Taxi Driver Online

I was not going to reply and then I remembered this factual piece of information that we all can equate with.

We have a Taxi company in Cardiff "Dragon Taxis" and they advertise on the local radio that they have close on 500 cars on their books!

So if every driver were to work a 40 hour week ( and most work more than that ) then in order to give each driver 2 average jobs per hour on a 40 hour week then they would have to have 40,000 jobs per week to give out 24/7 - this would equate to 238 calls per hour and I know for a fact they are not doing that amount of work.

The point being is that the owners are creaming the drivers and making vulgar profit to the point of exploiting the drivers - equate that back to our original discussion of companies making vulgar profit and then taking the jobs abroad having exploited the workforce!

I ask the question is it right?

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

How the f**k was Maggie to blame for the sinking of the Titanic?

_________________
Grandad,

Of course it's not, and there are many firms throughout the country likewise taking the pi**.

Mere fodder are we.

_________________
IDFIMH

Read it properly Gramps, it's comparison quoting, i.e they all were the start of the end for the relevent subjects.

It's bo11ocks.

_________________
Grandad,

ahhhhh, someone who actually realises it!

we (the working class) aint here to have a say it it all, we are here to do or die, live with it lads, if you dont like it, f**k off and live in a tent!

every man for himself

just one small point, some report today reckons 350,000 jobs will have to go in the "public sector", i.e. goverment/local goverment jobs, whose to blame there, not Shell/BP or Bill Gates!

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

from whose perspective, the no-hopers who thought getting a badge was an easy way to making a living, or the guy whou bought the base, pays for the radios, pays the base ops, pays for the phones and adverts?

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

WH I am not trying to fall out with you but but I cannot understand your reasoning!



You seem to be batting from a working man/girl point of view, and then you bring into the equation from where I am stood other companies. When I brought BP into it, it was because I was asked a question by Toots! I gave an example which was accepted by one or two.

In answer to Gov jobs then the obvious answer is that the loss in due to Government incompetence and the fact that they are in overload anyway - so why the sarcasm?

And then this!



For my part I have always argued for the employee! I have then gone on to say that the employer is entitled to make profit, but having had it officially condemned by the Gov last year that "Slavery" should be abolished then I think that it is a bit (unintended pun) rich that slavery surfaces in another form.

I will state my position again, profit they are entitled to and quite rightly so and this takes in all their effort and expenditure. But there also comes a time when they are taking too much, and that kind of mentality causes recessions. To my way of thinking it is like playing Monopoly, once you have all the money - game over.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

So it wasn't an Iceberg that caused the Titanic to sink?

It isn't a bad owner of NUFC that got them relegated through bad decisions?

And finally it wasn't a plane crashing into the WTC that caused it to collapse?

Glad we got that sorted, I thought the papers had been telling the truth again,

The iceberd did not cause the titanic to sink the poor work of the person responsible for keeping a look out caused it.
Did the owner of NUFC play in any games?
It was coordinated acts of terrorism that caused the WTC to collapse.

_________________
Grandad,

Company profits:

Risk and reward: The greater the risk, the greater the reward. Basic economics. Those who are taking great risks in exploring difficult areas for oil are putting in massive resources for massive risk. If the well is dry, they've lost everything. If the well comes good, they've made a profit. The people taking the risk are the investors, who stand to make interest on their investment, and employees who get paid a salary for their 'investment.' In both cases the risk is no more interest or no more pay.

Thatcher:

The Thatcher government didn't destroy the unions, the unions destroyed the unions by holding the country to ransom throughout the '70s; Striking for just about any feeble excuse the union heirarchy could come up with this week. Successive governments were running scared of union power and the country was in a complete mess, verging on bankruptcy and the laughing stock of the industrialised world.

As I stated before, Margaret Thatcher was the only one with the backbone to get in and sort it out. The unions refused to discuss their problems. The government continually offered talks which were either refused or attended with such bad will that they had no prospect of success. Scargill and his ilk were determined that they were not going to work to get the country back up and running and the only way to bring them to their senses was through legislation. When was the last time a working man brought down an industry? There were plenty of examples of striking men ruining industries. Too bone idle to work but found enough energy tearing up and down the country intimidating those who did want to work.

The fact that controlled new labour haven't suffered industrial unrest is due to the measures introduced by the Thatcher government. So, those who want to bleat about how, after 12 years in power, controlled new labour still haven't made their own impact upon the industrial scene in this country should think back to who did make the difference.

Oh, and I speak as one of those who suffered redundancy in the late '70s thanks to union intimidation.

You knew what I meant, so why be so ****ing pedantic about it, I bet it's great on the rank with you for company, sheesh, I can't believe you even went so far to reply to my original post, everyone else seemed to know what it meant to represent.


And lets be right here, human error causes all things like what happened on the Titanic, going your route you could blame 5 or 6 events for it, but the bottom line is the weight of the ship against the weight of the ice caused the rivets to fail and the plate to buckle, either way no iceberg no collision no sinking.

Mike Ashley hired and fired the ppl to run the football side, his judgement resulted in a great club going down.


9/11 it was the physical mass of an aircraft at speed that sliced open the tower and the fuel it was carrying that burned away the steel supports, resulting in catastophic failure, no single man went up there and blew it down like the wolf and 3 little piggies.

Is that explanation enough, or should I start quoting phrases from the bible and hug a ****ing tree to convince you.

That in fairness is true, but she never had any intention of meeting anyone half way, as proved when she had to send the fleet to the Falklands in 82 rather than have the Arg removed by local ppl and global pressure, granted there was just as pig ignorant idiot on the other side of the fence regarding unions, it's ok to be a strong leader and a bonus tbh, but you have to make a concession on some things, she never could, and made sure all her actions resulted in a nice order book for Dennis.

Argentina had six weeks to leave the Falklands while the task force was assembled and made it's way down there.

With respect, what sort of reaction would there have been to 'oh please, leave my islands?' They would still be there now, IMHO.

Yeah I see your point, delayed action could've seen many a scenario played out, today a force of many countries would remove them as a HR issue, back then it wasn't like that.