Trade Union Recognition

[jimbms]

Yep.

LDV you could learn a lot from Gladys, answers short and to the point no room for misinterpretation

[Sebrof]

But fair and reasonable from who perspective?

There is only one perspective. It is that of the man who uses reason to assess the situation, and forms conclusions accordingly.

 

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.

 

LDV, try to look beyond what is written in your anarchist's bible. A company has to be competitive, and it therefore cannot pay out larger and larger amounts in wages. If it does so, it will go bust, and all your beloved workers will be out of a job. The confrontationalism practiced by Robbo, Scargill, and others of that type, brought Britain to its knees, and ironically therefore impoverished the very people that the unions claimed they were trying to help.

 

In 1960, Britain had a larger car industry than Germany (I believe), and twenty years later it was a fraction of the size. That was despite having innovative designers, like Issigonis, and a captive market in the colonies. The most obvious difference was that German employees realised that their interests and the interests of their employers were broadly the same. Result, German companies were very profitable, and were able to pay higher wages and invest in new designs and new plant.

 

Because your religion (which is what your anarchist beliefs amount to), is (like other religions) locked in the past, you believe that workers are best served by confrontation. However, the world has moves on since the days of Marx and Engels, and today the thing that most characterises successful economies (and highly paid employees) is harmony in the workplace.

 

S

[Sebrof]

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?

 

A coincidence, rather than a consequence.

 

The causes of the banking crisis include a failure of integrity and a failure of basic competence (due partly no doubt to bank management being put into the hands of non-bankers (McKillop, Goodwin, Hornby, inter alia).

 

Social historians are going to have a field-day.

 

S

[pongo]

The most obvious difference was that German employees realised that their interests and the interests of their employers were broadly the same. Result, German companies were very profitable, and were able to pay higher wages and invest in new designs and new plant.

 

Another obvious difference would be that West German industry was more or less begun again from scratch after 1945 and that, for many years, the US pumped huge amounts of money into the West German economy. Directly and indirectly.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There is only one perspective. It is that of the man who uses reason to assess the situation, and forms conclusions accordingly.

 

But the perspective of the worker who is striking say would be different from the employer they are striking against. And workers in others areas would have different perspectives too.

 

LDV, try to look beyond what is written in your anarchist's bible. A company has to be competitive, and it therefore cannot pay out larger and larger amounts in wages. If it does so, it will go bust, and all your beloved workers will be out of a job. The confrontation practiced by Robbo, Scargill, and others of that type, brought Britain to its knees, and ironically therefore impoverished the very people that the unions claimed they were trying to help.

 

Yes, I know that a company has to be competitive and that wages are a cost to the employer, the higher they are the less profit it makes. It cannot just pay out ever increasing sums. And although as stated I am critical of unions, when workers do go on strike and begin confrontation I have to wonder what leads workers to remove themselves from the apparently happy status quo of the life and take action. It present risks and leads to a loss of income. It is hardly done a whim.

 

It may be a generalisation, but from my understanding of British economic history, the problem with British industry was lack of investment in capital and short-termism, but also the lack of money put into R&D (though I recognise what you say about Issigionis). Though I do not know enough in respect of the car industry to comment on the impact of unions. But I still have to ask what interests you are talking about you believe are broadly the same. I fully appreciate that when a company is doing very well it can pay higher wages and will do so to maintain the growth already established. But where stagnation has already occurred and this impact on wages there is need to protect oneself. I am interested to know what you think should have been done differently.

 

My devotion to the religion of anarchism is no different to your devotion to capitalism. To call one a religion is to call your values and beliefs part of one too.

If we are talking about unions then workers are best served by confrontation when their wages have been cut, when wages are low, or when they have capped for example. They are best served by confrontation because the only other alternative is to look for conciliation. But this does not achieve much.

 

I don't think the world has moved on from Marx and Engels, I haven't seen how that is the case. Successful economies do require harmony in the workplace. But at what price is harmony worth? If staff are getting paid well then there is more reason for there to be harmony in the workplace and less union action. This is obvious. But when the worker has grievances surrounding pay he/she understandably is not too concerned for the harmony. Why should he care about the profitability and sustainability of the company when it is already shafting him?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yep.

