Buses - Strike Coming?

[keyboarder]

Whilst related, journalism and printing are different things.

[Sebrof]

Whilst related, journalism and printing are different things.

 

I don't think anybody can argue with that.

 

But it's relevance? The significance of the move to Wapping was that the printers lost their jobs, and it was the beginning of the end for the print unions.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Who are 'the workers' Citizen Smith? Who do you class as a worker, and who is a decision maker? I think plenty of employees had a hand in this decisionmaking, and in fact one of the many things that helped shape the financial crisis was the incentivisation of individuals like business development people and salespeople which focused credit on short term bonuses selling to people who really shouldn't have been sold to.

 

They were doing what was expected of them in their job. What if they refused? I know in a lot of high streets focused heavily on the selling of credit, and there wasn't anything the staff could unless do about it.

 

So you're full of socialist views, but you think the entire public should benefit when things are going well, but when the system crashes the individuals responsible should fail and not everyone? You think money shouldn't be made from lending? If there wasn't profit in lending, nobody would lend, then we'd be in even deeper shit. Lending exists because there's a demand for it, why not satisfy that demand? Yes, it should have been done more responsibly, but that's a fine tune, not a failure of the system.

 

Yes I have socialist views and believe everyone should do well as there is no reason why they can't. But the individuals who are responsible should fail, of course they should. To advocate this is not to be anti-socialist but it is capitalist. I am against profitmaking. And this actually demonstrates the exploitation of workers when the things turn shit.

 

As I have already have said, I understand why and how you come to your conclusions about what should happen. But from my perspective, full backing for the current system and all that it engenders borders on the misanthropic.

 

The system would have to have to go. But before that could happen

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I operate a boycott on every product of the Murdoch empire. I also strongly dislike Margaret Thatcher. But I do acknowledge a debt to both of them for redressing the huge imbalance of power in favour of the unions that had crippled Britain since WWII. Murdoch's role, of course, was to move the Times to Wapping, and print the paper on modern, computer-driven presses that didn't need traditional skills.

 

What's important to remember is that unionised labour can be every bit as exploitative, greedy, bullying, and ruthless as the evil bosses that populate the small world of LDV's imaginings. That's not to say that unions are always bad, far from it, but to pretend that they are always a force for good is the height of self-delusion.

 

S

 

I agree with a lot of your opinions on unions. I don't believe that they are that brilliant. But I tend to think it better to join one than not. This is the problem, because the union may have power but can't do much with it except to demand better conditions and compensation.

 

We sort of discussed this before. It's not about going against evil bosses but it is about getting what would be fair and just for the work involved. And the only way to do that is to confront those who employ you. You don't beg or ask kindly because you would get nothing.

 

I do not understand how you think the motivation behind the unions from after WW2 was about greed. Why do you believe unionism was so big after the war and why do you think people believed their wages were inadequate?

 

Unions are the most cynical exploitation of the working man that has ever been invented. Unions are unaccountable, non-democratic, scams which exist to permit the union leaders to have a wonderful life-style at the expense of their members.

 

Haha. I have no idea what sort of work you do but if you work for a company I'd assume you are not in a worker's democracy or cooperative. The workplace is completely undemocratic and your bosses as uaccountable.

 

But I think you are right about the rest.

[Sebrof]

We sort of discussed this before. It's not about going against evil bosses but it is about getting what would be fair and just for the work involved. And the only way to do that is to confront those who employ you. You don't beg or ask kindly because you would get nothing.

 

The way to get more is to offer more. Your books are based on a view of the labour market which might have been valid in the 19thC, but which is valid no longer. Half the young people in the British Isles now complete their education at university. Very few will end up working on production lines in traditional factories.

 

I do not understand how you think the motivation behind the unions from after WW2 was about greed. Why do you believe unionism was so big after the war and why do you think people believed their wages were inadequate?

 

I was talking about a process that began after the war, and was gradually perverted. By the sixties, the incomes of the working classes had risen enormously, and the incomes of the rich had declined. Ironically, that trend has reversed since Labour came to power. But in 1945, I do agree that many people were not well paid.

