Who will win the UK election ?

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

I don't believe that's the issue. I doubt that anyone could logically argue against the suggestion that the main objective of a trade union is to improve things for its members. The issue is a claim made by a certain poster is that the "purpose of unions is to help all workers", which is simply wrong.

It also improves things for non union members in the same company.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

It also improves things for non union members in the same company.

Yes, but not all workers.

The point would be that the interests of the members of a particular trade union are frequently diametrically opposed to the interests of other workers in general.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

So you had direct personal experience of someone else describing their direct personal experience.

That's normally known as hearsay.

Must admit that was pretty good:p

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

My "selective dig at the unions" consists of posting one quote from an academic research paper, and noting that the trade unions have (historically) been rather tainted by racism. That is a matter of fact not opinion, and is easily verifiable by carrying out some research.



I was simply pointing out that your claim that "I saw the working conditions of my family in the mines improve dramatically through union pressure. The mine owners were forced to improve conditions...." could only really have applied to that period when the mines only had one owner.



The BMA is a trade union. That is a matter of verifiable fact.

Now are you going to address the main point or not?

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, but not all workers.

The point would be that the interests of the members of a particular trade union are frequently diametrically opposed to the interests of other workers in general.

I would say that is true in some cases but I believe everybody has the right to improve their working conditions and pay by any legal method. It seems its OK for big business or the very well paid defend their pay and conditions but not trade unions.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Now are you going to address the main point or not?

What is your main point?

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

I would say that is true in some cases but I believe everybody has the right to improve their working conditions and pay by any legal method. It seems its OK for big business or the very well paid defend their pay and conditions but not trade unions.

And I would agree with you.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

What is your main point?

I'm not repeating it mate, scroll back.

michaels

ukcarper wrote: »

I would say that is true in some cases but I believe everybody has the right to improve their working conditions and pay by any legal method. It seems its OK for big business or the very well paid defend their pay and conditions but not trade unions.

Although of course labour party policy is that it is fine for the trade unions to actively pay for MPs and guide then on policy decisions but unreasonable for business leaders to make donations to MPs without any explicit influence.

Cyberman60

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't you think that unions have improved working conditions of their members.

The mining unions certainly didn't. They actually helped to kill the jobs by being greedy and making themselves uncompetitive.

It can be argued that the UK motor industries and shipbuilding have failed for similar reasons. British Leyland.... Oh Dear !! :eek: