Cuts – Union knee jerk response or last line of defence against the Torries?

Tron I am anjoying watching you change tack, adapt your argument , change position each time you post. Keep going this is fun.
It is indeed legal if voluntarty …clearly you accept that unions prevent employers forcing employeee to volunteer or do you wish to change that as well now?
So they are not all left wing , you cannot cite an example of them ignoring their members, and accept they stop the excesses of unscrupolous employers. But still sya all they do is ignore their members and pursue a communist agenda.
I agree if they were more servile to their masters they would be more "helpful".
I never realised you were trying to help them increase their memebership with your suggestions ..how thoughtful of you 😉

I suppose you did a stint down the pit then worked your way up to the board of ICI then?

I've worked in both unionised and non-unionised environments. As I see it, the balance of power can be unhealthy in either.

Not an edit by the way.

This is an edit: 1984. Ballot?

Amusingly – google ads came up with an 'ObamaCare – STOP HIM!' ad on this thread – presumably they could detect a similar kind of rabid right wing hysteria in tron's posts. 😆

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.

Think Grum may have a point that those of us who have done years in Unionised and non unionised employers may have a little thing called experience and wisdom …you should learn from us young padawan

As I see it, the balance of power can be unhealthy in either.

The balance of power is always with the employer, they can sack you at a moments notice, change your T & C with 60 day notices, move premises 200 miles away, give you a new job, wriet the personnell handbook etc whatever they want within the law. Unions can only slightly redress the balance via volume of numbers. Whatever you wish to say employeees have a far better deal now compared with the conditions in the Mill. unions exist because employers care more about money than the welfare/well being of their staff.
Where was this heavily unionised place you worked?

Again, I don't see why it's relevant. Where have you worked? Where do you work? Are you working now?

The balance of power is always with the employer, they can sack you at a moments notice, change your T & C with 60 day notices, move premises 200 miles away, give you a new job, wriet the personnell handbook etc whatever they want within the law

well, no, they can't really can they Junky!

sack you at a moments notice – unfair dismissal unless they've followed the three stage process
change your T & C with 60 day notices – constructive dismissal
move premises 200 miles away – redundancy payment
give you a new job – only with your agreement, otherwise see above
wriet the personnell handbook – within reason, laid down within legal parameters, have to give you a contract of employment and stick to it.

He is trying to suggest that experience counts and generatees wisdom. He is suggesting you lack this experience/wisdom. Prima Facie he does seem to have a point. Your refusal to discuss your employment history [ despite mentioning it] suggests you realise it weakens rather than strengthens your position.

In France, Germany, and other European countries, socialist parties and democrats played a prominent role in forming and building up trade unions, especially from the 1870s onwards. This stood in contrast to the British experience, where moderate New Model Unions dominated the union movement from the mid-nineteenth century and where trade unionism was stronger than the political labor movement until the formation and growth of the Labour Party in the early years of the twentieth century

My Bold
So it appears that the British moderate aproach that failed.

Zulu… but weren't all of those rights only given to the workers due to the effect of the unions?

Also, for the vast majority of people, companies can and do all of those things to their employees, and they seem to get away with it in a lot of cases just because the employees do not know their rights.

He is trying to suggest that experience counts and generatees wisdom.

Oh is he, oh great patronising one. Here's an idea for those of you who are full of experience and wisdom – being a student doesn't necessarily say anything about my age.

Funkynick – actually i reckon the simpsons had it pretty spot on:

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve…. Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Sounds about right to me!

Oh is he, oh great patronising one. Here's an idea for those of you who are full of experience and wisdom – being a student doesn't necessarily say anything about my age.

I just put 2 and 2 together from the fact that:

You are being coy about what work you have actually done
You seem to be very naive about the world of work and the altruism of employers
Your cartoon right wing views bear very little relation to reality – suggesting you don't have much experience of it

😉

but weren't all of those rights only given to the workers due to the effect of the unions?

Here's an idea. 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.

So saying "X happened 100 odd years ago because of Y", or "But they did all this for us" when they're currently doing something quite different, is irrelevant and illogical.

You are being coy about what work you have actually done

Please forgive me for not wanting to publish my life history for all the world to see for the rest of time, on a website populated by people who don't seem to understand the meaning of "too far".

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

Ok so you dont study history then do you.
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?

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

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 dont want to talk about my educational qualifications on here 😉 😆

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 above all else 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.

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

* 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%.

* most people reject the idea that the Labour government is most to blame for the deficit.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

How ?

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

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, 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 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."

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

Where has anyone done this? I have put the argument to you in basic logical temrs. Clearly the conclusion is valid based on the premises. LOGICAL

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

Excellent so the premises are true as weel, the logic is correct and therefore the argument TRUE so how is it

a very basic failure of logic

(
as you claim.

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