Corbynomics: A Dystopia

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

I remind you what you posted and what I am responding to.
If you can't keep up then so beit.


One of their major activities is supporting politicians : recently the politicians have been ones that have supported the IRA for many many years and throughout the bombing years.


An other point disagree with your view that reducing incentives to invest (shareholder profits) is not a good idea.

Southend1

michaels wrote: »

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.

This argument sounds convincing in theory but doesn't hold.

In reality what tends to happen over time as productivity increases is that different types of work become available. For example, the number of people employed in agriculture has fallen dramatically over the last century because of mechanisation but the numbers employed in other sectors e.g. financial services, telecoms etc etc have increased such that we don't have mass unemployment.

Of course unions exist to benefit their members but in doing so they have a positive effect on non members too, in many different ways.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Yes, largely because of sustained campaigning by trade unions!

I suspect that increased use of Tort is at least as responsible as Trades Unions.

If anything it is notable that the explosion of H&S codification and the massive increase in safety at work has coincided with the decline of the union movement.

I think that the unions' response to H&S versus the financial well being of their members was nicely summed up by the insistence of the union that TfL allow a drunken tube driver to remain in place.

Southend1

CLAPTON wrote: »

I remind you what you posted and what I am responding to.
If you can't keep up then so beit.


One of their major activities is supporting politicians : recently the politicians have been ones that have supported the IRA for many many years and throughout the bombing years.


An other point disagree with your view that reducing incentives to invest (shareholder profits) is not a good idea.

For society to be functional and for the economy to benefit everyone it's important to have the right balance between wages and shareholder returns. Many economists agree that the balance has shifted too far in the direction of shareholders in the last 30 years or so.

I'm disappointed that you're unwilling to clarify your earlier post; as a result I'm not able to respond to the point you were making.

Please be aware that your comment about "keeping up" could be perceived as offensive.

CLAPTON

Southend1 wrote: »

For society to be functional and for the economy to benefit everyone it's important to have the right balance between wages and shareholder returns. Many economists agree that the balance has shifted too far in the direction of shareholders in the last 30 years or so.

I'm disappointed that you're unwilling to clarify your earlier post; as a result I'm not able to respond to the point you were making.

Please be aware that your comment about "keeping up" could be perceived as offensive.

your comments have little to do with the TU functions or a willingness to discuss the issues.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

I suspect that increased use of Tort is at least as responsible as Trades Unions.

If anything it is notable that the explosion of H&S codification and the massive increase in safety at work has coincided with the decline of the union movement.

I think that the unions' response to H&S versus the financial well being of their members was nicely summed up by the insistence of the union that TfL allow a drunken tube driver to remain in place.

Increased use of tort can in part be attributed to the fact that trade unions provide their members with access to legal advice and representation as part of their membership.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Of course unions exist to benefit their members but in doing so they have a positive effect on non members too, in many different ways.

You mean by striking so non-members can't use essential services or by paying vast amounts of money to a political party in order to buy pay increases for their members at the expense of public services for the rest of us?

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Increased use of tort can in part be attributed to the fact that trade unions provide their members with access to legal advice and representation as part of their membership.

Not really. It has far more to do with the legalisation of 'No win, No fee' by the Major (Blair?) Government.

As I say, the rise of the use of Tort Law to resolve disputes has corresponded with a decline in union membership.

Outside the public sector, where unions provide an effective monopsony on staff provision, there is very little appetite to join a union.

I am a member of a trade union but probably the only one on the floor I work on.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

You mean by striking so non-members can't use essential services or by paying vast amounts of money to a political party in order to buy pay increases for their members at the expense of public services for the rest of us?

The purpose of striking is not to prevent people from using services, essential or otherwise, however this can of course be a consequence on occasion. No Union member takes strike action lightly, not just because it costs them in lost wages but also because they are well aware of the impact on their customers, patients, service users etc.

I don't agree that pay increases come at the expense of public services, there is no obvious logic in the statement, and in any case, the purpose of industrial action is not always to secure a pay increase.

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

Culture really changed once Directors could be prosecuted for injury and death caused. Fully trained and qualified Health and Safety officers became the norm.