I’d be very happy to see what I do pay being used properly.

That’s going to be difficult as performance management has already been highlighted as being impossible, so the only answer must be higher taxes. If teachers refuse to have their performance managed, isn’t it fair that nurses do too? And soldiers? And I think firemen should be included as they were mentioned earlier, no? Let’s not forgewt the police….
So the only way is to tap into the endless supply of money….

Have you lot sorted out the thorny issue of someone elses pay yet, or are you still spending Sunday flicking each others testicles with the internet equivalent of damp towels?

your (sic) ??? right we do it because we’re too crap to do owt else wasnt that it?

Err no. Must try harder.

So the only way is to tap into the endless supply of money….

Or raise more tax-the fairest way would be to get those who can afford it to pay, but the present government seems to think otherwise. Maybe the private sector could pay more so the employees end up paying more tax. I dunno maybe a multi million pound industry like the oil companies could pay their drivers better for instance……….Oh hang on.

(tongue in cheek BTW)

So you think the answer is that people already in the top ten percent of earners should get paid more 😯

Nothing stopping you giving the government more money than you have to, just send a cheque to HMRC,
Bradford
BD98 1YY

Classic tedious, predictable, and boring response, from a right-winger.

Because of course davidjones was suggesting that an increase from just him was what was needed 🙄

No Ernie – not just him, I’m sure you can pay more as well if you really want to.

Might make up for some of the 75k that bloke you’re about to vote for has avoided 😉

If teachers refuse to have their performance managed

hang on, I am good with outstanding features (my nose I think) and got a pay rise due to my p’s exam results being so good…. maybe I dreamt it.

your (sic) ??? right we do it because we’re too crap to do owt else wasnt that it?

Err no. Must try harder.

first bit was for the grammar nazi, seems I still have no clue what your point was then so maybe you need to try harder.

And of course performance management works so well in the private sector, reducing skills and experience into percentiles on spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations.

konabunny – Member

Eh? So why the interest in fuel truck drivers? Thatcher privatized National Road Services in 1982 – truck drivers have been employees or contractors of private entities for 30 years now, no?

Because they are disrupting others … causing the gov’t to take “pre-emptive strike” resulting in public panic buy.

That really does basically highlight your ignorance, you don’t seem to understand life outside your little bubble, but still manage to seethe with envy that someone should dare to earn a decent wage despite complete ignorance of how they earn that wage.

No, no I don’t envy them. They have my respect as tanker driver by doing their jobs but when greed get better of them then something is truly wrong.

Okay, give me some examples of tankers that recently got blown up delivering fuel to petrol stations? Three examples within the past say 5 years. Yea like blowing up to pieces …

ernie_lynch – Member

That might well be the case, but chewkw provides unique entertainment value to this forum, something which I am personally very grateful for. Start demanding that he makes carefully thought out well-informed comments, and the unique character of his contributions go out of the window.

Ignore them chewkw, you carry on posting your nonsensical riddles – I for one deeply appreciate them.

LOL! Thanks for the support ernie … sometimes it’s very difficult to explain to the maggots that they are doing more harm than good or to get them understand my points. But then I rather them not because that will take the fun out of stepping on them maggots. Maggots! Dear Leader step on you!

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Government set regulations denote who can drive a fuel truck, along with the training / competence certificates they must have to do so.

The union in this case wishes to set additional criteria, laid out by them, over and above that required by law, restricting the carriage of petrochemicals to people who have this industry “passport”

There is no law setting out who can and cannot bake bread

If the worshipful company of bakers sought to set out their own training regime and “passport”, and said that anyone who carried flour in a vehicle had to meet the specific pay and training criteria they had set, and that if their demands were not met, their members would go out on strike and ensure nobody could buy bread – you’d probably think they were being unreasonable.

They are trying to become legalised mafia (a bit like dental mafia, yes my dentist mate told me that … mafia they are) by reducing the ability of others sharing the cake. Nasty greedy tricks that try to pretend to be good but actually they are only looking after their own wallets …

The one that controls the “passport” … the one that sets the price. Send them to North Korea to be educated!

MSP – Member
Tory boys really change their tune on the free market and the politics of envy when manual workers actually stand up for themselves and negotiate a living wage, and decent working conditions.

They are not interested in personal success, just relative success.

Its normally assumed on here that so-called “Tory boys” believe in traditional economic theories and the working of the market (despite evidence that most neo-classical theory is flawed), so let’s test you logic here MSP….

