An employee will be paid whatever her or his labour is worth in the market. That is life! If Northern can recruit all the competant guards it needs, it is evidently paying the market rate! If you were looking to employ someone, wouldn't that be your criterea? When they worked for BR which lost money, should the guards have paid BR? Of course not!

If you get a nice pay rise do you pay more for petrol than the pump price when you fill up, on the basis you are better off? Do you heck! It's exactly the same thing!!!!

There is absolutely no link to employer profitability (or lack of it) and wages. Except tha an unprofitable employer might go bust and therefore cease to employ you at all. A profitable employer will not only keep you employed, but through business growth will offer opportunities for advancement that a broke one won't.

Jeeze this is so basic I'm amazed it needs to be said!

 

[Flamingo]

What on earth has Northern's profits got to do with what they pay for staff? What worries me is that these powerful unions that hold customers to ransom are protecting their members from a few facts of life! In the current tough times, few employees in the private sector had a pay rise form quite a while - I am retired from work in IT where no pay rise for the last 3 years is common, because that's the state of the market.

An employee will be paid whatever her or his labour is worth in the market. That is life! If Northern can recruit all the competant guards it needs, it is evidently paying the market rate! If you were looking to employ someone, wouldn't that be your criterea? When they worked for BR which lost money, should the guards have paid BR? Of course not! There is absolutely no link to employer profitability (or lack of it) and wages. Jeeze this is so basic I'm amazed it needs to be said!

Well, a lack of employer profitability is the first thing quoted to justify a wage freeze or reduction, so that kicks your "there is no link" arguement into touch.

You seem to think that a lack of wage increase in your industry is a justification for a wage freeze in other industries. How do you work that one out?

 

[TheManWho]

I must admit sometimes union demands or rather union leaders demands look retarded to me, for example Bob Crow saying that because DLR trains were lengthend from 2 car to 3 car the drivers (Passenger Service Assistant) should recieve a 30% pay rise.

I'm not sure that's the reason for the strike this time

(edited)

 

[CosherB]

Well, a lack of employer profitability is the first thing quoted to justify a wage freeze or reduction, so that kicks your "there is no link" arguement into touch.

You seem to think that a lack of wage increase in your industry is a justification for a wage freeze in other industries. How do you work that one out?

Note my edits prior to your post which explains that, F.

I don't need to work it out. It's life! Unless you are 'protected' from reality by a powerful union that is in a position to hold the customers to ramsom - not a natural situation, a distortion that won't last.

 

[Tom B]

The current dispute between the DLR and RMT has nothing to do with pay following the introduction of 3-car operation which was previously resolved.

I wonder what his reaction would be if a company who ran 3-car trains cut down to 2-car trains and cut their members pay...?

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

Note my edits prior to your post which explains that, F.

I don't need to work it out. It's life! Unless you are 'protected' from reality by a powerful union that is in a position to hold the customers to ramsom - not a natural situation, a distortion that won't last.

As a guard who works for Arriva I find your comments hilarious.The last time I went on strike was in the early 90s.When BR was privatised the chairman was earning a five figure salary.Now the chief execs of a myriad of TOCs and other railway concerns are earning salaries of 4-5 times what the BR chairman received for running comparitivly tiny parts of the industry.Most of the industrial unrest in the industry over the past few years seems to have occured within London Underground.Most of the disquiet about RMT activities comes from people who daft enough to believe what they read in Murdoch and Mail group newspapers.If people are dissatisfied with their lot in the workplace then they need to organise and fight for a fair deal like we do,it's not rocket science.

 

[jon0844]

Some people have little choice but to keep their heads down and ride things out. Not everyone can be a member of a union, and not everyone has anywhere near the same level of job security even if they can.

It's interesting that you knock the media, given that journalists have been suffering an incredibly rough ride recently - from losing staff, losing sub-editors (who check for the glaring errors you see on a daily basis), being made to do print, web, multimedia and manage social media - all for the same, or less money. The union is fighting the cutbacks, and many people who are coming out attacking the RMT are in fact suffering just as much. There's certainly no job security at a magazine, newspaper or website - not even at the BBC.

A lot of people are in the same boat, but when it comes to essential services the union does have the upper hand because it can do what others simply could not. Consider yourself lucky, because it's not the case that everyone else should 'organise and fight for a fair deal like (you) do'.

 

[Tom B]

Actually, I'm a great supporter of unions - however, I feel the RMT management act (broadly) like a bunch of spoilt brats who want everything, yesterday. Never, ever do you see them putting out a statement which is in moderation, rather than "This is absolutely terrible and WE'RE CALLING A STRIKE BALLOT!". Bob Crow has openly said that he doesn't care about passengers and doesn't see why he should - if he opened his eyes he might realise that his income is paid by union members, who are paid for by those dreadful passengers. And, if those passengers get fed up and use another form of transport, it's his members who will lose out through lower revenue. I know people who, during strikes, have been unable to get to work, and thus lost a day's pay - losing out because another group of workers want extra money.

