Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:14 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: You seriously think the re-emergence of "Keep the red flag flying" is going to endear Corbyn/Labour to the electorate? seriously you are another that needs a reality check. The emergence of McClusky on the stage at the victory parade should have been something Corbyn should have been looking to avoid. Re-nationalisation and increased union powers - who is seriously going to vote for that? Re-nationalisation: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/na ... ay-public/ "68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately." Sal Paradise wrote: I challenge you to prove the last statement. Union membership is falling - strange that - when the financial benefits in your strange mind are so obvious!! According to The Wage Impact of Trade Unions in the UK Public and Private Sectors by David Blanchflower, there's an estimated 10% mark up on wages in the UK for those in unions compared to matched individuals not in unions, with wage dispersion also 25% lower in firms with unions. Union membership is falling due to reasons such as de-industrialisation, more flexibile labour markets than previously and legislation which has weakened unions; I recommend you read Blanchflower's International Patterns of Union Membership if you want further explanation.

Sal Paradise wrote: You seriously think the re-emergence of "Keep the red flag flying" is going to endear Corbyn/Labour to the electorate? seriously you are another that needs a reality check. The emergence of McClusky on the stage at the victory parade should have been something Corbyn should have been looking to avoid. Re-nationalisation and increased union powers - who is seriously going to vote for that? Re-nationalisation: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/na ... ay-public/ "68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately." Sal Paradise wrote: I challenge you to prove the last statement. Union membership is falling - strange that - when the financial benefits in your strange mind are so obvious!! According to The Wage Impact of Trade Unions in the UK Public and Private Sectors by David Blanchflower, there's an estimated 10% mark up on wages in the UK for those in unions compared to matched individuals not in unions, with wage dispersion also 25% lower in firms with unions. Union membership is falling due to reasons such as de-industrialisation, more flexibile labour markets than previously and legislation which has weakened unions; I recommend you read Blanchflower's International Patterns of Union Membership if you want further explanation.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:47 pm  

Saint #1 wrote: Re-nationalisation: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/na ... ay-public/ "68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately." Of course they do, because they think they're being ripped off, and the only way of knowing that is to know how much energy would be if it was still being provided by the government so a comparison could be made. People like to moan and whine. The railways are already nationalised, the tracks and infrastructure are owned by the government, all the rail companies do is run the service, I'm pretty sure they don't even own the rolling stock.

Saint #1 wrote: Re-nationalisation: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/na ... ay-public/ "68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately." Of course they do, because they think they're being ripped off, and the only way of knowing that is to know how much energy would be if it was still being provided by the government so a comparison could be made. People like to moan and whine. The railways are already nationalised, the tracks and infrastructure are owned by the government, all the rail companies do is run the service, I'm pretty sure they don't even own the rolling stock.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:50 am  

I have found it to be the case. If you don't have a unionised workforce the employer dictates what the payrise will be so if they say it's 0% that's what you get (as has happened to many over the past three decades).

Does the employer dictate? Surely the market dictates. If the employer wants to hang on to his best staff he will incentivise them or they may move on. The days of the village working in the village pit has long gone.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:37 am  

Exiled down south wrote:

Does the employer dictate?

Yep.

Surely the market dictates.

Never seen a cheque signed by "The Market".

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:19 pm  

I work in the technology sector and I can assure you that management concern themselves with the better staff leaving to competitors and as such pay well and provide amazing working environments. I would argue that's market driven.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:13 pm  

Exiled down south wrote: I work in the technology sector and I can assure you that management concern themselves with the better staff leaving to competitors and as such pay well and provide amazing working environments. I would argue that's market driven. It may be for a small minority but for the majority of people it's not. Businesses do not give money away so easily. Certainly any national company or multinational will have very tightly controlled budgets for things like labour cost increases. Those that don't usually fall into financial difficulty. BobbyD wrote: The railways are already nationalised, the tracks and infrastructure are owned by the government, all the rail companies do is run the service, I'm pretty sure they don't even own the rolling stock. They are also subsidised to the tune of billions e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ds-subsidy Where's the sense in that?

Exiled down south wrote: I work in the technology sector and I can assure you that management concern themselves with the better staff leaving to competitors and as such pay well and provide amazing working environments. I would argue that's market driven. It may be for a small minority but for the majority of people it's not. Businesses do not give money away so easily. Certainly any national company or multinational will have very tightly controlled budgets for things like labour cost increases. Those that don't usually fall into financial difficulty. BobbyD wrote: The railways are already nationalised, the tracks and infrastructure are owned by the government, all the rail companies do is run the service, I'm pretty sure they don't even own the rolling stock. They are also subsidised to the tune of billions e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ds-subsidy Where's the sense in that?

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:49 pm  

Exiled down south wrote:

I work in the technology sector and I can assure you that management concern themselves with the better staff leaving to competitors and as such pay well and provide amazing working environments. I would argue that's market driven.

And this is representative of the (greater) whole?

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:17 pm  

McClennan wrote: It may be for a small minority but for the majority of people it's not. Businesses do not give money away so easily. Certainly any national company or multinational will have very tightly controlled budgets for things like labour cost increases. Those that don't usually fall into financial difficulty. Yep. Most jobs in this country could actually be done to the same or similar standard by someone else. So an individual business' costs, profits and circumstances are generally the factor behind wages for most people. It's generally only in very (relatively) small markets or skilled labour where the market drives the wages. McClennan wrote: They are also subsidised to the tune of billions e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ds-subsidy Where's the sense in that? Yep. A system setup purely to provide profit to private companies at the expense of both the taxpayer and the travellers.

McClennan wrote: It may be for a small minority but for the majority of people it's not. Businesses do not give money away so easily. Certainly any national company or multinational will have very tightly controlled budgets for things like labour cost increases. Those that don't usually fall into financial difficulty. Yep. Most jobs in this country could actually be done to the same or similar standard by someone else. So an individual business' costs, profits and circumstances are generally the factor behind wages for most people. It's generally only in very (relatively) small markets or skilled labour where the market drives the wages. McClennan wrote: They are also subsidised to the tune of billions e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ds-subsidy Where's the sense in that? Yep. A system setup purely to provide profit to private companies at the expense of both the taxpayer and the travellers.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:54 am  

Exiled down south wrote:
I work in the technology sector and I can assure you that management concern themselves with the better staff leaving to competitors and as such pay well and provide amazing working environments. I would argue that's market driven.


And this is representative of the (greater) whole?

So let me give you another example;

The hourly rate for carers has been raised in a friends residential home as competing homes are paying a higher rate and staff are leaving. Market driven.

Its not exclusive to 1st world countries, I've seen similar examples in emerging markets across the globe.

So that's 2 examples, different sectors, different skill sets. How many more do you require before you can see beyond the pit?

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:54 pm  

Exiled down south wrote:

So let me give you another example;

The hourly rate for carers has been raised in a friends residential home as competing homes are paying a higher rate and staff are leaving. Market driven.

Its not exclusive to 1st world countries, I've seen similar examples in emerging markets across the globe.

So that's 2 examples, different sectors, different skill sets. How many more do you require before you can see beyond the pit?

Again, you're talking about a market that isn't representative.

There is a shortage of carers (mainly because the pay, hours and conditions are so bloody awful), so of course there is market competition for those people willing to do the job.

Most jobs aren't like that. Most jobs can be done by someone else and have plenty of people willing to do that job.