Trade Unions in theory can affect wage rates by three things:

1. Improve productivity
2. Strike to force higher wages
3. Restrict supply

So if this dispute is about working conditions alone, why would a Tory boy have a problem with that? If worker’s have better conditions, the workforce is protected, everyone is happy and output and productivity would increase. Win-win scenario.

Of course, if this was simply about higher wages alone then the Tory boys (lets say they are suppliers of capital) and some of the workers (suppliers of labour say) may be concerned especially if there is not change in productivity. Assuming that basic laws of supply and demand work (???) then merely increasing the cost of labour would reduce the numbers employed. So Unite would have to trade off the total wage bill vs the wages of those in employment vs numbers of people in work. Most likely, those in employment would earn more but fewer would be employed. But this is irrelevant anyway as this dispute is not about salaries, is it?

If the unions really are sensible and want to increase both pay and employment, then they have to increase productivity so that the overall demand for labour shifts outwards. If as a result of this Unite can do this, working conditions would improve, productivity would rise, people would be paid more and more people would be paid. Under those assumptions why would anyone be unhappy?

OOI, why is the Ch4 lady a figure of fun when faced with George Galloway one week and a master of knowledge the next? Quite a transformation!!

Nasty greedy tricks that try to pretend to be good but actually they are only looking after their own wallets .

like all good tories then?

teamhurtmore can unions not affect wages/conditions by negotiation too? seems to be what has happened here.

Yes, why not?

But this is ‘essentially’ a dispute about conditions rather than pay isn’t it?

dont know tbh, I just thought your view of unions a bit extreme.

anagallis_arvensis – Member

Nasty greedy tricks that try to pretend to be good but actually they are only looking after their own wallets .

like all good tories then?

Let’s be frank … they are maggots as well and so are the majority of politicians regardless of their political stand. Left, right, centre etc all maggots! Like celebrities but at least celebrities get you to part with your money at your own free will.

Trade Union = productivity … hhmmm …

anagallis_arvensis – Member

dont know tbh, I just thought your view of unions a bit extreme.

😆 Crikey … bit extreme? So the Union holding others to ransom?

Wasn’t meant to be including any value judgments A-A!!

Perhaps 2, should say “get” higher wages then (and leave the method out of it). Impact is the same whichever.

chewkw – why wouldn’t a TU be interested in securing better conditions for their members…making them happier….and presumably more productive?

teamhurtmore – Member

chewkw – why wouldn’t a TU be interested in securing better conditions for their members…making them happier….and presumably more productive?

Health & Safety …

There is Health & Safety and there is Union version of “Health & Safety” … the latter is used as political tools.

So how many petrol tankers got blow to pieces in the past five years? Like minced meat … Health & safety … hmmm …

They should only mess with H & S if several tankers got blown to pieces … otherwise, they are just messing about. Let a few tankers blown to pieces first.

🙄

chewkw I know you talk a load of stale, dark yellow urine, but come on.

I believe the issue is not being given time (on company time), to do the daily vehicle checks, among other things. Don’t think blowing up is on the agenda.

Brycey – Member

chewkw I know you talk a load of stale, dark yellow urine, but come on.

I believe the issue is not being given time (on company time), to do the daily vehicle checks, among other things. Don’t think blowing up is on the agenda.

hmmm … sounds like a lot of Political Health & Safety creeping up there. If I am not wrong are they going to convert more hours into pay? hmmmm …

Let one or two blow up first …

🙄

chewkw are you over the age of 13 or not?

anagallis_arvensis – Member

chewkw are you over the age of 13 or not?

Probably not but then most of us aren’t. 🙄

So how many petrol tankers got blow to pieces in the past five years?

Well none that I know of, which just goes to show how bloody brilliant the tanker drivers are, I expect they deserve a big fat pay rise for their sterling efforts.
I say hoorah for tanker drivers, saving the world from explosions one delivery at a time.

Chewkw has a different vision for the end of this dispute to the drivers/union/haulage contractors/oil companies/government.

MSP – Member

So how many petrol tankers got blow to pieces in the past five years?

Well none that I know of, which just goes to show how bloody brilliant the tanker drivers are, I expect they deserve a big fat pay rise for their sterling efforts.
I say hoorah for tanker drivers, saving the world from explosions one delivery at a time.