In previous employment I've been actively trying to get employers to abide by the law, let alone worry about asking for huge pay increases - e.g. holiday pay, providing PPE etc. I've been made redundant with a week's notice because other full-time staff were given a very generous payrise, a result of which was that the budget for part-time casual staff was cut. I'm no stranger to management dirty tricky. I do think, however, that there are far too many people who have a very one-sided view ("management always screw us, we don't do anything wrong"). An ex-colleague of mine was always leaving the office 10 minutes early, every single day - yet if she had to stay behind for even 5 minutes past her scheduled leaving time, she'd put in an overtime form.

I'm not at all anti-union - and, indeed, if I work at a unionised workplace I'll join up - but there are some people who take the p*ss - to the detriment of others.

 

[Rhondda Rudie]

Some people have little choice but to keep their heads down and ride things out. Not everyone can be a member of a union, and not everyone has anywhere near the same level of job security even if they can.

It's interesting that you knock the media, given that journalists have been suffering an incredibly rough ride recently - from losing staff, losing sub-editors (who check for the glaring errors you see on a daily basis), being made to do print, web, multimedia and manage social media - all for the same, or less money. The union is fighting the cutbacks, and many people who are coming out attacking the RMT are in fact suffering just as much. There's certainly no job security at a magazine, newspaper or website - not even at the BBC.

A lot of people are in the same boat, but when it comes to essential services the union does have the upper hand because it can do what others simply could not. Consider yourself lucky, because it's not the case that everyone else should 'organise and fight for a fair deal like (you) do'.

You should note that I didn't criticise the media in general.As I stated my beef is with Murdoch papers and the Mail group.To clarify still further I'm talking about The Sun,the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard (which I believe changed hands recently and is no longer part of the Mail group.These papers are not interested in reporting real news.They are only concerned with wrapping up right wing dogma and presenting it as news.These papers are merely right wing versions of Pravda.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually, I'm a great supporter of unions - however, I feel the RMT management act (broadly) like a bunch of spoilt brats who want everything, yesterday. Never, ever do you see them putting out a statement which is in moderation, rather than "This is absolutely terrible and WE'RE CALLING A STRIKE BALLOT!". Bob Crow has openly said that he doesn't care about passengers and doesn't see why he should - if he opened his eyes he might realise that his income is paid by union members, who are paid for by those dreadful passengers. And, if those passengers get fed up and use another form of transport, it's his members who will lose out through lower revenue. I know people who, during strikes, have been unable to get to work, and thus lost a day's pay - losing out because another group of workers want extra money.

In previous employment I've been actively trying to get employers to abide by the law, let alone worry about asking for huge pay increases - e.g. holiday pay, providing PPE etc. I've been made redundant with a week's notice because other full-time staff were given a very generous payrise, a result of which was that the budget for part-time casual staff was cut. I'm no stranger to management dirty tricky. I do think, however, that there are far too many people who have a very one-sided view ("management always screw us, we don't do anything wrong"). An ex-colleague of mine was always leaving the office 10 minutes early, every single day - yet if she had to stay behind for even 5 minutes past her scheduled leaving time, she'd put in an overtime form.

I'm not at all anti-union - and, indeed, if I work at a unionised workplace I'll join up - but there are some people who take the p*ss - to the detriment of others.

We certainly do care about our passengers in this part of the world.This area is very close knit and I know a good many regular passengers as I live among them and am on first name turns with many others.As I said in an earlier post I haven't been on strike since the early 90s so to represent all RMT members as a militant rabble is both wrong and dishonest.This is a former mining valley so solidarity is in the blood.When there are stories in the press about possible industrial action passengers often ask me about the situation.I always answer truthfully and the reaction is often positive and even along the lines of "Good for you,I wish we could do the same where I work".I've never been the subject of hostility because of the activities of the RMT in a 25 year career.

 

[bnm]

These papers are not interested in reporting real news.They are only concerned with wrapping up right wing dogma and presenting it as news.These papers are merely right wing versions of Pravda.