 

Unions are the most cynical exploitation of the working man that has ever been invented. Unions are unaccountable, non-democratic, scams which exist to permit the union leaders to have a wonderful life-style at the expense of their members.

 

Haha. I have no idea what sort of work you do but if you work for a company I'd assume you are not in a worker's democracy or cooperative. The workplace is completely undemocratic and your bosses as uaccountable.

 

Well done, you've spotted the similarity. I presume you have read Orwell?

 

S

[thesultanofsheight]

Hello manin, welcome to the boards!

 

Yes welcome to these boards LDVs newly registered alter ego.

[keyboarder]

Whilst related, journalism and printing are different things.

 

I don't think anybody can argue with that.

 

But it's relevance? The significance of the move to Wapping was that the printers lost their jobs, and it was the beginning of the end for the print unions.

 

S

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the printers can't be blamed for shoddy journalism.

[Sebrof]

Whilst related, journalism and printing are different things.

 

I don't think anybody can argue with that.

 

But it's relevance? The significance of the move to Wapping was that the printers lost their jobs, and it was the beginning of the end for the print unions.

 

S

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the printers can't be blamed for shoddy journalism.

 

Can't argue with that either. But I'm still not sure of it's relevance, unless you were equating Murdoch's rags with shoddy journalism - which is equally unarguable. In my view, he is almost single-handedly responsible for lowering the tone of British newspapers generally. But I suspect he got the idea from across the Atlantic.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The way to get more is to offer more. Your books are based on a view of the labour market which might have been valid in the 19thC, but which is valid no longer. Half the young people in the British Isles now complete their education at university. Very few will end up working on production lines in traditional factories.

 

My understanding of labour history does not solely, even mainly from books relating to the 19th century. Besides a good deal of jobs in the financial sector are simply the equivalent of those on the production line in the 1950s.

 

I was talking about a process that began after the war, and was gradually perverted. By the sixties, the incomes of the working classes had risen enormously, and the incomes of the rich had declined. Ironically, that trend has reversed since Labour came to power. But in 1945, I do agree that many people were not well paid.

 

I still don't see what you mean by salary increases rising leads to the greed of the working class. Inflation should be taken into account. In any case, why would the 1970s worker perceive that their is an injustice that required union membership and subsequent action?

 

Well done, you've spotted the similarity. I presume you have read Orwell?

 

Sarky git. I am no big advocate of unions because they are undemocratic and unaccountable. I have already said this before. But no, never read Orwell.

 

Yes welcome to these boards LDVs newly registered alter ego.

 

He/she talks sense, but it isn't me.

[keyboarder]

I think I got the wrong end of Kurashima's stick.............

[Slim]

They were doing what was expected of them in their job. What if they refused? I know in a lot of high streets focused heavily on the selling of credit, and there wasn't anything the staff could unless do about it.

 

You didn't answer the question. Who are the workers? Who are these wronged masses? These people were doing their job, told by who? Other workers, everyone's ultimately responsible to the shareholders, everyone else is an employee, a worker. Who's responsible LDV? Who's not a worker, and who is? What's your definition?

 

As to this specific example, this largely began in the usa, where commission is earned differently from here. These people weren't under any employer pressure to sell these mortgages, most of them were acting on their own.

 

I genuinely get the impression that your knowledge and understanding doesn't match your idealism.

[Sebrof]

Well done, you've spotted the similarity. I presume you have read Orwell?

 

Sarky git. I am no big advocate of unions because they are undemocratic and unaccountable. I have already said this before. But no, never read Orwell.

 

Therein lies your problem, LDV. Orwell was arguably one of the most important writers of the 20thC. If you haven't read Orwell, you can't really claim to be educated. You get your ideas from a very narrow range of sources. To have any credibility here or anywhere else you need to read much more widely.

 

Yes welcome to these boards LDVs newly registered alter ego.

