my union-busting management bosses would like me to point out that there are plenty more laws on the books to protect workers now that didn't exist back in the 20s of dudes getting their hands chopped in the meatpacking plants...
I just don't see any downside to putting a floor on wages. Your argument seems mostly theoretical. Who decides who the $20/hr worker is and who the $5/hr worker is? Let me guess, that would be the employer, the known objective measurer of all things labor. GTFOOHWTBS.
Well of course an employer decides what an individual employee is worth. The minimum wage law doesn't do anything to change what any individual employer thinks an individual employee is worth, it only changes what he may pay him. If an employer calculates that employee x's work is worth 15 bucks an hour then that calculation isn't going to change simply because the state decrees that you cant pay him any less than 20. Most likely employee X will find himself getting laid off.
And you're not just disagreeing with me when you dispute whether minimum wage laws have disemployment effects, you're disagreeing those advocates who strove to get minimum wage laws enacted. The secretary of South africa's building union described his support for minimum wage laws as follows "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate [minimum wage] for the job as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." And before you start getting the idea that this was a way of thinking peculiar to the progressives of South africa here is US labor lead Eugene Debs explaining his support of the minimum wage "???The Dago . . . lives more like a savage or a wild beast than the Chinese,??? and therefore can ???underbid the American working man???"
The minimum wage law was introduced to do the same thing as unions: boost the wages of certain classes of labor at the expense of other less privileged classes of labor. That is what they were both designed to do and that is what they still do. Sure, enough the rhetoric is different today but calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. If you kick it in the ass it's gonna bark, not meow.
It is an empirical fact that unions cause wages to rise.
If I didn't think that unions were capable of securing wage rises for their members(in the short term at least) then my argument wouldn't make any sense
It is also a fact that rising wages=rising wealth (for labor).
Why are you still insisting of talking about labor as if it were some homogeneous blob when I have demonstrated that unions and minimum wage laws are designed to benefit some laborers at the expense of others, and quoted the very pioneers of the 'progressive' movement attesting to the fact?
In the end though a high level of unionisation actually lowers the quality of living even for its members. The way a society gets wealthier over the long run is increased productivity at the expense of certain forms of labor. The printing press, loom, and computer ect. all destroyed large levels of employment initially but lead, ultimately, to a far greater output than could've been possible without them. In contrast unions typically act to increase certain forms of labor at the expense of productivity through work rules and the like. A pattern which benefits certain workers initially through sparing them a period of unemployment but ultimately leads to a far diminished level of output and lower living standards. See 70's Britain for a concrete example of what I am talking about.
Your belief in the free market could use a little reality check. I'd like to hear how you hate the fact that farm subsidies are driving down the cost of food unfairly.
Who said I supported farm subsidies?
Of course, you will never advocate for that kind of change because it hurts your own self(ish) interests, even while it is the owning class who are lobbying for this kind of market regulation.
??? contrary to what you may have been told I am not a farmer though I do not object to the insinuation that I am part of the owning class. I do indeed own.
You can huff and puff all day long about the unseen hand and all the right wing clap trap but don't waste your breathe with me. I live in the real world.
I have not mentioned the unseen hand once. There has been only one hand in the debate, it is seen, manicured, furnished with the gaudiest rings that money can buy, and it went all upside your face with the quickness.
Hahah. I posted some long ass response but it had timed out. The long and the short of it is that all wealthy societies allow for greater and greater freedoms and balances of power between the classes. Unions are an integral part of the balance of power.
You're notion that unions drive down productivity and thus wealth is entirely fallacious. The greatest growth in wealth and productivity in American history occurred during the greatest period of union growth.
Your faith in the owning class to build wealth through trickle down philosophies is naive at best.
Hahah. I posted some long ass response but it had timed out. The long and the short of it is that all wealthy societies allow for greater and greater freedoms and balances of power between the classes. Unions are an integral part of the balance of power.
Of course. My argument is not that they don't "shift the balance of power". It is that they shift the balance power between classes of labor, not between labor and the "owning class". I have documented this so exhaustively during the course of this thread that is beyond dispute and interpret you repeated failure to dispute it as a tacit concession to the point.
You're notion that unions drive down productivity and thus wealth is entirely fallacious. The greatest growth in wealth and productivity in American history occurred during the greatest period of union growth.
