nrogers

Fair enough if you think like that. Personally I think people in general are lazy bastards and will mostly do nothing despite not being averse to donating. So in this case those lazy bastards still save lives and people who feel strongly still have the same rights. As for the potential for mixups, I'm sorry but I'd rather it meant someone living rather than the potential to upset someone who's dead anyway - apart from the remoteness of this happening. Well I like to think I am pretty lazy and I carry the card... but again I suppose it horses for courses, I don't like being forced to do anything... Some people may have a problem that there organs might go to, I dunno, lets say a drunk driver who's just run over a small child and then smacked into a tree... I wouldn't want my organs going to save a life like that! Or even someone like George Best!

The last will and testament which could quite clearly state (if you so wished) "I do not wish for any part of my body to be donated after my death"? Any potential for a mix-up there Nick? Yes if you HAVEN'T opted out! In the spirit of keeping this very interesting debate running on course, some non-essential bits have been snipped- BOF

Not sure the potential for a mixup is a valid enough reason to not do something that would clearly benefit so many people. Think of the amount of people, potentially people you and I know, who would be saved rather than the hypothetical chance for a single person losing a lung whose religion forbids it. Proportionately I think one pales into insignificance tbh. Not really, I think people should NOT be opted into a scheme, YOU should be have the right to opt in, NOT opt out!

Yeah fight the machine :roll: As said above, They're dead. They are hardly likely to complain. No valid arguments against it IMO So your last will and testament is no longer valid... thats nice, respect for the dead... IMO, your opinion is wrong! Oh and that fight the machine thing is quite funny.... :roll: Looking at some government agencies that have **** up... I'd really rather not add myself to another one....

What about people that don't want to give there names to an agency just to get off the list, what if you lose your card.... What about people who's religion or beliefs forbid it, or even somebody that wants to be buried/cremated whole and there is a mix up... It's not all black and white you know and I am a Volunteer Donor, when I die obviously, but there are arguements against ml1dch, even if you don't want to see it, just because you agree with it. It's my body, your body and you have the right not to opted into something, simply because it easier!

I am totally against the idea, what if there is a computer error and you and your family don't want donate organ and you[ve opted out.. but the computer doesn't pick it up... well what happens then? Also it's like the government owns your body...

I always thought Chris Rea and Dire Straits should combine, they could call themselves Dire Rea.... equivilent to the music they make!

Should we also ban any literature that denotes the British, as imperialistic, upper class soldiers, or stereo typically in Pin Stripe Suits and Bowler hats?

OK, My Step Mother, both my Sisters, one of my Sisters husbands and my partner are all teachers, and all make a good living... hows that for stats? Oh and BTW they fully believe what I believe on striking, etc! So facts they are kid..

Egg-****-zackly!

Yes, I'll keep looking at facts and you keep looking for your utopia!

I think that Nurses and Teachers get raises in terms with inflation and they always want more... And they do have a right to fight for a better deal, but striking is NOT the way... you can vote with your feet, do an outstanding job and get promoted, there are many way without hindering the people you have promised to help!

Go ahead and do a job for the love of it, but don't moan because you don't get 100k a year... your choice!

Oh and Bill, mining, burning more fossil fuels, probably a good thing more and more mines are closing... Not to mention that British Mining was losing money hand over fist, but let keep an industry going, costing the country money because a few people will lose their jobs... and theres me thinking it was the majority that count, but I suppose that only counts when it affects you and your own :roll: I didn't see IT workers striking or throwing there toys in the IT depression of 2001... What you call a pathetic CV, to the more business minded, it's one of the most powerful tools you have.... BTW, right on brother, power to the people

Sorry I misread your post, and for that I apologise, but Teachers and Nurses know the wage structure and the conditions before they sign up..... therefore, no you don't have the right to strike and effect childrens education, or someones healthcare!!

So you think schools and hospital make money now do you?? And now immigration is the problem?

I'm sorry, but positions are made redundant not people, so if the company were replacing these people then they were breaking the law.. so either your story is untrue, i.e. having to train replacement, or the Union didn't represent it's members correctly... Redundancies are part and parcel of a successful business, people talk about looking after the majority, and this is exactly what redundances do :confused: I have been made redundant numerous times, and you get up and look for another job, it's life, anyone who think a job is for life these days is sadly mistaken!

Nope, HD recorder and Home Theatre, with MySky!

Nayson, I just see it from a business perspective, and yes business shouldn't be allowed to run over employees, I get that, but surely that is what employment law is all about... Employment is about choice, you are not forced into any line of vocation, which to me and the fact employment law is now very much on the side of the employee, not the employer, that the need for striking is now not necesary, and completely down to holding an employer to ransom. In history, when employment law was different, yes great thing have come about from withdrawing labour... but things are different now. Take nurses for example, they don't have to work for the NHS, there are many private firms that pay better, etc, people have a choice and striking IMHO is wrong.

So if say 10,000 of a 12,000 workforce become unhappy with changes to pay should they a) Negotiate and strike as a last resort All move on. I think you're thinking about it from a very individual viewpoint and not considering wider issues such as the difficulty 10,000 people may have seeking new employment if conditions changed suddenly. Especially those with families to support. These people may have invested years of their life in training or invested in education specific to that sector. They may want to carry on in that job and not want to do whatever pays the bills or they may be unable to secure similar pay levels elsewhere. Jobs in that area may not be available, particularly if a whole batch of people are suddenly looking. Sorry Nick but a blanket "striking is bad, m'kay" just doesnt make sense to me. See that I don't agree with, firstly when you take a job, you know your T&C's, to suddenly want to change them, i.e. erm I think this job is worth more than this, is completely wrong. Now a business cannot legally reduce your salary, unless you sign a new contract. Therefore, it is the trade unions that are trying to move the goalposts, and when a business trys to reduce cost in terms of generating more profit, again I don't see the issue... where do you think, improvement to conditions are going to come from? The magical money fairy? Were do you think new equipment, better marketing, advertising and development is going to come from, oh yeah, its that magical money fairy! Not to mention further business expansion, improving technology, improved premises, product improvement... And lets not forget all these business advances go down to improve a service/product for the consumer, i.e. you and I!

There are no emotions involved, my thoghts are logical, don't like your current employer, move on, what is emotional about that? :confused: I fail to see the lack of reasoned arguement?

Exactly, if I am happy with my current wage and working conditions, why should I strike and lose my wages, because others may be greedy! Also if am so unhappy why continue to work for an employer that treats you like shit... move on... pretty bloody simple to me!

I just find the whole idea of striking disgraceful, if you read back through the thread, you will see my opinions of it. And I think if the Royal Mail had tried that, they would have been out of business in a few months... As private companies would have seen the gap in service and taken it on board! Your Ex-Forces as I am, what do you think of the Army Striking?

Like I said, I think striking is disgraceful, people depend on the post!

Well, yes and no. The "general public have to suffer" thing is also a line that the managment will use to attempt to emotionally blackmail staff. Ive only ever been involved in one strike ballot (and i voted against the strike) which incidently, never happened. And that excuse was used against us. People should have the right to demand improved terms and conditions. People should have the right to withdraw labour. If that wasnt the case, a lot of us would still be working in victorian style sweatshops. Maybe services had to suffer to get us out of these sweatshops. Its about balance. If you have serious concerns about the way your job is going, then you should have the right to do something about it. We shouldnt be like the French though, who seem to go on strike if they dont like the colour of the new carpet in the office! You always have the right to withdraw your labour, it's called a notice period. Perhaps this would then open a vacancies for someone who would appricate the job. Whilst you move on to a more suitable job?