 

He/she talks sense, but it isn't me.

 

Assuming we accept the first part of the sentence, that falls into the category of stating the bleeding obvious.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Therein lies your problem, LDV. Orwell was arguably one of the most important writers of the 20thC. If you haven't read Orwell, you can't really claim to be educated. You get your ideas from a very narrow range of sources. To have any credibility here or anywhere else you need to read much more widely.

 

Very funny, I haven't read the Bible either and that truly is an important book. I have read some Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway was quite lovely. But I don't need to read Orwell, have an insight into his criticisms of political systems and thinking to claim to be educated.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You didn't answer the question. Who are the workers? Who are these wronged masses? These people were doing their job, told by who? Other workers, everyone's ultimately responsible to the shareholders, everyone else is an employee, a worker. Who's responsible LDV? Who's not a worker, and who is? What's your definition?

 

As to this specific example, this largely began in the usa, where commission is earned differently from here. These people weren't under any employer pressure to sell these mortgages, most of them were acting on their own.

 

I genuinely get the impression that your knowledge and understanding doesn't match your idealism.

 

When I refer to workers I mean all those who need to earn a wage. In referring to wrong masses I talking about responsibility, responsibility does lie with those who make the decisions to sell credit where there is greater risk and who take the decision to sell sub-prime. It does lie to a lesser extent to those managers who want increase their bonuses by pushing this selling, and again to a much lesser extent those who do the selling. Does this represent all of the workers in society? No. But my arguments have no been about determining who particularly is responsible and giving them a good slap or let them deal with the issue. My issue is with the state capitalist system where the responsibility is in the banking sector, yet the consequences of its failure are transmitted to everyone. They affect everyone regardless of their connection with decisionmaking in the bank and whether they have taken credit or not.

 

I am not specifically levelling criticism at a small group, but commenting on unjustness of this consequences of this situation because of the structure of state capitalism and the dependence of the financial system for the economy to function.

 

Though I am interesting in what you say about US mortgage brokers acting on their own. Not sure I know what you mean about the distinction. I thought in the US mortgage brokers submit a loan application on behalf of the consumer to a lender and get commission from accepted loans? What happens in the UK? (If you don't mind explaining, please)

[Slim]

When I refer to workers I mean all those who need to earn a wage. In referring to wrong masses I talking about responsibility, responsibility does lie with those who make the decisions to sell credit where there is greater risk and who take the decision to sell sub-prime. It does lie to a lesser extent to those managers who want increase their bonuses by pushing this selling, and again to a much lesser extent those who do the selling. Does this represent all of the workers in society? No. But my arguments have no been about determining who particularly is responsible and giving them a good slap or let them deal with the issue. My issue is with the state capitalist system where the responsibility is in the banking sector, yet the consequences of its failure are transmitted to everyone. They affect everyone regardless of their connection with decisionmaking in the bank and whether they have taken credit or not.

 

A worker is anyone drawing a wage? Which is almost everyone in the banking industry apart from the shareholders. So actually all your arguments above are about bankers and non-bankers, and not workers at all?

 

I am not specifically levelling criticism at a small group, but commenting on unjustness of this consequences of this situation because of the structure of state capitalism and the dependence of the financial system for the economy to function.

 

That's the rub with risk and reward. That alternative you're suggesting is?

 

Though I am interesting in what you say about US mortgage brokers acting on their own. Not sure I know what you mean about the distinction. I thought in the US mortgage brokers submit a loan application on behalf of the consumer to a lender and get commission from accepted loans? What happens in the UK? (If you don't mind explaining, please)

 

Basically the US has a more traditional wholesale/retail relationship that sells mortgages. The banks give a rate to the broker, the broker adds his cut, and sells it to a buyer, the buyer doesn't actually know the bank rate he's on, only the rate his broker tells him.

 

In the UK your broker is now more of an advisor, he'll steer you to the mortgage company and usually earn a commission for his trouble, but then the relationship is between you and the lender, you see the lenders rates and your broker is now out of the deal.