No it is that argument which is entirely fallacious, a fallacy of correlation to be precise. Just because two things happen around the same time does not mean one is the cause of the other. After all there was a huge number of other things going on in the post war period as well. The widespread bombing of europe's production capacity might've offered the US a comparitive advantage no?
Your faith in the owning class to build wealth through trickle down philosophies is naive at best.
My point about retarded productivity has nothing to do with a 'trickle down philosophy', not that i'm aware of anyone on earth who actually has such a thing. It is simply the fact that if you mandate that the production of a good use more labor and materials than is actually required, which is what union work rules commonly do, you have less labor and resources with which to produce other goods. If you produce a car using 5 people and 3 tons of steel, when the same car could've been produced with 3 people and 2 tons of steel, you have wasted 2 people and a ton of steel which could have been used to produce a motorbike or a refrigerator or something else. Obviously such practices over time result in a stock of wealth far lower than what could've been achieved.
Hahah. I posted some long ass response but it had timed out. The long and the short of it is that all wealthy societies allow for greater and greater freedoms and balances of power between the classes. Unions are an integral part of the balance of power.
Of course. My argument is not that they don't "shift the balance of power". It is that they shift the balance power between classes of labor, not between labor and the "owning class". I have documented this so exhaustively during the course of this thread that is beyond dispute and interpret you repeated failure to dispute it as a tacit concession to the point.
You're notion that unions drive down productivity and thus wealth is entirely fallacious. The greatest growth in wealth and productivity in American history occurred during the greatest period of union growth.
No it is that argument which is entirely fallacious, a fallacy of correlation to be precise. Just because two things happen around the same time does not mean one is the cause of the other. After all there was a huge number of other things going on in the post war period as well. The widespread bombing of europe's production capacity might've offered the US a comparitive advantage no?
Your faith in the owning class to build wealth through trickle down philosophies is naive at best.
My point about retarded productivity has nothing to do with a 'trickle down philosophy', not that i'm aware of anyone on earth who actually has such a thing. It is simply the fact that if you mandate that the production of a good use more labor and materials than is actually required, which is what union work rules commonly do, you have less labor and resources with which to produce other goods. If you produce a car using 5 people and 3 tons of steel, when the same car could've been produced with 3 people and 2 tons of steel, you have wasted 2 people and a ton of steel which could have been used to produce a motorbike or a refrigerator or something else. Obviously such practices over time result in a stock of wealth far lower than what could've been achieved.
Yeah and if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. Of course, in theory, you could infinitely expand the productivity of worker X which could theoretically be used somewhere else in the work force but that is merely theory. In the real world things play out quite differently. A corporation like Nike does not seek to increase worker productivity through technological innovation. To increase productivity, they seek the cheapest possible labor force. Thus they moved from Japan to Korea, from Korea to China, From China into Africa and so on and so on. They move anywhere they can exploit unorganized labor and away from where workers organize to improve their lot. Within their corporate labor force, an ever growing number of employees are now classified as temp workers. This is not because they are working temporarily, it's because Nike finds ancillary benefits very expensive. This is not rocket science.
It is also a fallacy that unions always seek to lessen production. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. Union backed safety laws have dramatically increased productivity by reducing injury and death (a real kick in the balls to productivity). Whats more not all increases in production are desirable. As I pointed out earlier there are a million ways in which productivity could be increased including using cheaper child labor or by destroying more of the environment. In the short term this might boost output but as a society we have determined these choices undermine our collective health and safety and thus long-term growth. We correctly have moved to stop these practices. Shit slavery was a very productive modality. Unfortunately, it came with some other baggage. We opted out.
Your philosophy is absolutely tied to trickle down theories of wealth creation. Sure, if you could get a worker to build a car faster and with less steel corporations would make more money. It is does not follow that those extra dollars will flow into workers' hands (by increasing wages or crating more work). Of course, the last 30 years of labor and tax policy shows that this is true. Even as productivity has increased (mostly by extending the hours of work of unorganized labor, in essence getting salaried workers to work longer for the same salary) middle income families have lost real wealth. This is an undeniable fact that someone as educated as yourself is well aware of. Stop kidding yourself that unions are monolithic entities or that their net effect is wage suppression for "certain" classes (an argument to which, for the record, I have posed counter arguments, see minimum wage law). It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that workers' health and wealth is directly tied to their ability to negotiate the terms of their labor. You have an incredibly naive and idealistic view of human nature. Power seeks to concentrate and dominate. The only response is to organize against this tendency. Further, you seem to be for everyone being free except those who want to organize for power in the workplace. Case closed, game over, read a f*cking book, but most importantly use a little common sense.