Of course you are going to get right wing dogma, particularly when reporting on the utterances and activities of self proclaimed communist, Bob Crow.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As a guard who works for Arriva I find your comments hilarious.The last time I went on strike was in the early 90s.When BR was privatised the chairman was earning a five figure salary.Now the chief execs of a myriad of TOCs and other railway concerns are earning salaries of 4-5 times what the BR chairman received for running comparitivly tiny parts of the industry.Most of the industrial unrest in the industry over the past few years seems to have occured within London Underground.Most of the disquiet about RMT activities comes from people who daft enough to believe what they read in Murdoch and Mail group newspapers.If people are dissatisfied with their lot in the workplace then they need to organise and fight for a fair deal like we do,it's not rocket science.

so the general concensus is...The RMT are big meanies for protecting its members lol, look we know times are tough for alot of people, I sympathise (I really do), however wage inflation (according to the BBC) is running at around 4% even with the troubles in the public sector, the strike after Xmas was the only time i have ever been on strike and I voted yes quite simply because something had to be done (reasons in numerous other posts, from other guards not just myself), yes Bob Crow does go overboard a few times, but remember it is the workers who vote for a strike and not the RMT management, I fight and will continue to fight to protect my job & my income, certain papers hate unions etc (sun, Mail et al) thats life

 

[CosherB]

Don't you see, Northernguard, that your pay rise is someone else's fare increase? That 'someone else' who has to pay more for their ticket is probably someone who, in these uncertain times, hasn't themsleves had a pay rise in a few years simply because of the state of their industry. We've just suffered a 6.5% increase in fares which indicates there is no spare cash slopping around in the railway to prevent such massively inflation-busting rises, and you lot holding customers yo ransom for purely selfish reasons is one driver of this!

So you are using your monopoly position - you know you can go on strike with impunity since your customers have no choice but to be still there when you return - to extract cash from the pockets of those in a weaker position than you. Even as I type this, unemployment has been announced as going up. That is the reality! People who you hold to ransom to line your pocket are themselves being made redundant!

We're all in this economic mess left by Labour together - except those of you in powerful unions with captive customers who have no choice to continue to buy your services. You screw everyone else down for your own financial gains!

So your actions are deeply selfish at best. Totally amoral at worst!

How would you feel if you worked for a small struggling company as many do, worried if you'll still have a job next week to pay the mortgage, and you see the like of rail workers with secure jobs striking for a rise! Which you have to pay for in the form of 6.5% fare increases!

 

[jon0844]

You should note that I didn't criticise the media in general.As I stated my beef is with Murdoch papers and the Mail group.To clarify still further I'm talking about The Sun,the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard (which I believe changed hands recently and is no longer part of the Mail group.

The Evening Standard changed hands quite a while ago and I suggest you take another look at it. I was no fan, but the paper has transformed since the change (and going free).

But, as said above, how else do you expect people to report on Bob Crow? I've heard lots of things that I could never print that makes me not like him - and that's all I can say on the matter. I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that he's a communist that wants renationalisation and will use any excuse to try and push for that. I am not sure he cares much for his members than the public, but he does pretty well from it. A true communist would of course redistribute that salary to his members.

Nevertheless, I would like to add that I don't believe for one second that the RMT don't do good things.. things that don't make the press. And even if you don't agree with the latest strike (whatever that is), you may well agree with the more routine things that a union does.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Don't you see, Northernguard, that your pay rise is someone else's fare increase? That 'someone else' who has to pay more for their ticket is probably someone who, in these uncertain times, hasn't themsleves had a pay rise in a few years simply because of the state of their industry. We've just suffered a 6.5% increase in fares which indicates there is no spare cash slopping around in the railway to prevent such massively inflation-busting rises, and you lot holding customers yo ransom for purely selfish reasons is one driver of this!

So you are using your monopoly position - you know you can go on strike with impunity since your customers have no choice but to be still there when you return - to extract cash from the pockets of those in a weaker position than you. Even as I type this, unemployment has been announced as going up. That is the reality! People who you hold to ransom to line your pocket are themselves being made redundant!

We're all in this economic mess left by Labour together - except those of you in powerful unions with captive customers who have no choice to continue to buy your services. You screw everyone else down for your own financial gains!

So your actions are deeply selfish at best. Totally amoral at worst!

How would you feel if you worked for a small struggling company as many do, worried if you'll still have a job next week to pay the mortgage, and you see the like of rail workers with secure jobs striking for a rise! Which you have to pay for in the form of 6.5% fare increases!

the fare increase is mainly for new carriages/network rail etc. And yes i am selfish and amoral for doing my utmost to protect my family and to provide the very best for them that i can afford oh btw, it was a worldwide recession nad labour did plenty of good as well as making mistakes and as wage inflation is 4% there is alot of us selfish folk around obviously......u sir are a bit of a twerp stop blaming the ills of the recession on traincrew and the ilk.

 

[jon0844]

I am not suggesting traincrew are at fault, but Labour (or whoever was in power at the time, as I doubt it matters) could have, and should have, implemented tighter controls to ensure we weren't affected by the mistakes made elsewhere.

