[Misc] Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[Weststander]

Lol! Yes, he was only missing a leek in his breast pocket to complete his utterly boring personality. After his party political broadcast opinion I basically switched off.

Certainly no Richard Burton or Cliff Morgan when it comes to oratory

 

[LamieRobertson]

My point is that the drivers, guards and drivers assistants have fared well in a period where others haven’t I suspect.

Can’t think of a valid financial reason why RMT guards and drivers assistants should be striking just now.

I think this dispute is in part political, on both sides. Lynch often mentions other sectors, hoping it seems for a wider conflict."

My opinion is the same ….of course it is just an opinion

 

[jackalbion]

My point is that the drivers, guards and drivers assistants have fared well in a period where others haven’t I suspect.

Can’t think of a valid financial reason why RMT guards and drivers assistants should be striking just now.

I think this dispute is in part political, on both sides. Lynch often mentions other sectors, hoping it seems for a wider conflict.

I think it’s down to redundancies and fire / re-hire really, that’s one thing that is a worry in the industry especially after seeing what P & O did and they want guarantees on that.

 

[Weststander]

I think it’s down to redundancies and fire / re-hire really, that’s one thing that is a worry in the industry especially after seeing what P & O did and they want guarantees on that.

And British Airways, Gatwick. Used the pandemic to reduce wages per person.

 

[jackalbion]

And British Airways, Gatwick. Used the pandemic to reduce wages per person.

It’s something legislation could genuinely be helpful good with, and if a party put it into policy it would be really attractive to voters, and would genuinely protect workers in low paid industry. But the Tories seem to just be interested in covering up their latest scandal, while Labour seem to be twiddling their thumbs talking about wales, and working out how many Union Jacks Behind Kier Starmer is enough to get people who never will vote for him to vote for him.

 

[rogersix]

yes, they'd all spend the same. thats not reality though, different jobs have different pay. my point was illustrating that money flows round and whoevers hands it passes though its still being spent somewhere, which isnt trickle down, though is misrepresented as such. we should definatly have economics taught at school so people understand the basics and dont fall for these silly ideas.

so you're arguing for a maximum wage?

 

[maresfield seagull]

And British Airways, Gatwick. Used the pandemic to reduce wages per person.

Thought I heard on the radio last night BA check in staff at Heathrow are going to strike to get the wages re instated back to pre covid levels

 

[lawros left foot]

Yes, since Dimbleby left it’s gone down hill. He was a far better presenter and facilitator. It was already going downhill, that’s both the Editorial and Parties fault though. I’d love a new similar but different political flagship programme to be made. I’ve got a working title, going to pitch it to the BBC, it’s called Answer Time - where panellists are asked questions by an audience, and actually answer them. What yer reckon?

Great idea.

Perhaps they could introduce one to the HOC, called Prime Ministers answers where the PM actually answers questions.

 

[beorhthelm]

It’s something legislation could genuinely be helpful good with, and if a party put it into policy it would be really attractive to voters, and would genuinely protect workers in low paid industry. But the Tories seem to just be interested in covering up their latest scandal, while Labour seem to be twiddling their thumbs talking about wales, and working out how many Union Jacks Behind Kier Starmer is enough to get people who never will vote for him to vote for him.

not sure how you'd legislate for that. every employee would have agreed to the pay cut, presumably on basis of securing jobs. where was the union to insist contracts would revert to original pay?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm really not an expert on this but isn't there a lag between QE and potential inflationary effects of that? Also, if you effectively print money you are 'debasing' it, is it not inevitable that inflation will result?

Nor am I.

So just reading up on this as we’ve been typing, it didn’t lead to UK inflation because every other western economy was using the very same tool, and because the printed money was not placed into the hands of consumers in a boom.

2008 and beyond banks crash - it bought debt, bolstered the capital of private banks to save them.
Pandemic - it bankrolled furlough, grants and loans to companies.

Nor am I

 

[Machiavelli]

Just shows, don’t always listen to economists. Looking up articles in the last hour, some as late as Nov 2021 were stating “Why inflation is in the past”.

The UK …. here’s my summary:

Crippled by the colossal debts of two world wars and not given a nice blank cheque from the Yanks likely Germany to rebuild, the UK was in a relative economic decline. Italy was a country where the southern half was in centuries old poverty, yet they rose and overtook the UK GDP in 1987, celebrating that as Il Sorpasso for a very long time. The UK had been stuck in an eternal impasse of:
Useless senior management.
A lack of investment by major companies.
Intransigent, politicised trade unions, dogmatic working practices such as very rigid job demarkation. Only one person could heat the rivets, another pass them, another fit them. In the 60’s and 70’s we were the strike capital of the world. Nothing to be proud of. Whilst the Germans, Finns, Italians, Japanese and Swedes marched in with superior goods that didn’t rust or break.

It was never a David and Goliath story of 90% left wing workers versus toffs. It’s always been polarised, many working and middle class folk who would never vote Labour. The major reason is possibly taxation. Brits don’t like paying it. Left wingers think only the rich and businesses should pay for a welfare state, teachers pay rises and the NHS. A vast number of the rest look for minimal income tax and national insurance, there’s an age old funny obsession with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give them on budget day.

Before you were on nsc, I used to point out using Swedish net pay calculators, that even Swedes earnings say 375,000kr (£30,000) pay a huge proportion of their wages on national and local taxes to finance the welfare state. Almost everyone contributes in a huge way financially, not just industrialists, lawyers and pop stars.

In the UK no one it seems wants to truly head towards your system.