Yeah and if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. Of course, in theory, you could infinitely expand the productivity of worker X which could theoretically be used somewhere else in the work force but that is merely theory. In the real world things play out quite differently. A corporation like Nike does not seek to increase worker productivity through technological innovation. To increase productivity, they seek the cheapest possible labor force. Thus they moved from Japan to Korea, from Korea to China, From China into Africa and so on and so on. They move anywhere they can exploit unorganized labor and away from where workers organize to improve their lot. Within their corporate labor force, an ever growing number of employees are now classified as temp workers. This is not because they are working temporarily, it's because Nike finds ancillary benefits very expensive. This is not rocket science.
You keep making the mistake of conflating the lot of unions with the lot of workers more generally. I think iv'e shown quite conclusively that it isnt sensible to think in those terms, but even if the theoretical argument is too abstract for you, how do you account for the statements of the advocates of unionization I have posted? When they say that the point of uninionisation was to remove certain groups from the labor force were they merely confused?
And I am mystified by what point you thought you were making with your little story about nike. If unions tend to reduce the productivity of the work force, as I contest, then why wouldn't corporations like nike go further afield to produce their goods? I also don't understand why you seem to find the prospect of third world peoples finding employment so distressing.
It is also a fallacy that unions always seek to lessen production. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. Union backed safety laws have dramatically increased productivity by reducing injury and death (a real kick in the balls to productivity). Whats more not all increases in production are desirable. As I pointed out earlier there are a million ways in which productivity could be increased including using cheaper child labor or by destroying more of the environment. In the short term this might boost output but as a society we have determined these choices undermine our collective health and safety and thus long-term growth. We correctly have moved to stop these practices. Shit slavery was a very productive modality. Unfortunately, it came with some other baggage. We opted out.
Please engage in arguments that have actually been made. Since when did I say that every other consideration should be subservient to productivity?
And, again, conflicts don't dissolve away simply by you referring to unions in collective terms. 'We as a society' haven't decided any of the things you mentioned, just as 'we as a society' didn't invade iraq or get a blow job from monica lewinsky.
Your philosophy is absolutely tied to trickle down theories of wealth creation. Sure, if you could get a worker to build a car faster and with less steel corporations would make more money. It is does not follow that those extra dollars will flow into workers' hands (by increasing wages or crating more work). Of course, the last 30 years of labor and tax policy shows that this is true. Even as productivity has increased (mostly by extending the hours of work of unorganized labor, in essence getting salaried workers to work longer for the same salary) middle income families have lost real wealth. This is an undeniable fact that someone as educated as yourself is well aware of. Stop kidding yourself that unions are monolithic entities or that their net effect is wage suppression for "certain" classes (an argument to which, for the record, I have posed counter arguments, see minimum wage law). It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that workers' health and wealth is directly tied to their ability to negotiate the terms of their labor. You have an incredibly naive and idealistic view of human nature. Power seeks to concentrate and dominate. The only response is to organize against this tendency. Further, you seem to be for everyone being free except those who want to organize for power in the workplace. Case closed, game over, read a f*cking book, but most importantly use a little common sense.
The little exposition of mine which you refer to as 'trickle down theory of wealth' is just a plain old theory of wealth. Premised on what I wouldve thought was the incontestable observation that a society with more wealth is wealthier than a society with less. Still, it is not unlike you to deny the obvious. When reality is in discord with leftist dogma it is not hard to guess on what side you will land.
I think a good first step for you would be to think carefully about how you use words. The idiocy into which you feel into above, in effect denying that having more wealth makes society wealthier, was a result of you using the word 'society' when you were really meant a certain a segment of society which you might refer to as the 'workers'. Itself another word which you often use to refer to a sub section of the whole rather than the word itself. If in your mind the word society is interchangable with its union component and the word 'workers' is short hand for unionized workers then it stands to reason that you would have great difficulty understanding how unionization can damage a society or be detrimental to certain classes of workers.
