Snow Days

[Former Member]

jessiflash - That is a ridiculous amount of snow, if that was over here we would pretty much cease to exist!

Those were taken just as we were headed up into the mountains. Down in the valley (where most people live) there's usually only few feet of snow on the ground in winter, give or take.

Edited February 6, 2009 by jessiflash

[wildone]

Well, since were posting pics of snow in the mountains .

 

Here is a couple of webcams that show the Roger's Pass, one of the highest points of the Transcanada Highway and another of the Kooteney Pass a little further south in the rockies. Most winters the snowbanks on the side of the road can be double the height of a semi trailer.

 

Still, I have never seen snow like I did one spring when trying to drive from Sacramento, CA to Reno NV on the I80 over Donner Pass in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It was like driving in a tunnel for 60 miles with 40 ft high snowbanks on each side of the road and chains were mandatory as well as a 35 mph speed limit. Now that was snow .

 

Edit to add: Best time to view the webcams is during the day

Edited February 6, 2009 by wildone

[Drewbie]

Again thanks for sharing.

[Daisy]

Also, despite the decrease in the power of unions in the last couple of decades, the workers themselves are still a bolshie lot . Some of them would rather go on strike over some imagined grievance and stand outside in a blizzard in protest rather than actually go in to work. Did you read about the recent wildcat strikes over the supposed unfair employment of foreign contractors at a Total refinery? Workers hundreds of miles away went out on 'sympathy' strikes, despite the fact that the unions didn't back the strikes.

 

Kit

 

I would take exception to that. why are the strikes ludicrous, and why is it an 'imagined' grievance. I don't like that it is being spun as an anti-foreigners strike, but they have the right, and they are not silly for standing up for themselves. what was happening was they were being undercut, and that is not fair. the italian's should have been paid higher wages too. they should not have to be told that they have to accept lower than living costs wages to 'save' an oil company that is making millions. for the foreign contractors were used because they were cheaper. and what about the unions, why is it that you think that because it was unofficial, i.e. not in the legal unions that the UK law 'allows' to exist as long as they play by their rules (which just serve to contain them for the sake of business) that they are any less justified or credible. Surely them doing it by themselves shows that they are all involved and want their voice heard, unlike the unions which are forced to keep quiet and are debatable in terms of their representation of the workers. and why do you think they were unofficial at least in the sympathy strikes, because one of those nifty laws that BANS sympathy strikes, another way of containing them and their ability to organise and resist what they are being told they just have to take, no matter what it does to their livelihoods.

 

celia

[kitten]

I would take exception to that. why are the strikes ludicrous, and why is it an 'imagined' grievance.

 

It was imagined because the contract with the Italian/Portugese workers was confidential, so they couldn't know what was it it. So they just guessed that it might be unfair.

 

Even if they knew for a fact that the foreign workers were paid less, it was a contract put out to tender, not employment as a job. If the foreign contractor offered to do the job for less, then it's the British contract firms fault for wanting to charge too much. Provided they both offered the same quality of work, would you pay a British roofing contractor more than an Italian roofing contractor to repair your damaged chimney? If so, then you are much richer than I am!

 

don't like that it is being spun as an anti-foreigners strike,

 

Holding up signs like 'UK jobs for UK workers' and suggesting foreigners don't get to work in England seems bordering on anti-foreign to me. We are (like it or not) part of the EU - a free market area where citizens can work anywhere in the EU. Should the French go on strike when British people get jobs in France? If so, then it really makes nonsense of the idea of the EU as a free trade and employment area.

 

It has been reported that the majority of workers on oil rigs in the Adriatic are British. Perhaps the Italians and/or Croats should go on strike qand picket the local ports becase the Brits are taking 'their' jobs?

 

Again, these were workers on a contract. Had the successful contractor been British but undercut the British competition by employing British workers for less, do you think the wildcat strikers would be equally angry? Personally, I doubt it. I believe that most of their anger was because the workers were 'foreign' and so I believe it was, at least in part, an anti-foreigners strike.

 

but they have the right, and they are not silly for standing up for themselves. what was happening was they were being undercut, and that is not fair. the italian's should have been paid higher wages too. they should not have to be told that they have to accept lower than living costs wages to 'save' an oil company that is making millions. for the foreign contractors were used because they were cheaper.

 

Has it been reported how much the foreign workers were paid? Do you know for sure? Or is it just what the strikers allege? Don't forget, the strikers were contract workers, not actual employees of Total.