I agree with most of that, but would add:
-- of all the historical systems invented, the post-war Swedish one is right up there for me
-- it's relevant to this thread, but one reason why Sweden and Germany have had better industrial relations and superior levels of manufacturing, export, etc is because they have a policy of co-dependency, co-management -- whereby unions play a much more prominent role within the company, and have representatives on the board. It's a different system to the one we have here.

 

[sahel]

[/B]
My opinion is the same ….of course it is just an opinion

Of course it is political. It is all about power and the members of the RMT are lucky in that they at least have a negative power to disrupt. Most people do not even have that

We live in a "devil take the hindmost" society where bankers and CEOs and many others do very well because they hold power. Dont blame others for playing the same game. A decent government would try and create a fairer society not just govern by division creating false enemies like the EU or judges or the ECHR or "lefty" lawyers. In a fairer society people might be willing to mitigate their own power for the sake of everyone else

 

[Machiavelli]

My point is that the drivers, guards and drivers assistants have fared well in a period where others haven’t I suspect.

Can’t think of a valid financial reason why RMT guards and drivers assistants should be striking just now.

I think this dispute is in part political, on both sides. Lynch often mentions other sectors, hoping it seems for a wider conflict.

As [MENTION=21244]jackalbion[/MENTION] explains, it isn't just about wages (I think they've stated a below-inflation amount of 7% as an ambition) but about redundancies. We've come to a strange situation when a union wouldn't engage in industrial action when compulsory redundancies are on the table.

 

[Weststander]

I agree with most of that, but would add:
-- of all the historical systems invented, the post-war Swedish one is right up there for me
-- it's relevant to this thread, but one reason why Sweden and Germany have had better industrial relations and superior levels of manufacturing, export, etc is because they have a policy of co-dependency, co-management -- whereby unions play a much more prominent role within the company, and have representatives on the board. It's a different system to the one we have here.

Germany - it doesn’t have to be unions, simply worker representation on boards for companies over 500 employees. It works.

Where do we start with Germany? A huge proportion (36%) of 18+ plus year olds complete vocational tertiary qualifications, degree level, assigned to companies and an educational establishment. Rather that purely academic degrees. Mandatory private health insurance. Quality goods, highly skilled workers, net exporters.

The only cloud (quite literally), they have a carbon footprint per capita double that of France, UK and Italy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Germany - it doesn’t have to be unions, simply worker representation on boards for companies over 500 employees. It works.

Where do we start with Germany? A huge proportion (36%) of 18+ plus year olds complete vocational tertiary qualifications, degree level, assigned to companies and an educational establishment. Rather that purely academic degrees. Mandatory private health insurance. Quality goods, highly skilled workers, net exporters.

The only cloud (quite literally), they have a carbon footprint per capita of double that of France, UK and Italy.

 

[Eric the meek]

As [MENTION=21244]jackalbion[/MENTION] explains, it isn't just about wages (I think they've stated a below-inflation amount of 7% as an ambition) but about redundancies. We've come to a strange situation when a union wouldn't engage in industrial action when compulsory redundancies are on the table.

I saw a video of a picket line, in which one of the pickets was holding a placard 'it isn't just about pay'.

A pay claim of 7% when inflation is 9.1% seems entirely reasonable to me.

However, while I am sure it is in Mick Lynch's remit to protect all jobs, but not engaging in negotiations without a prerequisite guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, seems less reasonable.

 

[Weststander]

From 0:54

 

[beorhthelm]

I saw a video of a picket line, in which one of the pickets was holding a placard 'it isn't just about pay'.

A pay claim of 7% when inflation is 9.1% seems entirely reasonable to me.

However, while I am sure it is in Mick Lynch's remit to protect all jobs, but not engaging in negotiations without a prerequisite guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, seems less reasonable.

unless large numbers (which isnt here), management dont know if there'll need to be any compulsory until they go into consultation. the union knows that, its a tactic, can play along knowing they wont get that condition until they get the pay they want, then "assurances" on redunancies will be adequate.

 

[Eric the meek]

unless large numbers (which isnt here), management dont know if there'll need to be any compulsory until they go into consultation. the union knows that, its a tactic, can play along knowing they wont get that condition until they get the pay they want, then "assurances" on redunancies will be adequate.

I didn't think of that. I've always been aware that I'm a crap negotiator. All negotiators, not just union negotiators, would run rings round me.

So we've got a union tactic to not even bother to enter formal negotiations, but to go straight into strike mode, claiming that the management/government are preventing him from negotiating, because he has set an insurmountable barrier to entering negotiations. Respect.

 

[vegster]

It really isn't.

However, my point was more around the fact that, only on Sunday, there had to be mod intervention on the Tory Meltdown thread, which was temporarily at Bear Pit levels, with the highlight being you calling [MENTION=11928]vegster[/MENTION] "Vegetable" for no apparent reason. I said not to do it on that thread, yet here you are doing it on another thread and lucky that it's only that technicality saving you from yet another infraction, something I'm sure you're acutely aware of.

And, yes, I've noticed [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] doing it with "GAP" and no doubt sniggering to himself at his cleverness.

Pack it in the pair of you. I assume you do want right of centre voices on these threads? If your case is strong enough you can do it without the name calling, one sentence ad hominem, shit stirring and deflections.

Mnn ? I was not aware of this as I have them on" Ignore" so have not known or responded to anything they may have posted directly at me. To be honest I'm not too worried by whatever they say, I would only get offended if abuse came from someone I respected. However thanks for stepping in and moderating, I suppose if they have no constructive arguments left they are going to turn to abuse as its all they have left, but, that does the board no favours.