Oh and it is a bit rich to admonish me by demanding I read a book since I have offered numerous citations from the relevant literature in this thread whilst you have spent the whole time bellowing out your ass.
The quotes you used, despite their period racism, are not problematic. Lavor is always concerned that unorganized labor will be used against it as it should be. You use a theoretical model to say that when labor negotiates higher wages that takes bread out of Johnny Pauper's mouth. I argue otherwise. Labor, when it seeks to put a floor on wages is not hurting the so-called pauper classes; it is redistributing wealth toward the working classes. Labor has consistently used its wealth to pursue progressive regulation which benefits all workers, union or not. That is labors' legacy.
I am able to hire whoever I please. As I would in any state unless I were working on gov't type contracts. Not surprisingly, non-union workers are quite a bit cheaper than union workers. Most of the work I need done isn't performed by union workers. For example, I have never heard of a unionized private landscaping service or carpet installer. They're simply too small to make that a viable choice for the workers. Mostly, it's plumbing or electrical that I would use a union shop for. I have used one union electrical shop in particular. They saved me about 40k On one job by convincing the city to give me an exception on moving some existing power lines. I use them regularly because they are totally reliable, work quickly and stand by their product. Funny, I thought union guys didn't care about that kind of stuff? In any case I won't hire a union shop for that reason alone, price, quality and availability all factor in as well.
Let me just day that I find Dolo's theoretical discussions irrelevant when compared to the kinds of real world experiences I have had as a small businessman and former union organizer. What he's talking about is in some academic text, what I am dealing with is my experience in the field.
PS I wrote my masters thesis on Nike's Sustainability Program. My knowledge of much of that situation comes directly from talking to people on the ground.
They saved me about 40k On one job by convincing the city to give me an exception on moving some existing power lines.
This sounds right....I doubt a non-union company could have done this.
I've also, as has Horseleech, relayed some first hand on the ground experiences that are undefendable and corrupt.
Unions present positives and negatives, the debate is are the negatives worth the positives and vice-versa.
My family, who are mostly living on Union pensions love them.
If I was in the owning class and they saved me $40K I might love them too.
Unions are a very worthy counter balance to corporations.
The savings came because of a strong, long term relationship with the inspectors on the part of the estimator. Whether the union aspect had anything to do with it is questionable. My greater point is that an union shop can be run efficiently.
The quotes you used, despite their period racism, are not problematic. Lavor is always concerned that unorganized labor will be used against it as it should be. You use a theoretical model to say that when labor negotiates higher wages that takes bread out of Johnny Pauper's mouth. I argue otherwise. Labor, when it seeks to put a floor on wages is not hurting the so-called pauper classes; it is redistributing wealth toward the working classes. Labor has consistently used its wealth to pursue progressive regulation which benefits all workers, union or not. That is labors' legacy.
Blah. If you're just going to repeat the same shit even after i've dynamited it and urinated on its still smoldering ashes then there really is no point in drawing out your humiliation.
Comments
Well of course an employer decides what an individual employee is worth. The minimum wage law doesn't do anything to change what any individual employer thinks an individual employee is worth, it only changes what he may pay him. If an employer calculates that employee x's work is worth 15 bucks an hour then that calculation isn't going to change simply because the state decrees that you cant pay him any less than 20. Most likely employee X will find himself getting laid off.
And you're not just disagreeing with me when you dispute whether minimum wage laws have disemployment effects, you're disagreeing those advocates who strove to get minimum wage laws enacted. The secretary of South africa's building union described his support for minimum wage laws as follows "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate [minimum wage] for the job as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." And before you start getting the idea that this was a way of thinking peculiar to the progressives of South africa here is US labor lead Eugene Debs explaining his support of the minimum wage "???The Dago . . . lives more like a savage or a wild beast than the
Chinese,??? and therefore can ???underbid the American working man???"
The minimum wage law was introduced to do the same thing as unions: boost the wages of certain classes of labor at the expense of other less privileged classes of labor. That is what they were both designed to do and that is what they still do. Sure, enough the rhetoric is different today but calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. If you kick it in the ass it's gonna bark, not meow.
