We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What's with all the strikes?
Comments
-
And this should be our aim... why?
Or more precisely, why should employers be forced to employ someone unwilling to abide by the terms of their contract?
I think that in most cases, strikes occur because the employer wishes to change the terms of the contract (reducing the employees rights). Strikes don't occur because employees suddenly decide they are unhappy with their current terms.
Only exception to this (which is rarer these days) is where trades used to strike for better pay increases.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
yup i can see that improving employees rights and standards of living no end
Seeing as we are a democracy as you rightly point out, don't you think that would be the aim of the majority?
The majority also own shares through pension scheme's, and a large proportion of the population are small business owners where a strike could destroy the entire business.
In any case, I've never seen any evidence that strikes actually do anything to improve workers conditions.
By far the policies I believe actually improve employees rights and standards of living are those encouraging full employment, and improving skills and opportunities throughout the economy.
Strikes, on the other hand, do not encourage full employment. It is generally quite easy for most businessess to move off shore, and if you are not confident your workers will turn up, there is really no reason to do business here as supposed to other countries.
In the long term, wages and conditions are set by supply and demand of labour, I believe, and so the policies that actually improve employees rights and standards of living are those that encourage full employment.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Who is going to fly the plane while the pilots serve tea:eek:i can't see how any the of the BA staff intent on striking sleep at night, i worked for BA and it was great fun and great pay. they are paid better and have better t&c's than their peers - the cabin staff are a disgrace and should be ashamed of drilling our national carrier into the ground - sack the lot of them and let the pilots do the cabin service whilst they recruit into the vacancies with plenty of other staff who would gladly work there0 -
kennyboy66 wrote: »My guess would be Strom Thurmond (he was still a senator at aged 100).
He was a supporter of racial segregationism (although modified his view a bit in later life).
That was the fella!
I should add at this point that I am definitely not a supporter, merely an interested follower of his career.0 -
you're alluding to the 'winter of discontent' ('79) which did indeed finish off the lab. gov.BA expected to go on strike soon, 270,000 council workers (ro thereabouts) on strike, British Gas workers to ballot on strike action... and now today I hear that railway workers are also considering striking.
I didn't exist in the late '70s, so don't remember, but from what I can gather it was a pretty tough time as pretty much everyone went on strike, and this I'm told tends to mean the end of the Labour government.
Labour may be gaining ground in the opinion polls, but if things carry on like this I can't see them looking favourable in the eyes of the public.
Time to stock up on candles??? :eek:
had lab. been re-elected the indications are that it would've moved to reduce union power; it was blindingly obvious that the UK could not continue with a TU movement that was dominated by hard-line (and largely unrepresentative) left-wingers dictating the economic agenda.
these days industrial action tends to manifest itself when employees are faced with a reduction in pay/terms/conditions, rather than a small clique of militants flexing muscle.
this latest bout of industrial unrest might see Broon off but it's def. not on the same scale as 30yrs ago.
I know. I was there.0 -
The majority also own shares through pension scheme's, and a large proportion of the population are small business owners where a strike could destroy the entire business.
In any case, I've never seen any evidence that strikes actually do anything to improve workers conditions.
By far the policies I believe actually improve employees rights and standards of living are those encouraging full employment, and improving skills and opportunities throughout the economy.
Strikes, on the other hand, do not encourage full employment. It is generally quite easy for most businessess to move off shore, and if you are not confident your workers will turn up, there is really no reason to do business here as supposed to other countries.
In the long term, wages and conditions are set by supply and demand of labour, I believe, and so the policies that actually improve employees rights and standards of living are those that encourage full employment.
You are joking since the emasculation of the union movement under Maggie the pay and conditions of normal working people have been decimated, the only thing keeping them afloat was easy credit and cheap imports (by the people now assigned to their jobs in China and Poland :eek:). The movement of jobs is not because of a strong union movement it is because of a weak one.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
You are joking since the emasculation of the union movement under Maggie the pay and conditions of normal working people have been decimated, the only thing keeping them afloat was easy credit and cheap imports (by the people now assigned to their jobs in China and Poland :eek:). The movement of jobs is not because of a strong union movement it is because of a weak one.
The movement of jobs has been via outsourcing & subcontracting to cheaper options in cost cutting exercises, designed to reduce costs for the main organisation & thus increase profits, at the expense of workers & workers rights.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »The movement of jobs has been via outsourcing & subcontracting to cheaper options in cost cutting exercises, designed to reduce costs for the main organisation & thus increase profits, at the expense of workers & workers rights.
I don't know much about French economics but it would be interesting to see how
much outsourcing their companies do
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
that's the elephant in the room for some here - no point in them looking at the broader picture. that would be far too 'working-class'.lemonjelly wrote: »The movement of jobs has been via outsourcing & subcontracting to cheaper options in cost cutting exercises, designed to reduce costs for the main organisation & thus increase profits, at the expense of workers & workers rights.
and the old scare 'companies will move operations o/seas if they find employee rights laws too much of a burden' never did have any legs; co.s do it anyway.
the example that sticks in my mind is dyson. the billionaire james sacked 800 and moved operations to china, where labour is consid. cheaper.
that was nice of him.0 -
markharding557 wrote: »Who is going to fly the plane while the pilots serve tea:eek:
other pilots, teams of off duty pilots have been trained to step in and cover cabin crew0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards