How can Arthur Scargill describe the NUM as being ‘vindictive’ after the 1984 Miners’ Strike?
Mr Scargill could have drawn a better contract for miners taking redundancy. Miners, for whatever their reasons after the strike, having worked in the industry for years and some more than 30 years, lost their fuel allowance through Mr Scargill because he was trying to stop miners taking redundancy.
Miners were told if they took redundancy, they would forfeit their fuel allowance. Who was ‘vindictive’ then?
I think it’s a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ – talk about double standards. The NUM president is right in saying he wished Mr Scargill had put as much effort in looking after members as he clearly has looking after himself in drawing up his own contract.
© 2013 Barnsley Chronicle Ltd
If the Scargill court case against the NUM Yorkshire Area Trust trustees,in Sheffield,proved anything it was the absolute incompetence of both the YorkshireArea (YATF) trustees and the Yorkshire NUM officals. The judge pointed out the glaringly obvious fact; that Arthur Scargill had a fixed contract of employment with the YATF trustees and had been employed for a fixed term of nine and a quarter years. For every single one of those years the trustees signed off the report and accounts confirming Mr. Scargill`s salary and other benefits, yet the 2 YATF trustees who gave evidence told the court that they didn`t know they employed him. If you want to compair the present NUM president record for looking after the miners against Mr. Scargill`s record of looking after the miners then lets have that debate....
When people are given power....no matter in what position, the personal interest side soon starts to outweigh the best interests of those who elected them in the first place. A cult of personality type of behaviour begins to overtake all other important issues. You have only to look at David Cameron's stance on NHS reforms. It's personal.
The individuals standing/status is all consuming...............
Come on, Arthur did alright for the Miners. My Father In Law (dead now) took early retirement in the mid 1980's ( he was 53) and got a payment of £30,000 and another payment of £17,000 some years later. I don't know what his pension was at the time, but I do know that towards the end of his life five years ago he was on £300 per week NUM/State Pension combined. When he worked down the Pit he was on developement and I know that he was on £50 bonus per shift, his wages on top of that. Some would considered that a fair wage in 2012, he was on that 30 years ago. He bought his house from the NCB around 1986 for £3,500. It's worth over £100,000 today. His wife still continues to collect half his MPS pension to this day. When he retired his fuel allowence was five ton a year. He continued to get that until he changed to oil heating, at which point he exchanged his allowence for a yearly cash payment. I don't think it was much, but that was his choice. All of this was on Arthur Scargills watch, so I'd say Arthur did pretty well for the Miners.
I don't know the full of in's and out's of Arthur's problem with the NUM, but I suspect it's more a matter of principle than greed. Anyhow, he did alright by the Miners, why shouldn't he do alright by himself?