Corbynomics: A Dystopia

michaels

Really, normally trade unions are pushing for higher wages to reduce the odds of the unemployed being able to join the workforce. I thought trades unionism was entirely about 'I'm all right Jack'?

Southend1

michaels wrote: »

Really, normally trade unions are pushing for higher wages to reduce the odds of the unemployed being able to join the workforce. I thought trades unionism was entirely about 'I'm all right Jack'?

Then you thought wrong. Unions are about much more than wage bargaining. They are also at the forefront of campaigns for safe workplaces, fair treatment in the workplace, better working conditions etc as well as many social causes.

And there isn't necessarily a correlation between higher wages and lower employment - for example, higher wages can be paid by increasing productivity or by decreasing the proportion of profits passed on to shareholders or directors, etc

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

Then you thought wrong. Unions are about much more than wage bargaining. They are also at the forefront of campaigns for safe workplaces, fair treatment in the workplace, better working conditions etc as well as many social causes.

And there isn't necessarily a correlation between higher wages and lower employment - for example, higher wages can be paid by increasing productivity or by decreasing the proportion of profits passed on to shareholders or directors, etc

actually they are mainly about funding IRA supporting trots and their fellow travellers


you might also note that higher productivity without higher sales reduces employment. The TU have nothing to say about higher sales : reducing incentives to invest is unlikely to generate more sales

Southend1

CLAPTON wrote: »

actually they are mainly about funding IRA supporting trots and their fellow travellers


you might also note that higher productivity without higher sales reduces employment. The TU have nothing to say about higher sales : reducing incentives to invest is unlikely to generate more sales

Ignoring the first silly troll point you make, there is a good point about higher productivity potentially causing reduced employment, however increased productivity in some areas of a business e.g. a sales department or research and development would generate increased sales and create employment in different roles within the industry. To what extent this would outweigh the reduction is debatable. However the trade unions might argue that this would allow improved working conditions by reducing working hours per employee rather than headcount, without sacrificing wage levels.

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

Ignoring the first silly troll point you make, there is a good point about higher productivity potentially causing reduced employment, however increased productivity in some areas of a business e.g. a sales department or research and development would generate increased sales and create employment in different roles within the industry. To what extent this would outweigh the reduction is debatable. However the trade unions might argue that this would allow improved working conditions by reducing working hours per employee rather than headcount, without sacrificing wage levels.

are you saying that the TUs haven't been spending money on IRA supporters ...seriously ?
why do you consider supporting the IRA a 'troll point' : do you quesrtion its accuracy?
Corbyns first, post win, speech was to his paymasters.


your hypothesis is unrealistic : in general one needs to incentivise success , then other desirable things follow.


disincentising investment is unlikely to produce greater success.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

Then you thought wrong. Unions are about much more than wage bargaining. They are also at the forefront of campaigns for safe workplaces, fair treatment in the workplace, better working conditions etc as well as many social causes.

That's an outdated view. There's been huge rafts of health and safety along with employment legislation over the vast 25 years.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

You should be ashamed to call yourself a trade unionist, as your views don't reflect the values of the labour movement.

Times have changed. Trade Unionists need to modernise and move into the 21st Century. Too many have their heads stuck in the sands of time.

Southend1

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you saying that the TUs haven't been spending money on IRA supporters ...seriously ?
why do you consider supporting the IRA a 'troll point' : do you quesrtion its accuracy?
Corbyns first, post win, speech was to his paymasters.


your hypothesis is unrealistic : in general one needs to incentivise success , then other desirable things follow.


disincentising investment is unlikely to produce greater success.

I'm not going to comment on the first point, chief amongst many other reasons being that it is irrelevant to this discussion.

In relation to the other points, could you expand a little on what you mean? It's coming across that increased productivity acts as a disincentive to investment but I'm sure this can't be what you mean? It might just be my tired eyes!

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's an outdated view. There's been huge rafts of health and safety along with employment legislation over the vast 25 years.

Yes, largely because of sustained campaigning by trade unions!

And it goes well beyond legislation. Union safety reps for example have a huge impact. Studies show that workers are twice as likely to be injured in a non-unionised workplace.

michaels

An employer might be ambivalent between fewer more productive higher paid workers and more less productive cheaper ones.

Unions would be in favour of the former, quite rightly they represent their workers the current employees. However this is of course bad news for those without jobs as they are less skilled and productive and so are not employable at the higher wage rate.

There is nothing wrong with this per say but for unions to claim they want to improve the lot of all workers rather than their existing members is hypocritical.