😆 Jesus! That example is liken to opening a can of maggots.

So are you saying tankers exploded left right and centre all over the world and in the UK they have prevented this? Yes, the Health & Safety is not up to scratch in Afghanistan or Iraq because tankers tend to blow up sometimes for no reason … but here in the UK … hmmm …

Brycey – Member

Chewkw has a different vision for the end of this dispute to the drivers/union/haulage contractors/oil companies/government.

Where did you nick that pic from? 😆

Took it myself this morning in Salford. The drivers here aren’t in the union so it’s a daily occurrence. I’ve given the missus a stern toolbox talk that if she sees a guy in a Shell/BP/etc uniform with a tanned right arm and a Yorkie running away from his vehicle she should do a prompt u turn.

There is no law setting out who can and cannot bake bread

If the worshipful company of bakers sought to set out their own training regime and “passport”, and said that anyone who carried flour in a vehicle had to meet the specific pay and training criteria they had set, and that if their demands were not met, their members would go out on strike and ensure nobody could buy bread – you’d probably think they were being unreasonable.

True nuff, anyone can make as much bread as they want in whichever way they want….But there are dozens of laws about actually selling it, or even giving it away for free. Having actually worked in massive-scale industrial baking for a while, (fave machine: crumpet maker, PB: 74000 hot dog buns in a shift 8) -though obviously not with the crumpet machine though. )I would be most pleased if bread cost a couple of pence more so that bakers were paid more in return for imposing on themselves far more rigorous standards of quality, hygiene and safety than current Food Hygeine and H&S legislation dictates. Not sure how that relates to tanker drivers. I think that means I must largely be in agreement with them…

julianwilson” … I would be most pleased if bread cost a couple of pence more so that bakers were paid more in return for imposing on themselves far more rigorous standards of quality, hygiene and safety than current Food Hygeine and H&S legislation dictates.”

Slight hijack …

hhhmmm … my mum in a far away country once found a piece of human faeces in her loaf of bread when she cut it opened! I kid you not. My mum complained (no compensation law there by the way) and the bakery apologised to my mum and conducted their own investigation only to find that the employees were trying to sabotage the business.

A piece of turd in her loaf of white bread!!! She told me that it stunk when she cut it opened and my father asked why he could smell turd in the room … 😯

teamhurtmore – Member

If the unions really are sensible and want to increase both pay and employment, then they have to increase productivity so that the overall demand for labour shifts outwards. If as a result of this Unite can do this, working conditions would improve, productivity would rise, people would be paid more and more people would be paid. Under those assumptions why would anyone be unhappy?

What the **** are you talking about ? Seriously, what the **** are you talking about – are you living in some sort of fantasy capitalist utopia ?

The more a worker produces the less value his or her labour has – it is one of the enduring contradictions of capitalism. Overproduction leads to unemployment and consequently suppresses wages.

If one man does the work of two people he still simply gets the wages of one man, whilst the company pockets the savings in the form of profit, assured as they are that the surplus labour available guarantees a ready supply of compliant workers.

It makes perfect economic sense to a company – to do otherwise would make no economic sense whatsoever.

However what makes perfect economic sense to one company is destructive in the aggregate. Which brings us to Contradictions of Capitalism Part 2. Overproduction leads to a fall in demand, which in turn leads to a fall in the value of the product or service, which finally leads to everyone being up shit creek without a paddle – something which happens with predictable and monotonous regularity, boom and bust as they often like to call it.

So stop trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with your Tory nonsense that the harder you work the more value your labour will have, leading to higher wages and fuller employment. It won’t, it simply leads to higher unemployment and depresses wages. All in the name of “profit”.

Ernie, that is really quite well put. I spend my working life fighting to increase productivity against that very argument. I think I’ve disagreed with it so often, I might actually believe it!
Sorry, have no opinion on tanker drivers.
Tory boy signing off.

Thats a problem peculiar to evil capitalism is it?

Funny that in Wigan Pier Orwell chose to discuss the fact that Socialism is bound up, more or less inextricably, with the idea of machine-production.

however, the fundamental flaw in your argument is a presupposition that demand is finite – that once everyone has got a television/bike/pair of shoes, then they will stop buying more and the value will drop – it flies in the face of human nature and experience – the fact that so many of us have more than one bike, more than one television, and more than one pair of shoes proves this.

everyone who cycles knows, the ideal number of bikes can be calculated be the simple mathematical equation i=n+1, this is enough to undermine your argument that overproduction leads to unemployment.