 

It was a specific contract job (like getting someone to fix your roof). Just because one roofer gives a lower quote for the whole job doesn't mean he's paying his workers less. He could just be more efficient and/or taking less profit for himself. Furthermore, people seem to forget that the directors of a company have a legal duty to maximise profits for their shareholders. Whether or not you disagree with that, it is the way things are. They would be negligent in their duty if they paid more than necessary for a contract.

 

and what about the unions, why is it that you think that because it was unofficial, i.e. not in the legal unions that the UK law 'allows' to exist as long as they play by their rules (which just serve to contain them for the sake of business) that they are any less justified or credible. Surely them doing it by themselves shows that they are all involved and want their voice heard, unlike the unions which are forced to keep quiet and are debatable in terms of their representation of the workers. and why do you think they were unofficial at least in the sympathy strikes, because one of those nifty laws that BANS sympathy strikes, another way of containing them and their ability to organise and resist what they are being told they just have to take, no matter what it does to their livelihoods.

 

The best way to settle disputes of any kind, not just employment disputes, is to negotiate before taking action. People can easily be roused by a good orator putting forward as 'facts' which are in fact mere suppositions, insinuations, or downright lies. That is one reason the strike laws were introduced - so that the workers can be given the facts from both sides before being asked to vote. Then the decision is taken by a majority after giving time for thought. Surely that is better than instantaneously going on a wildcat strike based on the word of a few rabble-rousers?

 

As for 'sympathy' strikes - IMO they are totally wrong. Why should one employer and his customers in one part of the UK suffer because a because of a dispute between a totally different employer and his workers. Therefore, even if the Total workers in England had been correct in going on strike, the workers in Scotland working for a completely different company should not have gone on 'sympathy' strike.

 

Would you like all your local transport to be brought to a halt in your local city because they had 'sympathy' with transport workers in a different city, employed under different contracts by a different employer?

 

Yes, people have a right to demostrate and/or go on strike, but if those demonstrations or strikes are 'sympathy' (ie relating to something not affecting them directly) and if they harm innocent people then the strikers should be punished.

 

If I had any workers and they went on a wildcat 'sympathy' strike then I'd sack the lot of them, and if they demonstrated violently or caused obstruction by picketing then I'd have them charged and (hopefully) thrown in jail.

 

Kit

[sphen_dehan]

I know everyone has been talking about the weather in the UK but I thought I would show some pics of what happened here in the US, Kentucky to be exact.

This was taken just outside my office. It may not look like much snow but there is about two inches of ice under all of it (hence the trees falling down).

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z168/sp...dehan/Snow1.gif

[Daisy]

well you are entitled to your opinion; I just completely disagree.

 

I'm not going to bother going through all of your points, because it is a waste of time since you will disregard them all.

 

Simply, you state contracts and you mentioned the legally bound to maximise profits. well that is something that I don't have to accept as the status qou. It is maybe, doesn't mean it is right. if workers just left the employers to maximise profits then they would be run all over. as you say it is about the principle. stating contracts its just a way of getting around the fair principle. you are insisting on things be separate, yes it benefits the employer as it means they separate the workers and disable them from being able to stand up for themselves, because it is their competition that stops their bargaining power. and suggesting that Total can't afford to pay more for a decent wage is wrong. maybe an individual like me if I was in business may find it harder, but not them. just because market principles are the in thing, doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules in place that stop employers taking advantage and ensure living wages. the EU thing, well I was arguing for the same principles in the entire EU not just the UK. the strikers, at least the unions were stressing that. but it is easy for them to start to become xenophobic which I disagree with.

 

It was imagined because the contract with the Italian/Portugese workers was confidential, so they couldn't know what was it it. So they just guessed that it might be unfair.

 

Even if they knew for a fact that the foreign workers were paid less, it was a contract put out to tender, not employment as a job. If the foreign contractor offered to do the job for less, then it's the British contract firms fault for wanting to charge too much. Provided they both offered the same quality of work, would you pay a British roofing contractor more than an Italian roofing contractor to repair your damaged chimney? If so, then you are much richer than I am!

 

 

 

Holding up signs like 'UK jobs for UK workers' and suggesting foreigners don't get to work in England seems bordering on anti-foreign to me. We are (like it or not) part of the EU - a free market area where citizens can work anywhere in the EU. Should the French go on strike when British people get jobs in France? If so, then it really makes nonsense of the idea of the EU as a free trade and employment area.

