Baroness Thatcher passed away

sheffield_lad

You asked when they had tried

ukcarper

howee wrote: »

You asked when they had tried

Strengthening your position in negotiations is not trying to disrupt the company.

dryhat

PaulF81 wrote: »

BA's strike was broken by workers inside the company, I know a few pilots who came in, for free, to work as trolley dollys.

Being called a scab by a flouncing, mincing bright orange flight attendant doesnt really wash when its aimed at battle hardened ex military aircrew.

and let's not forget...

amongst other things, privatisation saw the start of the attack on final-salary pensions. One of the great foundations of boomer affluence.

today, younger private sector workers bemoaning their lot and envious of current public sector packages should remember that their predecessors (like the pilots above) are partly responsible for the deterioration in their pay and working conditions.

timbo58

A strong union represents the wishes of the members of that union.
A strike is always called as a last resort because the workers generally won't accept the loss in wages by going 'out'.

I know there are exceptions and there certainly were in the 1970's however the balance has shifted too far IMHO.

Remember there are 2 sides (at least) to every argument, accepting that people going on strike are in the wrong is naive.
No one takes action for the fun of it.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am almost certain theri would actually haven been little difference. For all the inefficiencies there may have been in the public sector, having six sets of overheads competing against each, constant numbers of customer switching causing wasteful administration costs, cashbacks, bungs to introducers, shareholders don't come cheap.

We as consumers pay for the cost of switching - it must be close to £100 a time, for what purpose?

USSR tried that
all shops owned by the state selling identical products
massive economies of scale
no wasteful competition
no wasteful competition of service

some thought it didn't work too well

PaulF81

timbo58 wrote: »

A strong union represents the wishes of the members of that union.
A strike is always called as a last resort because the workers generally won't accept the loss in wages by going 'out'.

I know there are exceptions and there certainly were in the 1970's however the balance has shifted too far IMHO.

Remember there are 2 sides (at least) to every argument, accepting that people going on strike are in the wrong is naive.
No one takes action for the fun of it.

I can only support striking in very few occurences. The main one involving big, systemic failures that are being hidden by management that benefits the short term and not the long. The recent NHS scandal into silencing payments being a good example. Seeing as recent whistleblowing legislation will cover this, I struggle with supporting industrial action at all.

For everything else, especially pay and conditions, put up and shut up, or leave and work for someone else. It really is as simple as that. There is plenty of employment law out there already, which funny old thing, makes the unions redundant. They are there in this in one day and age for one reason, to milk fees from the thick and the vulnerable to fund labour and provide housing for scum like that ball sack scargill.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

I can only support striking in very few occurences. The main one involving big, systemic failures that are being hidden by management that benefits the short term and not the long. The recent NHS scandal into silencing payments being a good example. Seeing as recent whistleblowing legislation will cover this, I struggle with supporting industrial action at all.

For everything else, especially pay and conditions, put up and shut up, or leave and work for someone else. It really is as simple as that. There is plenty of employment law out there already, which funny old thing, makes the unions redundant. They are there in this in one day and age for one reason, to milk fees from the thick and the vulnerable to fund labour and provide housing for scum like that ball sack scargill.

You have just highlighted why employers and the government like high unemployment it takes away the ability of the workers to find other employment and forces them to put up and shut up. Even if you don't I will defend the right of workers to try and defend or increase there working conditions.

PaulF81

ukcarper wrote: »

You have just highlighted why employers and the government like high unemployment it takes away the ability of the workers to find other employment and forces them to put up and shut up. Even if you don't I will defend the right of workers to try and defend or increase there working conditions.

What workers dont realize is increased workplace protection comes with a catch-22. It makes the employer noncompetitive against other global companies that dont have those protections. Fine when we had lots of cash sloshing around the economy, but we dont right now.

I am all for increases in working conditions, but not at the cost of competitiveness and efficiency. There are many ways of optimising workplace efficiency and in particular focusing investment in the productive side of the business, unfortunately that comes with a cost, laying off people that are shown to be inefficient.

Case in point. Corporate Governance of expenses. What sense is there in having a corporate governance audit of say 10% of all workplace claims, with say 3 employees on 26K? Unless you are stopping over 50K (plus benefits) of fraud per year (keep one and publish zero tolerance of all employees found defrauding even pennies of company cash) , its inefficient, so common sense says those workers should be sacked. Go to a flat rate system less than the average claim of the prior receipted allowance (unpopular with shareholders granted) and all of a sudden, no fraud, therefore no requirement for audit. The unions dont like thinking like this though as all of a sudden, thats three less on the picket line and three less paying fees.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

What workers dont realize is increased workplace protection comes with a catch-22. It makes the employer noncompetitive against other global companies that dont have those protections. Fine when we had lots of cash sloshing around the economy, but we dont right now.

I am all for increases in working conditions, but not at the cost of competitiveness and efficiency.

And as long as it doesn't effect you

PaulF81

ukcarper wrote: »

And as long as it doesn't effect you

If it does and I am not happy, I will simply move jobs. You cant change your workplace culture, you can only (hopefully) find somewhere else to work that more closely mirrors your values.

You shouldnt confuse paid employment with charity work.