[Closed] Cuts - Union knee jerk response or last line of defence against the Torries?

There is the present, and there is the past. Whether something is a relevant and correct action depends on the circumstances in the present, not the past

tron - Member

It's perfectly legal to sign out of the WTD as far as I'm aware.

Wrong. In the UK you can opt out of the 48 hr working week limit ( no where else in the EU) But you cannot opt out of the other provisions of the wtd.

Do you think it is possible that the past set the conditions for the now? Perhaps we should learn from it olest we repeat the mistakes of the past?

I do, but I don't think we can generalise that if something didn't work in the past, under a different set of circumstances, that it wouldn't work now.

You didn't study History, English or Logic, did you?

European trades unions make ours look like pussies.

I went to one of our plants in Belgium a couple of years back - there were rumours of job cuts in the air, whilst there was still contract labour onsite.

They were hanging effigies of the management from the cooling towers.

I was allowed onsite because I am an employee, the contractors were being shown the pave.

As for the bit of nonsense above about Germany and the unions. In germany the relationship between the unions and management is far less confrontational - mainly because the unions have far more recognition ad there is not the macho management idiocy that we get here.

Unions are legally entitled to representation on the board - so that confrontation is rare - co operation is the key. Its a completely different way of organising industrial relations - co operative not confrontational.

workforces also have far more legal rights than they do here.

tron - Member

I agree if they were more servile to their masters they would be more "helpful".

Aye. The Germans are strike pretty rarely, and employers are queuing to shaft them.

Oh hang on a minute... They've gotten a hell of a lot further than our unions have.

Don't you mean that their unions have got a hell of a lot further than our unions have?

I think you'll find that the reason they have such strong labour laws is due to the strength of their unions. It certainly wouldn't be due to the philanthropy of the employers!

*Predicts tron will give up on this thread having been proved to be talking bollox again. 😆

Don't you mean that their unions have got a hell of a lot further than our unions have?

That's exactly my point. Line 2 was sarcastic. Should I have added a smiley? The Germans have a much more collaborative attitude, higher labour productivity, less strikes, better conditions etc. Everyone wins.

I think the most likely European equivalent in industrial relations we'll be witnessing will be the french one.

Just look at the scenes when the management threatened to stop the free 3 course gourmet lunch (washed down with chateau neuf de pape) and cancelled the hourly coffee, cakes and blow jobs break at the Renault factory

[img] [/img]

Tandem Jeremey, I think you are confusing Workers Councils (which are a legal requirement in a German company with more than a certain number of employees and do indeed sit on company boards) and "Unions" which still exist and can be as militant as British unions if they see fit.

The benefit of workers councils is that they are legally required to sign off a companies accounts so there is no possibility for a company to paint an artificially positive or negative view of the state of the company

Policitians! Stop arguing over who got us into this. We are here. Fact. Stop wasting time (and money) pushing blame around.

Cancel Trident, pull out of Afghanistan, cancel the Pope's visit (£12m saved) - or make him pay for his own protection, after all the Vatican is tremendously wealthy.

Slash out a layer of middle management.

I could afford £1 a week extra tax for a year. I'm sure lots of other people could too. That would surely make a big difference?

Ah -maybe country gent.

You didn't study History, English or Logic, did you

I could afford £1 a week extra tax for a year. I'm sure lots of other people could too. That would surely make a big difference?

£52 from each of the 30M or so working people is about £1.5bn. I think we need about £150bn this year...

I'll chip in £2 a week to help then.

tron - Member

I've no problem with organised labour per se, but I do have a problem with them getting involved in politics, funding political parties .......

Oh that is a little beauty .......... specially coming from you tron ! 😀

So you disapprove of unions using the democratic processes and parliament to achieve political change in the interests of their members and the working classes in general do you ?

You are however perfectly happy for them to be organised in the workplace and for them to concentrate on industrial activities ?

Well let me tell you something tron, that puts you very firmly in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists, who make up a minority which passionately argues that trade unions should not in any way be involved in the parliamentary process, and should instead only concentrate on organising in the workplace.

So whilst you have repeatedly denounced the left on this thread, you have somehow managed to put forward the argument that trade unions should abandon the parliamentary road to change......the one issue which [u]above all else[/u] separates the ultra-leftists from the rest of the trade union movement.

Well done mate.........I'm well impressed 😀

If loads of people lose their jobs in areas where there are no jobs then they will go on benefits. The UK taxpayer will have to pay for that.

They won't be able to afford hair cuts, meals out, nail bars, bike parts, gym memberships and so on, so those businesses may also go to the wall and their former owners may go on benefits. The UK taxpayer will pay for that too.

If they get depressed because of low-esteem from no job and no money, they may require medication, UK taxpayer step forward, they may try to kill themselves requiring hospitalisation and counselling, UK taxpayer step forward.

They may turn to crime, get caught and go to prison, UK taxpayer... you know this now.

Wouldn't it be better to just pay a bit more tax now and keep people in work and happy?

tron, that puts you very firmly in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists

That's a very basic failure of logic. The Soviets and the Nazis had some similar opinions - both were keen on death camps, for example, but you can't say that one thing put them in the same ideological pigeonhole.

Too soon, too deep, say majority of voters as coalition loses cuts debate is not a Times headline that will raise spirits in Downing Street.

The newspaper reports three pieces of bad news for the government in a Populus poll.

[b]* the government’s deficit reduction strategy is rejected by three out of four voters.[/b]

* the public is more gloomy about the economy than at any point since the summer of 2009 – with those expecting things to get worse up 8 points since June, to 33%.

[b]* most people reject the idea that the Labour government is most to blame for the deficit.[/b]

The Times report suggests that the Coalition would be more likely to persuade the public that their cuts were necessary if they supported Labour’s approach to the timing and scale of deficit reduction:

Populus asked the public to identify which of three deficit reduction plans they agree with most, without identifying which party or group was advocating each position. [b]Over a third of voters, 37 per cent, say they prefer Labour’s position to halve the deficit by the next election and deal with it over ten years.

The same number [37 per cent] say that protecting the vulnerable and keeping unemployment as low as possible should be bigger priorities than reducing the budget deficit.[/b]

Only one in five voters, 22 per cent, agree with the coalition plan to deal with the deficit by the next general election, in five years’ time.

[b]The poll finds that 51 per cent of Conservative voters prefer the Labour deficit policy to that of the Coalition, which wins the support of 31 per cent of Tories.[/b]

Only 23 per cent of LibDem supporters back the government’s deficit reduction plan. Their most popular choice – with 42 per cent of LibDems – is prioritising unemployment and the vulnerable over deficit reduction, the argument of the TUC.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/14/three-quarters-think-the-cuts-are-too-deep-and-too-fast/

Can't link to the Times article as their site is pay only now but it's widely quoted elsewhere if you don't believe the lefty propaganda site I linked to.

So the government which received no mandate is taking drastic action completely against the wishes of the majority of the public. Even Conservative voters prefer the Labour proposals.

So, ask yourself why the ConDems are so committed to such a drastic course of action? Is it really because they believe it's the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

That's a very basic failure of logic

Tron thinks that the unions should only be involved in labour issues and not politics
The ultra leftists think that the unions should only be involved in labour issues and not politics
Tron and the ultra leftists agree on the role of the unions in the workplace.
I await you pointing out the error in logic of this argument.

So, ask yourself why the ConDems are so committed to such a drastic course of action? Is it really because they believe it's the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8003478/The-trouble-with-the-public-sector-is-bone-idle-staff.html
[i]
Tony McGuirk, the chief officer of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, said there was an "epidemic of failure to deal with poor attendance" in the public sector. He said managers should be brave enough to root out lazy staff rather than sacrifice key infrastructure such as fire engines or stations. Mr McGuirk said the key was having "the muscle" to sack lazy workers. At his Merseyside branch,[b] he said he had managed to become more efficient by cutting the number of firemen from 1,550 to 850 since 1991. At the same time, fire-related deaths had dropped by 60 per cent, and injuries by 70 per cent [/b]as a result of running a fire prevention programme alongside the cuts. He told a seminar: "We've got some bone-idle people in the public sector – there I said it, bone-idle people." He said: "Front line is fire engines and fire stations, not fire fighters. There is no need to close a fire station, we haven't touched a single fire station. "We provide a far better service with those 850 [firemen]; more with less."[/i]

Agreeing with someone on one point does not put you "in step" with them, as per Mr Lynch's post.