 

It has been reported that the majority of workers on oil rigs in the Adriatic are British. Perhaps the Italians and/or Croats should go on strike qand picket the local ports becase the Brits are taking 'their' jobs?

 

Again, these were workers on a contract. Had the successful contractor been British but undercut the British competition by employing British workers for less, do you think the wildcat strikers would be equally angry? Personally, I doubt it. I believe that most of their anger was because the workers were 'foreign' and so I believe it was, at least in part, an anti-foreigners strike.

 

 

 

Has it been reported how much the foreign workers were paid? Do you know for sure? Or is it just what the strikers allege? Don't forget, the strikers were contract workers, not actual employees of Total.

 

It was a specific contract job (like getting someone to fix your roof). Just because one roofer gives a lower quote for the whole job doesn't mean he's paying his workers less. He could just be more efficient and/or taking less profit for himself. Furthermore, people seem to forget that the directors of a company have a legal duty to maximise profits for their shareholders. Whether or not you disagree with that, it is the way things are. They would be negligent in their duty if they paid more than necessary for a contract.

 

 

 

The best way to settle disputes of any kind, not just employment disputes, is to negotiate before taking action. People can easily be roused by a good orator putting forward as 'facts' which are in fact mere suppositions, insinuations, or downright lies. That is one reason the strike laws were introduced - so that the workers can be given the facts from both sides before being asked to vote. Then the decision is taken by a majority after giving time for thought. Surely that is better than instantaneously going on a wildcat strike based on the word of a few rabble-rousers?

 

As for 'sympathy' strikes - IMO they are totally wrong. Why should one employer and his customers in one part of the UK suffer because a because of a dispute between a totally different employer and his workers. Therefore, even if the Total workers in England had been correct in going on strike, the workers in Scotland working for a completely different company should not have gone on 'sympathy' strike.

 

Would you like all your local transport to be brought to a halt in your local city because they had 'sympathy' with transport workers in a different city, employed under different contracts by a different employer?

 

Yes, people have a right to demostrate and/or go on strike, but if those demonstrations or strikes are 'sympathy' (ie relating to something not affecting them directly) and if they harm innocent people then the strikers should be punished.

 

If I had any workers and they went on a wildcat 'sympathy' strike then I'd sack the lot of them, and if they demonstrated violently or caused obstruction by picketing then I'd have them charged and (hopefully) thrown in jail.

 

Kit

[jovian_w2002]

LOL I'm jealous! I wish it snows here *stomps my feet on the ground like a little spoilt brat (hehe)* NOW! hehe

[hh5]

LOL I'm jealous! I wish it snows here *stomps my feet on the ground like a little spoilt brat (hehe)* NOW! hehe

 

awww little Jo wants a Snow Care Package!!

[Emulated]

awww little Jo wants a Snow Care Package!!

I'd gladly send some over, but I'm not sure it'd survive the journey...

[hh5]

I'd gladly send some over, but I'm not sure it'd survive the journey...

 

Dry Ice Styrofoam and lear jet!!!

 

Maybe its best you bring Jovian over for a visit in your castle show him the queens hopitality.

[Emulated]

Maybe its best you bring Jovian over for a visit in your castle show him the queens hopitality.

Hehe, you're more than welcome to come over here Jovian and play with our snow if you'd like.

 

And you can come and visit your queen in her castle any time you want.

[hh5]

Hehe, you're more than welcome to come over here Jovian and play with our snow if you'd like.

 

And you can come and visit your queen in her castle any time you want.

 

I hear its super hot in Australia having wild fires. He's gonna bring the kolas and kangaroos too!!

[Phantom]

Hmmm... after seeing all the picture of the snow and such.. I wish I got some of what it looked like around here

 

There's nothing more interesting to look at then a beach covered in snow and the ocean pounding away at the sand. It's quite... interesting

 

Eric

[Jack Frost]

All I can say the weather is cruel here. For two days, it was about 40F/5C and honestly, I felt too warm even with a light coat and was wishing to get colder.

 

Now it's 14F/-10C. Now I don't feel so warm.

[Jack Frost]

All I can say the weather is cruel here. For two days, it was about 40F/5C and honestly, I felt too warm even with a light coat and was wishing to get colder.

 

Now it's 14F/-10C. So much for a thaw.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Jack Frost

[demic]

the snow's completely gone, apart from random, massive piles of dirty snow here and there.

It starts to snow every now and again but doesn't settle or gets washed away by rain; it's quite upsetting lol.