On Apr 5, 7:39=A0pm, jg <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> frilly.lizzy wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 5:18 pm, jg <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> frilly.lizzy wrote:
> >>> On Apr 5, 1:21 pm, jg <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Sir John Howard wrote:
> >>>>> frilly.lizzy wrote:
> >>>>> Remember when Sydney bus drivers pulled this stunt last year? And
> >> So... what did the employer concede or refuse, as a result of this
> >> unspoken union action?
>
> > Just vaguely recall episode so you can fill me in on the result. The
> > commuters (as always) were inconvenienced by this non-funny comedy.
>
> > Liz
>
> I have seen unions do good things, bad things and vindictive things, but
> never just for a joke.
> I never was familiar with the bus episode, I'm just asking what did the
> employer assume was the trouble if no reason was given? How was it
> addressed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone is sure to know but as far as unions go. . . .
Long ago, they were necessary to give the poorly paid and overworked a
fair go but then communism tried to take over the world.
Most union bosses are commos and involve themselves in more than
working for the good of their members.
Would someone explain why communists try to infect other countries
with their system? If it works well why do people flee from it? If it
serves most, surely the rest of the world would follow suit without
the propaganda and bloodshed?
Liz
|
