Civil Servants To Stage 48-Hour Walkout

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can understand the need for unions in the private sector (where profit is the motive, albeit unions can create highly inefficient and unstable industries)

They CAN serve to make it more difficult for companies to cut back on expenses, such as wages, and this will affect the profits and can affect the viability of the company. But again, staff wages are the most important thing.

One thing to consider is that economic systems where unions are very heavily suppressed or where they are absent very often show inefficiency and instability. Do you think the capitalist market is efficient? Of course it isn't.

 

but are they as appropriate for the public sector? Surely working conditions of government workers and other similar issues should be voting issues, as quality of service and staffing levels are.

Surely not. Do you think that voters should have decisionmaking powers over whether people are able to keep their jobs or be hit with wage freezes? And to assume this also means you think that you will or thoughts on government matters can be adequately expressed through voting. No, this isn't a voting issue. These are waged workers, just like those in the private sector and they have just as much justification to fight their corner as those in the private sector would (but find it difficult to do so).

To be honest, if there was such a state of affairs where people could express their will by limiting salaries I could think of better targets to hit than public sector workers.

[Alias]

They CAN serve to make it more difficult for companies to cut back on expenses, such as wages, and this will affect the profits and can affect the viability of the company. But again, staff wages are the most important thing.

One thing to consider is that economic systems where unions are very heavily suppressed or where they are absent very often show inefficiency and instability. Do you think the capitalist market is efficient? Of course it isn't.

Where are these places? Take America, which has a higher contempt for union membership - a lot of the union industries have failed because of the demands placed by the unions (not solely because of this, but the unions take a lot of flexibility out of companies and make it harder for them to incorporate methods which may result in less labour, such as kanban).

 

UK manufacturing is a lot more competitive nowadays with reduced union influence, yet a lot of companies have some of the best employee standards around (take Jaguar for example, ignoring recent suspensions of production).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I agree with you entirely. Unions can hold up the efficiency of the company, absolutely. The problem is when companies do well and workers receive their 'normal' wages (which by no means assume they are fair compensations for work) and have stable conditions then people don't use the unions as much. People go to work and just get by day-to-day. They aren't in a tight situation. But when things are bad for the company, for whatever reason, it impacts the staff when changes are made to their wages and conditions. And obviously, if the union gets involved and challenges the company it could make things worse for the company. And unions do make bad decisions at times. Sometimes it is better for the larger group to have their jobs rather than maintain wage levels if the company goes bust - this is why democracy is crucial in a union, and is why I am not a massive fan of the modern union. Although if a company simply isn't efficient and decides to make cutbacks, why should staffing be one of the first considerations that need sorting out? It is often the most expensive but these are people who have rent, families to feed, and need job security.

 

But what sort of society is one where there are no unions? Well this is a system dominated by a minority who control the economy and it is an authoritarian system where decisions on people's livelihood and ability to survive are made by those who rent you. If your employer treats you unfairly, dismissed you without good cause, etc., what will you do? And what about when the company is doing well but wants to restructure to make even more profit. Undoubtedly a restructuring often means better services or good, but the most important thing is always the worker and what happen to them. Why is it right that the worker has absolutely no control over what happens to them in these situation. The only thing they have is the union to represent and/or fight for them.

 

It's all a big mess, but it isn't as if the problem is with the unions. The problem is with capitalism and what results from it. Our focus shouldn't be so much on efficiency and leaving private hands to get the job done but what happens to the people doing the work and their livelihood. That should be more important.

 

Uk manufacturing is a lot more competitive today. But remember why it wasn't so competitive? One of the reasons in the 50s and 60s were short-termist practices and little emphasis on R&D led to Britain falling behind. This is inefficiency and had nothing to do with unions but everything to do with maximising profits.

 

And companies are more savvy nowadays at advertising their companies as 'Great Places to Work' and looking to grab awards. It helps bring in more motivated staff but also exists to create a culture where employees believe they are getting a good deal. It often rests on such silly things as 'having a voice' in the company - which counts for little in reality.