Trade Union Recognition

[pongo]

The only reason why people unionise is because of the existing bad conditions and potential for such.

 

Not really. Many reliable modern companies and departments have close and useful relationships with their unions. For many companies it is as normal as having a personnel department and it provides a useful function.

 

The highly politicized and confrontational world which you and forbes are describing is a cliché which seldom really exists any more.

[Freggyragh]

sometimes union representation can make matters worse and some individuals get away with murder in the workplace because of the union...

 

The history of the trades union movement is a chequered one. We might still have a coal industry and a British-owned car industry if it weren't for unions. And a much leaner and fitter civil service.

 

Its partly because of the unions that GM and others are going to the wall.

 

S

 

The staff at Toyota and Honda are also unionized. Problem is, people aren't buying cars anymore because the non-unionized Masters of the Universe sold us a lie. I know you're post is trying to show some balance, but unions were hardly to blame for the demise of the British car industry - bad design, poor build quality, poor after-sales, American protectionism, Japanese innovation, the loss of empire, European competitors' huge subsidies and a belief that somehow people would just keep buying crap because it was British - in other words, bad management and governments that cared more about banks. The behavior of the unions was symptomatic of an unhappy workforce - ideal situation for the militant, anti-work, money-for-nothing stereotype of a seventies shop steward to flourish in. As for the coal industry - well, that was politics, and the UK may find itself re-opening the mines in the not too distant future, albeit with skilled workers from Eastern Europe.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not really. Many reliable modern companies and departments have close and useful relationships with their unions. For many companies it is as normal as having a personnel department and it provides a useful function.

 

The highly politicized and confrontational world which you and forbes are describing is a cliché which seldom really exists any more.

 

I don't disagree at all with what you say about useful relationships. This is the problem with unions, because the interests of the workers differ with union representatives the farther up the hierarchy of the union you go. They become mediators once they get into the job. It is no longer about a fight, which it should be considering the lack of power and control the workers have on their own and should have as a collective group, but rather the union is just an entity that tries to aims for conciliation with the employer. This is why there is no confrontation. This is good for the union bureaucracy and employer because in negotiating concessions the union looks like it is doing the fight for the worker and the employer is looked upon more favourable. More importantly, the union actually takes away charge of the struggle and ends it early before the workers have even had chance to get what they originally aimed for.

 

But I am interested, in remarking about my highly politicised and confrontational world are you talking simply in this respect, that is in terms of unions or my views in general as I don't really know how to respond to that comment?

 

I would have to ask though, if people do not necessarily join unions because of bad conditions of the possibility of bad conditions in the future then why do they? What need is there for a mediator when there is no confrontation?

 

The behavior of the unions was symptomatic of an unhappy workforce - ideal situation for the militant, anti-work, money-for-nothing stereotype of a seventies shop steward to flourish in.

 

Do you think that stereotype is correct though. I mean, why were the workforce so unhappy in the 70s? The only recourse for the workers to 'fight' was to make use of unionisation.

[Sebrof]

The workers are not being unfair in what they ask for.

 

What, never?

 

Workers demands are ALWAYS fair and reasonable, are they?

 

Well, well.

 

S

[pongo]

But I am interested, in remarking about my highly politicised and confrontational world are you talking simply in this respect, that is in terms of unions or my views in general as I don't really know how to respond to that comment?

 

I think you are misunderstanding me. I think, I think. The point I was trying to make is that employers and unions no longer typically exist in such stark difference from each other. Where as in the popular consciousness people are often still thinking of a 1970s world of political confrontation and class war.

 

So nothing to do with whatever your political world is

 

(if that's what you mean)

[Sebrof]

The behavior of the unions was symptomatic of an unhappy workforce - ideal situation for the militant, anti-work, money-for-nothing stereotype of a seventies shop steward to flourish in.

 

I worked in the printing industry in the 80s/90s, and the union situation then was little better than the seventies.

 

I did say appalling management was a factor in the British car industry, but the response of the unions was hardly intelligent. It was driven by the usual confrontational nonsense that unfortunately typified unions at one time. Had they tried to ally the workers' interests with those of the owners, things might have been very much better. Red Robbo's policies simply ensured that BL could never make enough money to invest properly. Management had no time to manage because they were constantly in crisis with the unions.

 

S

[Freggyragh]

LDV, you don't find work rewarding in itself do you? You can't understand the concept of being proud of a job well done? If you can just try and get your head around the idea that many, many public and private sector workers choose to work in jobs that they enjoy and gives them a sense of well-being, despite the fact that they could earn more doing something else. All workers are entitled to fair treatment and decent pay - and that is why we have unions - as an insurance policy. Agitators who prefer to spout ideology about class struggle are as bad as tie and suit Nu-Liebour bureaucrats and consultants - parasites.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The workers are not being unfair in what they ask for.