Ernie – why are you so agitated? This is non-political and simple labour economics that union leaders will/should know. It has nothing to do with Tories and again an A level student would be able to understand as this is in first year AS Labour Economics.

If the price of labour rises and nothing is done to shift the demand curve – those who have a job get paid more, but fewer people will be employed. Hence my earlier comment that you have to balance three things – maximising the total wage bill vs maximising the wages of those employed vs maximising the number employed.

Socialist/middle-of-the road/RW economics will give you the same answer. Fortunately, those who represent workers for a living also understand that, fortunately for them (just read any more advanced labour economics books). To increase levels of pay and levels of employment the demand for labour has to shift to the right (ie demand for labour increases). Otherwise you trade off the wages of some for the jobs of others. Ironically, that seems a more capitalist solution – is that really your position!!!????

Of course, if economic theory is all based on false assumptions about the real shapes of supply and demand curves, then you may have a point (read Steve Keen).

E-L please dont become a union rep, your members may end up hating you if you dont understand this

E-L please dont become a union rep, your members may end up hating you if you dont understand this

Rather presumptuous of you to think that you know what I am or have been with regards to union activity – don’t you think ?

Actually far from your suggestion it is popular demand which has reluctantly forced me to accept the role of rep. I guess my understanding of simple truths goes some way in explaining this. Simple undeniable truths, such as the fact that the more a worker produces the more worthless his labour becomes – as the labour content of a product diminishes. And simple undeniable truths of the inevitability of overproduction.

Even poor ol’ Zulu-Eleven is reduced to simply claiming that socialism is no better :

“Thats a problem peculiar to evil capitalism is it?

Funny that in Wigan Pier Orwell chose to discuss the fact that Socialism is bound up, more or less inextricably, with the idea of machine-production.”

Wigan Pier by Orwell ? …. powerful stuff there eh ? And btw Zulu-Eleven :

“this is enough to undermine your argument that overproduction leads to unemployment”

My argument ? LOL ! What am I, some sort of economist who comes up with his own economic theories ? ! 😀

No mate, the fact that overproduction leads to unemployment isn’t “my” argument.

it is popular demand which has reluctantly forced me to accept the role of rep.

CCTV just in:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a9OAvqyjn0[/video]

Thanks Zulu-Eleven – that was most enjoyable 8)

😀

Government set regulations denote who can drive a fuel truck, along with the training / competence certificates they must have to do so.

The union in this case wishes to set additional criteria, laid out by them, over and above that required by law, restricting the carriage of petrochemicals to people who have this industry “passport”
Sorry – leaving aside the laughable suggestion that food production is some kind of unregulated free fire zone for a moment, you still haven’t explained what is so special about the fuel haulage industry that enables the truckies to hold the nation to ransome, operate a closed shop, set their own labour rates etc.

Why isn’t competition working here to make the union’s demands irrelevant? Who cares if they want x per hour or want new procedures above the legal minimum?

Haven’t read all ^^^.

However, a quick scan suggests a lot of foamy mouthed drivel.

£45k (if actually correct) sounds a lot, but I don’t have a problem with it. Very responsible job.

Our company works with the petroleum industry – at the refining and forecourt end.

Safety culture is not the “H&S gone mad” nonsense that you read in the tabloids. It can seem very detailed and very highly emphasised – but there is a reason for that. Petroleum distillates are incredibly dangerous. With the exception of mains gas, it is difficult to think of any other commodities that are as dangerous and are handled / transported in such bulk quantities / regularity.

The reason we don’t see tankers or forecourts blowing up is nothing to do with the lack of danger. It is a result of the multi-layered management / Health, Safety and Environmental procedures, rigorous training and ongoing performance monitoring.

I suspect that the folks who are complaining might have limited experience of working in truly hazardous environments…

I’m reminded of a phrase from a H&S trainer during an induction training – paraphrased along the lines of… “we work with a demon here, every day…. It is a caged demon, that cage is all of the management procedures, training and implementation that we expect everyone to follow. But it is still a demon, and every part of the cage has to be in place, at all times, to keep the demon under control”

Just in case anyone thinks I’ve resorted to hype in the post above…

Deepwater Horizon – 2010

Buncefield – 2005

Texas City 2005

Pembrokeshire – 1994