I hope that everyone posting on this thread believes that night follows day and the sky is blue, but the amount of arguing on here proves that we aren't "in step". 🙄

As for your little sequence, the trots & maoists probably think a few other things about the role of the union in the workplace - most likely that it involves seizing the means of production. Of course, it may be fair to say that we both believe that unions should bugger off out of politics (I don't any Maoist or Trot trade union members to canvas their opinions. Although, if I did, I doubt I'd need to ask.), but agreeing on one point cannot be extrapolated out to a general agreement via the widening of definitions.

agreeing on one point cannot be extrapolated out to a general agreement

it may be fair to say that we both believe that unions should bugger off out of politics (

a very basic failure of logic

(

You are now quoting things I've said and placing them in an entirely different context. Either you're deliberately being a tosser, or you're deserving of pity.

Ernie Lynch said one thing, which was not logical. I explain how it isn't logical in sentences one and two of my above post.

As for your post - agreeing that unions should bugger off out of politics does not equate to having the same views on the "role of unions".

Zulu

Fire chief Tony McGuirk sorry for 'bone idle' claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11310942

You dont know the first thing about logic do you ....that is rhetorical by the way 😆

"Much of what I said about public services explained how on Merseyside we had managed to deliver a better service despite extensive government budget cuts and less staff, and this was a model that other parts of public service could follow.

"Many other public organisations are already claiming they cannot make similar reductions, and my concern that these services may be treated as special cases, [b]led me to use inappropriate language[/b].

"I am passionate in defending our service and in hindsight [b]I used language which I now regret[/b].

"I apologise if any staff are upset by my comments."

He apologised for the wording, not for the belief - indeed he reinforces it with his comment that they managed to deliver a [b]better service[/b] for [b]less money[/b].

"The greatest contribution Mr McGuirk could make to public services would be to hand his notice in and save Merseyside fire and rescue his £200,000 plus annual salary.
This salary would pay at least six firefighters and would be much better spent that way. Merseyside firefighters are working longer hours to make up for the shortages Mr McGuirk has created there.

so how long are the firefighters working, are they overworked?

iirc there are some on teh forum wonder what they think of his comments

I cannot see how that proves cuts are

the best way to cut the deficit and aid economic recovery?

Whats your alternative Junky?

Higher Taxes now, Higher Taxes later, or Higher taxes for your kids?

Remember, "industries" don't run a deficit, they make a profit - they already realise that if you employ more people than you really need to do a job then you go bust - be it a small company, a multinational organisation, or a government, the principle is the same!

Have you not seen the [b]Elfinfesto[/b]?

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/a-modern-day-robin-hood/page/2#post-1806701 ]Company makes £X million a year, has £5 million wage budget.

1 boss, £1m py
employs 2 MD's/CEO's whatever, £500,000 ea py
10 managers, £100,000 each
100 workers. £20,000 each.

So the company consists of 113 people. The average wage is £44,248 each. So, if you paid each of the 100 workers £40,000 each, the managers £60,000 each and the two MD's £100,00 each leaving £200,000 for the boss. £200k is plenty for anyone to live on, no? But each worker would then have more economic power to buy their own house and stuff. And their value to the company is higher. It's a much fairer system, and people can still have decent lifestyles. What's wrong with that? Apart from the boss no longer being unnecessarily wealthy? But he/she won't have to moan about paying so much tax, because they'll be paying less. The workers will be paying a higher percentage. Win-win![/url]

[img] [/img]

z-11 why do you insist on calling me Junky - is it a term of endearment or do you feel the need to insult me with every reply?

Elfinsafety - doesn't your example rather assume that all workers are equally capable of running the company as the "boss" and that all bosses will work for the same as workers?

As the fire brigade example shows, one person with the right skills / experience / ideas can have a disproportionate impact on an organisation - the fact that other fire brigade bosses haven't managed to improve performance and cut costs to the same level may provide some additional support for this conclusion.