 

What, never?

Workers demands are ALWAYS fair and reasonable, are they?

 

But fair and reasonable from who perspective?

 

I think you are misunderstanding me. I think, I think. The point I was trying to make is that employers and unions no longer typically exist in such stark difference from each other. Where as in the popular consciousness people are often still thinking of a 1970s world of political confrontation and class war.

 

I see what you mean Pongo. From my way of looking of things the stark difference always exists in capitalism. To go back parrot-fashion the continual and fundamental difference is one of interests. The interest of the worker is to maximise their wages in this system and that of the capitalist and business to maximise their profits. Unions held a lot of power in the 70s and used it, and this was symptomatic of global economic problems, domestic industrial and public sector bureaucratic stagnation. Businesses found it more difficult to maintain and increase profits and the wages were inevitably affected as reducing or capping wages is an easy way to cut costs. But the unions resisted this. It is my understanding that more workers than in comparison with today were more politicised towards socialist thinking and methods of action because the reality of the conflict of interest between employer and worker was more apparent.

 

The continually improving living standards and wages of the worker, coupled with the demise of union power over the past few decades has covered over this conflict of interest, not removed it.

 

It was driven by the usual confrontational nonsense that unfortunately typified unions at one time. Had they tried to ally the workers' interests with those of the owners, things might have been very much better.

 

But this is what I find genuinely hard to fathom. The very purpose of the union is for confrontation because it involves demanding from the employer things that he/she/they are unwilling to offer otherwise. Conciliation which is unfortunately practised by unions today can only win small concessions.

 

[qu

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV, you don't find work rewarding in itself do you? You can't understand the concept of being proud of a job well done?

 

It completely depends on what the work is and why I am doing it. I find much reward in my volunteer and university (problem more in the learning process) work and I find reward in having my work praised when I have been in paid employment, but I have no vested interest in my work other than wage I need to survive. But work is not rewarding in itself.

 

If you can just try and get your head around the idea that many, many public and private sector workers choose to work in jobs that they enjoy and gives them a sense of well-being, despite the fact that they could earn more doing something else.

 

People firstly do not choose to work, only a tiny group can choose whether to or not. But I do not disagree with you for one minute in recognising that people choose to work in jobs they find more enjoyment and well-being in rather than go for a higher wage. I know many people who have been asked to go into management but choose not to. But it is my genuine belief that attitudes towards what is enjoyable and rewarding about work is already framed from a recognition of the necessity of work and what is really achievable in the working world in terms of control over oneself in paid employment, and the ability to utilise one's own talent. The working world really does not offer the vast majority of people the capability to use one's own talents to the best of their abilities and in the most enjoyable fashion. This is recognised, perhaps unconsciously, to the extent that many people claim enjoyment in their work simply because one of their talent is being used or is occasionally used in their day to day tasks. Though of course a lot of people are fortunate to work in jobs where they can use their talents to their best and love their jobs.

 

Agitators who prefer to spout ideology about class struggle are as bad as tie and suit Nu-Liebour bureaucrats and consultants - parasites.

 

Firstly I do not understand how Nu Labour bureaucrats and consultants have any connections with agitators or class struggled in any way. And I don't see what you mean about parasites.

 

Those who spout ideology that you refer to are in fact spouting an ideology that does not conform to the liberal and capitalist ideology that you wish to hear or what seems safe and familiar. When such things as class struggle are mentioned it is no more ideological than those who mention that common interest can be sought between the worker and the employer. The difference is that those who argue the capitalist stance do so with the benefit of agreement with a majority who are all indoctrinated into the propaganda and values of the system, or those who 'consciously' support it (which of course includes the employers). Those who talk about class struggle simply look at what I believe are the realities of the world but from a perspective that is not shared by the majority because indoctrinated popular values that are in place are capitalist ones.

[pongo]

Conciliation which is unfortunately practised by unions today can only win small concessions.

 

It doesn't have to be a fight. It's not a them and us world anymore.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Conciliation which is unfortunately practised by unions today can only win small concessions.

 

It doesn't have to be a fight. It's not a them and us world anymore.

 

But that is what I have been explaining. It always is. It cannot be otherwise in a capitalist system because of the difference of interests and the fact that the worker who so little power.

 

But I might be better explaining if you can explain why you think it is no longer a 'them and us' world anymore.

