Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

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.

I don't think there is any causative link between the rise of the use of Tort Law to resolve disputes and the decline in trade union membership. Are you suggesting there might be?

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

I don't think there is any causative link between the rise of the use of Tort Law to resolve disputes and the decline in trade union membership. Are you suggesting there might be?

No I'm saying that the rise in the use of the law to settle H&S issues has led to increased codification of H&S.

The increasing irrelevance of Trades Unions might have had an impact on dispute resolution I suppose but TBH I think it reflects the times we live in: where there's blame there's a claim and all that.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

What else can they come at the expense of? If a GP is paid more then less must be spent on other things. There is only a finite amount of money the Government can spend.

antrobus

Yet another Corbynomics U-turn.

Shadow chancellor makes last-minute U-turn on fiscal responsibility vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/12/shadow-chancellor-u-turn-on-fiscal-responsibility-vote-john-mcdonnell-labour-budget-surplus

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

What else can they come at the expense of? If a GP is paid more then less must be spent on other things. There is only a finite amount of money the Government can spend.

If a GP is not paid sufficiently this can have negative consequences... he may leave the profession or move abroad to practise, for example. This would have a negative effect on healthcare and the public investment in her training would be wasted.

As with most things there is a balance to be struck.

Increases in wages, particularly for the low paid, mean increased consumer spending and therefore have a positive effect on the economy.

When the minimum wage was introduced, the economy didn't collapse and it won't collapse when the minimum wage is increased to Osborne's not quite a living wage and only for the over 25s.

And as a final point, the so called 'national living wage' is not being introduced because the Tories particularly want to improve the lot of the low paid but because of pressure largely coming from the trade unions, e.g. In the form of the huge 'Britain needs a payrise' campaign, which it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to ignore. As far as the government is concerned it's a political move.

Mistermeaner

What else do governments do other than political moves?

Plus I've never heard of the huge campaign from the trade unions regards living wage?

What you do see from unions like the bma is deliberate restriction in supply to inflate wages for their members to the detriment of the public at large.

gadgetmind

Southend1 wrote: »

When the minimum wage was introduced, the economy didn't collapse and it won't collapse when the minimum wage is increased

The problem is that most unskilled people aren't productive enough to be worth even minimum wage, so many of these jobs are eliminated by being mechanised or exported overseas.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Yet another Corbynomics U-turn.

Shadow chancellor makes last-minute U-turn on fiscal responsibility vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/12/shadow-chancellor-u-turn-on-fiscal-responsibility-vote-john-mcdonnell-labour-budget-surplus

Fewer than 20 days have elapsed since this announcement at conference. Is Corbyn some kind of MI5 fifth columnist out to destroy the Labour party? It looks like the only logical explanation. How on earth can you vote for a party that has had 5 different official opinions on austerity in 2015? You wouldn't have a clue what you are voting for.

This is a new gentler kind of chaos. It's Conviction Confusion.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

And as a final point, the so called 'national living wage' is not being introduced because the Tories particularly want to improve the lot of the low paid but because of pressure largely coming from the trade unions, e.g. In the form of the huge 'Britain needs a payrise' campaign, which it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to ignore. As far as the government is concerned it's a political move.

Rubbish. The unions don't have any power over a Tory Government any more beyond being able to halt the remaining few monopolies. They only have any more power than that over Labour because they control the majority of Labour's finances.

Southend1

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What else do governments do other than political moves?

Plus I've never heard of the huge campaign from the trade unions regards living wage?

What you do see from unions like the bma is deliberate restriction in supply to inflate wages for their members to the detriment of the public at large.

The right wing press do their best to ignore it but almost a year ago today on 18 October 2014 many tens of thousands of people marched in the streets of London, Glasgow and Belfast in support of the Britain needs a pay rise campaign. See here for more info about the TUC's work on this https://www.tuc.org.uk/economic-issues/britain-needs-pay-rise.

Why are fair pay, safe workplaces and decent working conditions detrimental to the public at large?