Tighter regulation on lending was needed even when the Tories were in power (big borrowing came in the mid 1990s), and the Government failed by a) thinking the boom would never end, b) thinking that people who can get easy access to credit cards, loans, finance and mortgages would be happy - and that the ever increasing house values would cover it all.

I don't believe for one second that Labour can ever blame the problems on the 'global downturn' as not everyone was hit. And, given the fact that they were in power for 13 years and didn't act to stop the inevitable, a lot of the problems today are down to them - so why anyone would defend them (even if they did indeed do many good things) I do not know. The pay freezes and pay cuts are ultimately down to more than a few American lenders dealing in sub-prime mortgages.

 

[313103]

Captain Speaking, Why is it always YOUR WAY or the HIGHWAY?

SELFISH According to the Concise English dictionary says the following: 1. Deficient in consideration for others; concerned chiefly with ones own personal profit or pleasure; actuated by self-interest. 2. (of a motive etc) appealing to self interest.

Well Captain Speaking let self analyze what this is saying. Deficent in consideration for others. Well for me going to work to earn money to pay my bills and looking after my family means that your analogy of being selfish is wrong. I dont go to work out of choice i go to work because i dont have a choice how is that being selfish? If i was being selfish i would spend all my time at home being waited on by hand and foot by the government and the taxpayer, something i have never done in my life. However i am being selfish!

Now lets look at the other segment 'concerned cheifly with ones own personal profit or pleasure' i go to work not only to pay my bills but to make a profit for the company and its shareholders. I dont certainly go to work for pleasure have you ever had to travel on a packed, late running London Overground service where you run through some of Londons most run down areas ( as well as some of its more affluent) Where like sheep one will follow the other when they want to chastise you. That is certainly not pleasure. My pleasure 'WAS' watching Arsenal something i cant do no more, My pleasure was owning a former London Transport Routemaster, something i cant do anymore. How is that being concerned cheifly with ones own personal profit and pleasure? Yet the shareholders benefit from my labours more then i do, as do the passengers on my train. I think your statement is more akin to the Head of Barclays bank who justified a £9,000,000.00 bonus scheme as being justified. Now that is what i would call someone being chiefly concerned with ones own personal profit or pleasure, but it would appear you are happy with that.

AMORAL. 1. Not concerned with or outside the scope of morality. 2. Having no Moral principles. I think you have got a nerve to accuse someone like me to have no morals. The reason why the country is the state its in is because most people have no morals or an understanding of morals. I at least know the difference between right and wrong, i also know how to conduct myself. I know that putting 800,000 public sector workers on the dole is AMORAL, I know that a banker who justifies £9 million bonuses is also AMORAL, i know that companies that fleece the staff and the clientele is also AMORAL.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Captain Speaking, Why is it always YOUR WAY or the HIGHWAY?

SELFISH According to the Concise English dictionary says the following: 1. Deficient in consideration for others; concerned chiefly with ones own personal profit or pleasure; actuated by self-interest. 2. (of a motive etc) appealing to self interest.

Well Captain Speaking let self analyze what this is saying. Deficent in consideration for others. Well for me going to work to earn money to pay my bills and looking after my family means that your analogy of being selfish is wrong. I dont go to work out of choice i go to work because i dont have a choice how is that being selfish? If i was being selfish i would spend all my time at home being waited on by hand and foot by the government and the taxpayer, something i have never done in my life. However i am being selfish!

Now lets look at the other segment 'concerned cheifly with ones own personal profit or pleasure' i go to work not only to pay my bills but to make a profit for the company and its shareholders. I dont certainly go to work for pleasure have you ever had to travel on a packed, late running London Overground service where you run through some of Londons most run down areas ( as well as some of its more affluent) Where like sheep one will follow the other when they want to chastise you. That is certainly not pleasure. My pleasure 'WAS' watching Arsenal something i cant do no more, My pleasure was owning a former London Transport Routemaster, something i cant do anymore. How is that being concerned cheifly with ones own personal profit and pleasure? Yet the shareholders benefit from my labours more then i do, as do the passengers on my train. I think your statement is more akin to the Head of Barclays bank who justified a £9,000,000.00 bonus scheme as being justified. Now that is what i would call someone being chiefly concerned with ones own personal profit or pleasure, but it would appear you are happy with that.

AMORAL. 1. Not concerned with or outside the scope of morality. 2. Having no Moral principles. I think you have got a nerve to accuse someone like me to have no morals. The reason why the country is the state its in is because most people have no morals or an understanding of morals. I at least know the difference between right and wrong, i also know how to conduct myself. I know that putting 800,000 public sector workers on the dole is AMORAL, I know that a banker who justifies £9 million bonuses is also AMORAL, i know that companies that fleece the staff and the clientele is also AMORAL.

said things alot better than I could