 

I know we are talking about unions here so have responded as such but when we are talking about the employing class/capitalist and workers it is very much an 'us' and 'them' world. And a fight is what is required, by this I mean revolution. It is a long way off and requires the politicisation of people but should the workers who are in control of work and that can only come about by confrontation.

[Freggyragh]

Your problem LDV is that your opinions are based on the writing of 19th and early 20th century theorists who looked at industrial mill workers, saw that they had no alternative to terrible exploitation, labelled them as 'the workers' and wrote theories on how the world could be changed so that 'the workers' wouldn't have to live like that. The class system they described no longer exists in Western Europe. When you say things like 'people firstly do not choose to work' you are right only in so far as no one would choose the life of a 19th century mill worker in Lancashire, or a 21st century factory worker in Manila. There are some things I don't enjoy about my work, but on the balance it is deeply satisfying. You might be surprised to find how many people love their jobs. You are at university, you are not working class, stop pretending you are part of a great class struggle that ended in these islands before you were born.

[Gladys]

The behavior of the unions was symptomatic of an unhappy workforce - ideal situation for the militant, anti-work, money-for-nothing stereotype of a seventies shop steward to flourish in.

 

I worked in the printing industry in the 80s/90s, and the union situation then was little better than the seventies.

 

I did say appalling management was a factor in the British car industry, but the response of the unions was hardly intelligent. It was driven by the usual confrontational nonsense that unfortunately typified unions at one time. Had they tried to ally the workers' interests with those of the owners, things might have been very much better. Red Robbo's policies simply ensured that BL could never make enough money to invest properly. Management had no time to manage because they were constantly in crisis with the unions.

 

S

 

'The Print' was the epitome of union supported worker/shirker during the 70s and 80s. The move away from hot metal during the 80s to 90s (and so the creation of many more evils) eventually put an end to that bind. One of the biggest revolutions in labour relations was the relocation of the print in London's east end - it absolutely f*cked so many people who otherwise thought they had immense stability and power.

 

That followed very closely after the closure of the mines. (Another topic, not for discussion here, but what a bad, bad idea.)

 

However, in retrospect, we had the shift of 'ransom' from the skilled, but indolent, worker, to the 'ransom' of the skilled, but reckless, financier. I wonder who we were better off with?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Your problem LDV is that your opinions are based on the writing of 19th and early 20th century theorists who looked at industrial mill workers, saw that they had no alternative to terrible exploitation, labelled them as 'the workers' and wrote theories on how the world could be changed so that 'the workers' wouldn't have to live like that. The class system they described no longer exists in Western Europe. When you say things like 'people firstly do not choose to work' you are right only in so far as no one would choose the life of a 19th century mill worker in Lancashire, or a 21st century factory worker in Manila. There are some things I don't enjoy about my work, but on the balance it is deeply satisfying. You might be surprised to find how many people love their jobs. You are at university, you are not working class, stop pretending you are part of a great class struggle that ended in these islands before you were born.

 

Yes, you are right, the main theorists are from the 19th and early 20th century. And I think, as many other socialists do, that there is a requirement to move away from the LANGUAGE and some of the thinking that makes socialist ideology sound so stale, not because of its anarchronisms which you believe exist but simply because of the stale and overused language.

 

In labelling such people as workers it is doing nothing but recognising that these are the people who work and produce. However, in retrospect, we had the shift of 'ransom' from the skilled, but indolent, worker, to the 'ransom' of the skilled, but reckless, financier. I wonder who we were better off with?

I do not for one minute think that you do not enjoy you work, it may be that you get to use your skills and talent, I don't know but don't doubt it. What I was saying is in my opinion, I believe so many say they love or enjoy their job but this enjoyment and love is first qualified upon a recognition of a comparative with worse jobs (which is only natural) and often a sense that the job one has although only using a limited amount of one's own brainpower, probably not involving a learning that one truly wishes to have, may simply be one where the worker uses some of their abilities and they are thankful and feel enjoyment of that given the limitations of what is available to them. Nevertheless, for those who genuinely love their jobs there exists a sense of alienation with paid employment and lots of types of work that impacts on enjoyment and even one's happiness and health, though is sometimes compensated for by a large wage packet.

 

However, in retrospect, we had the shift of 'ransom' from the skilled, but indolent, worker, to the 'ransom' of the skilled, but reckless, financier. I wonder who we were better off with?

 

However, in retrospect, we had the shift of 'ransom' from the skilled, but indolent, worker, to the 'ransom' of the skilled, but reckless, financier. I wonder who we were better off with?

 

Gladys, are you making a comparison between the workers, say in the 70s, and today's financial crisis?

[Gladys]

Yep.