 

But why do you say they are indolent? My impression of the 70s was the strikers of all kinds were getting paid low wages or were not getting expected pay rises.

[Sebrof]

My devotion to the religion of anarchism is no different to your devotion to capitalism. To call one a religion is to call your values and beliefs part of one too.

 

Hardly. The only time I spout on about the free market is when I am addressing one of your misconceptions.

 

I am not wedded to any system, I just want something that balances efficiency and humanity. As time goes by I find my views changing in response to new information.

 

For some time, I have been persuaded that on balance the free market provides the best answer. But it is not written in stone. Recently, I have been as appalled as you are by the dreadful things done by bankers, and the woeful response of politicians. Unlike you, I take the view that that represents primarily a failure of regulation, rather than a failure of the whole system.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Do you not think you are wedded to capitalism then? I imagine the shift in opinions that you have are within the narrow confines of capitalist theory or belief. We are not really talking about religions but different perspectives.

 

I do ramble on about socialist theory and perspectives behind my views, whereas you do not need to because the workings of capitalism are already apparent. I would also say that I am not completely tied to anarchism as I believe communist critiques do make sense. This I am still working out.

 

I am interested in your views though in regard to the questions I asked in the previous to last post about the harmony in the workplace and what should have happened in the car industry.

 

I'm trying to build up the effort to respond to one of your posts soon, but gee I'm really losing the will to live reading the drivel you've posted in this thread.

 

I will try and make an effort to post some more shite and maybe it will send you on your way, but it has yet to be seen what you may post. Go on, push yourself!

[macmannin]

You boring,boring man.You spoil every thread .

[thesultanofsheight]

You boring,boring man.You spoil every thread .

 

Wondering when the One Liner would come in. Do I need to be a bit more 'rock n roll' then?

 

You just don't get it do you? You bore the arse of most people here and most posters feel like committing ritual suicide when they get half way through one of your tortuous arguments about absolutely nothing.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You boring,boring man.You spoil every thread .

 

Wondering when the One Liner would come in. Do I need to be a bit more 'rock n roll' then?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You just don't get it do you? You bore the arse of most people here and most posters feel like committing ritual suicide when they get half way through one of your tortuous arguments about absolutely nothing.

 

It isn't absolutely nothing because the thread digressed by talking about whether unions are their own worst enemy. If there really was anything more to say about the position of Shoprite workers then it would be commented on and said, but I am having debate with people who want to have it. It's about politics and political theory. I do think my posts often get too long but not massively longer than some others and the language I use is a bit repetitive and admittedly stale at times. But ok, why do you think it is so boring?

[thesultanofsheight]

It isn't absolutely nothing because the thread digressed by talking about whether unions are their own worst enemy. If there really was anything more to say about the position of Shoprite workers then it would be commented on and said, but I am having debate with people who want to have it. It's about politics and political theory. I do think my posts often get too long but not massively longer than some others and the language I use is a bit repetitive and admittedly stale at times. But ok, why do you think it is so boring?

 

I think you suffer from an extreme form of attention deficit syndrome as you just can't help yourself by posting unbelievably long dull posts in threads just because you think it makes you look intelligent in the eyes of other people. Your arguments are always the same and you never win people just give up and would rather curl up and die rather than get yet another rambling reply that when you analyse it says absolutely nothing.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you suffer from an extreme form of attention deficit syndrome as you just can't help yourself by posting unbelievably long dull posts in threads just because you think it makes you look intelligent in the eyes of other people. Your arguments are always the same and you never win people just give up and would rather curl up and die rather than get yet another rambling reply that when you analyse it says absolutely nothing.

 

Still being polite.... Ok, so they are dull because the arguments are always the same, fair enough, but the problem is that the topics basically all relate to the same thing if they are about work, as this one is. I am not out to win, I state my opinion and then it is criticised and I defend it. Not out to look intelligent as I can imagine that few on here give two shits who I am.

[Freggyragh]

Try and re-read this 100 word sentence. Does it make sense to you? You are not just the worst writer on these threads, your writing is utter garbage. You are the pub bore of ManxForums because you cannot structure an argument, a paragraph or even a sentence:

 

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.