Unsurprisingly, the delta of the performance gap between "average worker" and "boss" is typically recognised through a pay differential albeit some of the outlier figures e.g. Bob Diamond on £100m can't really be justified by any reasonable person.

Looking at industry - bosses aren't all equal as evidenced by Steve Jobs running Apple in a way that's transformed a previously failing company - there are similar examples in the public sector as well where a highly paid boss makes (or breaks) an organisation.

Declaration of interest - I'm not a highly paid boss.

oh, sorry - what would you prefer, Yardie?

Why do you feel the need to abbreviate Zulu-Eleven?

Z-11 is not my name, so I'm going to be all precious and act like a teenage girl complaining that you have to respect my [i]full[/i] name, wahhhh wahhh wahhhh boo hoo hoo! 😥

oh, sorry - what would you prefer, Yardie?

Why do you feel the need to abbreviate Zulu-Eleven?

Z-11 is not my name, so I'm going to be all precious and act like a teenage girl complaining that you have to respect my [i]full[/]i name, wahhhh wahhh wahhhh boo hoo hoo!

Owned with bombers! 🙂

Elfinsafety - doesn't your example rather assume that all workers are equally capable of running the company as the "boss" and that all bosses will work for the same as workers?

No it doesn't. The managers and bosses get paid more. There's just not the massive (often unjustifiable) disparity in salaries between top and bottom.

Flashy; don't shit-stir.

indeed he reinforces it with his comment that they managed to deliver a better service for less money.

[i]"He said: "Front line is fire engines and fire stations, not fire fighters. There is no need to close a fire station, we haven't touched a single fire station.

"We provide a far better service with those 850 [firemen]; more with less"...Mr McGuirk said his take-no-prisoners approach should be adopted by the National Health Service: "I would suggest if you did that in the NHS, you've not got a problem."[/i]

So, by extension, the "front line" in the NHS is hospital buildings and the [url=

that go ping[/url], as opposed to experienced pairs of Mark 1 eyeballs... Is he thus suggesting that we manage with fewer clinical staff?

I suspect the bloke was attempting to justify his ludicrous salary to the Reform audience. No doubt it was music to their ears.

Better delete that so I don't get sacked lol

I don't recall anyone arguing that there should be no cutbacks at all anywhere ever, or that the public sector is perfect - just that the cuts don't need to be so severe or so rushed.

Also the current vilification of the public sector as the cause of all woes is a smokescreen, as well as an insult to the many people who work hard to provide decent services for us.

tron - Member

Ernie Lynch said one thing, which was not logical.

All I did was point out that your comment unions should not be involved in the parliamentary process and only be involved the workplace was : "[i]in step with the trots, maoists, and other infantile ultra-leftists[/i]."

And yes too damn right ........ [i]it is completely illogical[/i] that someone like you should share the same position as the ultra-leftists.

It is also completely illogical you should resent trade unions using the parliamentary road to change insisting that they should only concentrate at the shop-floor level where the only effective tool is industrial action, and then, complain about trade union militancy !

In fact it is [i]so completely illogical[/i] that I don't actually believe you.

Far from you having, quote : [i]"no problem with organised labour per se"[/i] I suspect that you do in fact have a big problem with organised labour. You simply threw in that comment so you would sound more reasonable and open-minded - as you launched into your anti-trade union diatribe.

I suspect you would rather trade unions did absolutely nothing to represent their members interests - either in parliament or the shop-floor.

.

BTW tron, you never actually explained why you have "[i]a problem with them getting involved in politics, funding political parties". [/i]

Personally I can't see any problem......... If you don't want to support a candidate or party which is funded by a trade union, well don't vote for them then.

💡 you could perhaps instead vote for a party which in funded by tax-dodging multi-millionaires ? ........but maybe you do that already

So where's the problem ? ........I'm thinking along the lines that you probably resent [i]other people[/i] having the freedom to vote for candidates or parties which are funded by trade unions. I'm thinking along the lines that you would probably prefer a 'restricted form of democracy'.

A form of democracy which works very well for those who you back, and not at all for those which you don't back.
A form of democracy which ironically, has has no place for those highly democratic institutions the trade unions, but a special place for unelected tax-dodging foreign press barons.

Am I right ?