If I didn't think that unions were capable of securing wage rises for their members(in the short term at least) then my argument wouldn't make any sense
Why are you still insisting of talking about labor as if it were some homogeneous blob when I have demonstrated that unions and minimum wage laws are designed to benefit some laborers at the expense of others, and quoted the very pioneers of the 'progressive' movement attesting to the fact?
In the end though a high level of unionisation actually lowers the quality of living even for its members. The way a society gets wealthier over the long run is increased productivity at the expense of certain forms of labor. The printing press, loom, and computer ect. all destroyed large levels of employment initially but lead, ultimately, to a far greater output than could've been possible without them. In contrast unions typically act to increase certain forms of labor at the expense of productivity through work rules and the like. A pattern which benefits certain workers initially through sparing them a period of unemployment but ultimately leads to a far diminished level of output and lower living standards. See 70's Britain for a concrete example of what I am talking about.
Who said I supported farm subsidies?
??? contrary to what you may have been told I am not a farmer though I do not object to the insinuation that I am part of the owning class. I do indeed own.
I have not mentioned the unseen hand once. There has been only one hand in the debate, it is seen, manicured, furnished with the gaudiest rings that money can buy, and it went all upside your face with the quickness.
You're notion that unions drive down productivity and thus wealth is entirely fallacious. The greatest growth in wealth and productivity in American history occurred during the greatest period of union growth.
Your faith in the owning class to build wealth through trickle down philosophies is naive at best.
Of course. My argument is not that they don't "shift the balance of power". It is that they shift the balance power between classes of labor, not between labor and the "owning class". I have documented this so exhaustively during the course of this thread that is beyond dispute and interpret you repeated failure to dispute it as a tacit concession to the point.
No it is that argument which is entirely fallacious, a fallacy of correlation to be precise. Just because two things happen around the same time does not mean one is the cause of the other. After all there was a huge number of other things going on in the post war period as well. The widespread bombing of europe's production capacity might've offered the US a comparitive advantage no?
My point about retarded productivity has nothing to do with a 'trickle down philosophy', not that i'm aware of anyone on earth who actually has such a thing. It is simply the fact that if you mandate that the production of a good use more labor and materials than is actually required, which is what union work rules commonly do, you have less labor and resources with which to produce other goods. If you produce a car using 5 people and 3 tons of steel, when the same car could've been produced with 3 people and 2 tons of steel, you have wasted 2 people and a ton of steel which could have been used to produce a motorbike or a refrigerator or something else. Obviously such practices over time result in a stock of wealth far lower than what could've been achieved.
Pardon the hijack but, any updates coming soon on this?
http://soulstrutcowards.wordpress.com/20...ward-to-a-race/
This blog was so awesome and I miss it. Thank you.
Please carry on.
Yeah and if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. Of course, in theory, you could infinitely expand the productivity of worker X which could theoretically be used somewhere else in the work force but that is merely theory. In the real world things play out quite differently. A corporation like Nike does not seek to increase worker productivity through technological innovation. To increase productivity, they seek the cheapest possible labor force. Thus they moved from Japan to Korea, from Korea to China, From China into Africa and so on and so on. They move anywhere they can exploit unorganized labor and away from where workers organize to improve their lot. Within their corporate labor force, an ever growing number of employees are now classified as temp workers. This is not because they are working temporarily, it's because Nike finds ancillary benefits very expensive. This is not rocket science.
It is also a fallacy that unions always seek to lessen production. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. Union backed safety laws have dramatically increased productivity by reducing injury and death (a real kick in the balls to productivity). Whats more not all increases in production are desirable. As I pointed out earlier there are a million ways in which productivity could be increased including using cheaper child labor or by destroying more of the environment. In the short term this might boost output but as a society we have determined these choices undermine our collective health and safety and thus long-term growth. We correctly have moved to stop these practices. Shit slavery was a very productive modality. Unfortunately, it came with some other baggage. We opted out.
