Is he offering to pay train drivers the salary he gets for perpetual bullshit?
Is he offering to take a train driver’s salary for his perpetual bullshit?
Those are sensible compromises. He’s not offering them.
When has pinocchio and sense ever been used in the same sentence?
His nose is growing again, time to book another procedure.
I have a compromise for him, his party stops fleecing the nation and he resigns for breaking his own laws through partying whilst loved ones were forced to die alone.
Demonising workers is not sensible. Perhaps he should tell his ministers to listen rather than slinging mud
>Boris Johnson has responded to the biggest rail strikes in a generation with plans to break the industrial action by allowing firms to bring in agency staff, a move unions have decried as unworkable, unsafe and potentially breaking international law.
Why is it that “compromise” always involves workers accepting less?
A lot of talk at my work(nhs) about strike action, I think PM may be mostly concerned about others becoming inspired and the whole nation grinding to a halt until people get the wages they need to live their life.
So far the ‘sensible compromise’ is literally making thousands redundant, cutting pay, extending working hours with zero financial recompense.
By sensible compromise does he mean “accept our first offer or we’ll change the law to send in strike breakers without even joining any attempt to negotiate”?
9 comments
Is he offering to pay train drivers the salary he gets for perpetual bullshit?
Is he offering to take a train driver’s salary for his perpetual bullshit?
Those are sensible compromises. He’s not offering them.
When has pinocchio and sense ever been used in the same sentence?
His nose is growing again, time to book another procedure.
I have a compromise for him, his party stops fleecing the nation and he resigns for breaking his own laws through partying whilst loved ones were forced to die alone.
Demonising workers is not sensible. Perhaps he should tell his ministers to listen rather than slinging mud
In other [news](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/20/boris-johnson-plan-break-rail-strikes-agency-workers)
>Boris Johnson has responded to the biggest rail strikes in a generation with plans to break the industrial action by allowing firms to bring in agency staff, a move unions have decried as unworkable, unsafe and potentially breaking international law.
Why is it that “compromise” always involves workers accepting less?
A lot of talk at my work(nhs) about strike action, I think PM may be mostly concerned about others becoming inspired and the whole nation grinding to a halt until people get the wages they need to live their life.
So far the ‘sensible compromise’ is literally making thousands redundant, cutting pay, extending working hours with zero financial recompense.
By sensible compromise does he mean “accept our first offer or we’ll change the law to send in strike breakers without even joining any attempt to negotiate”?