Your philosophy is absolutely tied to trickle down theories of wealth creation. Sure, if you could get a worker to build a car faster and with less steel corporations would make more money. It is does not follow that those extra dollars will flow into workers' hands (by increasing wages or crating more work). Of course, the last 30 years of labor and tax policy shows that this is true. Even as productivity has increased (mostly by extending the hours of work of unorganized labor, in essence getting salaried workers to work longer for the same salary) middle income families have lost real wealth. This is an undeniable fact that someone as educated as yourself is well aware of. Stop kidding yourself that unions are monolithic entities or that their net effect is wage suppression for "certain" classes (an argument to which, for the record, I have posed counter arguments, see minimum wage law). It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that workers' health and wealth is directly tied to their ability to negotiate the terms of their labor. You have an incredibly naive and idealistic view of human nature. Power seeks to concentrate and dominate. The only response is to organize against this tendency. Further, you seem to be for everyone being free except those who want to organize for power in the workplace. Case closed, game over, read a f*cking book, but most importantly use a little common sense.
b/w
Trickle down theories are
I am very much a part of the owning class. It's why I am so unrelenting with my criticisms.
You keep making the mistake of conflating the lot of unions with the lot of workers more generally. I think iv'e shown quite conclusively that it isnt sensible to think in those terms, but even if the theoretical argument is too abstract for you, how do you account for the statements of the advocates of unionization I have posted? When they say that the point of uninionisation was to remove certain groups from the labor force were they merely confused?
And I am mystified by what point you thought you were making with your little story about nike. If unions tend to reduce the productivity of the work force, as I contest, then why wouldn't corporations like nike go further afield to produce their goods? I also don't understand why you seem to find the prospect of third world peoples finding employment so distressing.
Please engage in arguments that have actually been made. Since when did I say that every other consideration should be subservient to productivity?
And, again, conflicts don't dissolve away simply by you referring to unions in collective terms. 'We as a society' haven't decided any of the things you mentioned, just as 'we as a society' didn't invade iraq or get a blow job from monica lewinsky.
The little exposition of mine which you refer to as 'trickle down theory of wealth' is just a plain old theory of wealth. Premised on what I wouldve thought was the incontestable observation that a society with more wealth is wealthier than a society with less. Still, it is not unlike you to deny the obvious. When reality is in discord with leftist dogma it is not hard to guess on what side you will land.
I think a good first step for you would be to think carefully about how you use words. The idiocy into which you feel into above, in effect denying that having more wealth makes society wealthier, was a result of you using the word 'society' when you were really meant a certain a segment of society which you might refer to as the 'workers'. Itself another word which you often use to refer to a sub section of the whole rather than the word itself. If in your mind the word society is interchangable with its union component and the word 'workers' is short hand for unionized workers then it stands to reason that you would have great difficulty understanding how unionization can damage a society or be detrimental to certain classes of workers.
Oh and it is a bit rich to admonish me by demanding I read a book since I have offered numerous citations from the relevant literature in this thread whilst you have spent the whole time bellowing out your ass.
Do you employ Union labor?
It just helps put perspective on your argument.
So let me ask...
Are you able to hire non-union, licensed workers for the same labor in your state?
And if so, what is the cost difference??
Let me just day that I find Dolo's theoretical discussions irrelevant when compared to the kinds of real world experiences I have had as a small businessman and former union organizer. What he's talking about is in some academic text, what I am dealing with is my experience in the field.
PS I wrote my masters thesis on Nike's Sustainability Program. My knowledge of much of that situation comes directly from talking to people on the ground.
This sounds right....I doubt a non-union company could have done this.
I've also, as has Horseleech, relayed some first hand on the ground experiences that are undefendable and corrupt.
Unions present positives and negatives, the debate is are the negatives worth the positives and vice-versa.
My family, who are mostly living on Union pensions love them.
If I was in the owning class and they saved me $40K I might love them too.
Unions are a very worthy counter balance to corporations.
The savings came because of a strong, long term relationship with the inspectors on the part of the estimator. Whether the union aspect had anything to do with it is questionable. My greater point is that an union shop can be run efficiently.
Blah. If you're just going to repeat the same shit even after i've dynamited it and urinated on its still smoldering ashes then there really is no point in drawing out your humiliation.
And, that we should be grateful, because Company X (a rival energy company) cut their contractor rates by 20%.
It's not like they don't all f*ck off to the continent on the reg for jollies. They have had a good year.
Cnuts the lot of 'em.
I demolished you as even you must know deep down.