Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:21 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I take it that you've "benefited" from the strike action of others though ?

Strike action should only ever be as a last resort and despite the "workers getting paid whilst on strike and then getting double pay" story, it is usual to get nothing whilst on strike (and rightly so).
"Tigertot" gave a whole list of "benefits" that we all now receive, that just wouldnt have happened without the Unions and many of these would not have happened without some form of strike action.

Of course there is a balance in all of these situations and the most successful companies/employers treat their workforce properly and usually, this is to the benefit of all.

Just for the record, I too have never had to strike in 35 years of working but, I totally respect the right to take strike action as a last resort.

I've benefited nothing from work shy socialists who ruined our industries.

Team Corbyn, Team JEALOUS

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:27 pm  

tigertot wrote:

You can add weekends off, holidays with pay, maternity/paternity pay, sick pay, end discrimination, child labour, training, minimum wage as well. All things the capitalist media told us would destroy UK industry & all things a big proportion would happily weaken.

Makes you wonder with all these benefits bestowed on the workers why are we less productive than virtually every other country in the civilised world?

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:41 pm  

PCollinson1990 wrote:

I've benefited nothing from work shy socialists who ruined our industries.

Team Corbyn, Team JEALOUS

Do you get holiday pay or payments when you are off sick ??
Do you class miners as "work shy socialists" or school teachers, firemen, nurses even doctors.
Apart from miners, the others would be classed as "middle class" yet, all of them have had cause to take strike action over the years.
Look at the bigger picture and not just the bit's with a "Thatcher" blue rinse.

Perhaps you think that we should still be sending 8 year olds down t'pit and forcing people to work 60 hours a week
Shame on you.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:34 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you get holiday pay or payments when you are off sick ??
Do you class miners as "work shy socialists" or school teachers, firemen, nurses even doctors.
Apart from miners, the others would be classed as "middle class" yet, all of them have had cause to take strike action over the years.
Look at the bigger picture and not just the bit's with a "Thatcher" blue rinse.

Perhaps you think that we should still be sending 8 year olds down t'pit and forcing people to work 60 hours a week
Shame on you.

A lot of these progression in working rules had little to do with union involvement - the 1833 factories act stopped children working in the factories - the first union was formed in 1834.

Unions restrictive practises have also held industries back - Barbara Dean who recently died brought the workers out to prevent progress towards digital/computer plate printing. Perhaps if they accepted the inevitable and helped their members re-train that would have been a better use of union money and time. This happens all the time business find more efficient ways of doing things but this progress is blocked by the unions.

The problem with striking is the union leaders who organise it don't suffer any financial loss so it becomes a power struggle. McClusky uses his position as a union leader to advance his ultra-left ideaolgy - got shown his backside when he came up against Ineos

Another is the union's inability to treat individual disputes on their merit. They take a view that they can't be seen to be giving in in one chapel in case it means giving in in another even if logic suggests its the right thing to do -

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:50 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you get holiday pay or payments when you are off sick ??
Do you class miners as "work shy socialists" or school teachers, firemen, nurses even doctors.
Apart from miners, the others would be classed as "middle class" yet, all of them have had cause to take strike action over the years.
Look at the bigger picture and not just the bit's with a "Thatcher" blue rinse.

Perhaps you think that we should still be sending 8 year olds down t'pit and forcing people to work 60 hours a week
Shame on you.

no, I don't get holiday pay, or sick pay. I work for myself and get paid for what I do.

it's simple, take personal responsibility, don't expect handouts.

the Unions destroy everything when they becone inolved.

ask yourself why Unison needs to be based in central London and recently moved to plush new offices, why does it need a subsidised bar, for "the benefit of the workers", utter sham.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:53 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

A lot of these progression in working rules had little to do with union involvement - the 1833 factories act stopped children working in the factories - the first union was formed in 1834.

Unions restrictive practises have also held industries back - Barbara Dean who recently died brought the workers out to prevent progress towards digital/computer plate printing. Perhaps if they accepted the inevitable and helped their members re-train that would have been a better use of union money and time. This happens all the time business find more efficient ways of doing things but this progress is blocked by the unions.

The problem with striking is the union leaders who organise it don't suffer any financial loss so it becomes a power struggle. McClusky uses his position as a union leader to advance his ultra-left ideaolgy - got shown his backside when he came up against Ineos

Another is the union's inability to treat individual disputes on their merit. They take a view that they can't be seen to be giving in in one chapel in case it means giving in in another even if logic suggests its the right thing to do -

don't start involving facts, you'll be telling them the Earth isn't flat next!

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:07 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

A lot of these progression in working rules had little to do with union involvement - the 1833 factories act stopped children working in the factories - the first union was formed in 1834.

Unions restrictive practises have also held industries back - Barbara Dean who recently died brought the workers out to prevent progress towards digital/computer plate printing. Perhaps if they accepted the inevitable and helped their members re-train that would have been a better use of union money and time. This happens all the time business find more efficient ways of doing things but this progress is blocked by the unions.

The problem with striking is the union leaders who organise it don't suffer any financial loss so it becomes a power struggle. McClusky uses his position as a union leader to advance his ultra-left ideaolgy - got shown his backside when he came up against Ineos

Another is the union's inability to treat individual disputes on their merit. They take a view that they can't be seen to be giving in in one chapel in case it means giving in in another even if logic suggests its the right thing to do -

I actually agree with much of your post.
However, you choose to look as one side of the equation and not offer any balance.
To deny that unions have had ANY positive contribution to the well being of workers is pure denial and there are some who would love to treat their workers with utter contempt.
Even with the legislation already in place, some employers STILL flaunt the rules on working conditions, minimum wage legislation and the current hot topic "equal pay".

It's quite incredible that you cant see this (or choose not to) and instead choose to cherry pick one small aspect of my post.
Not everything that occurs to improve the plight of the "working man" results in strike action and nor should it, as I mentioned previously, it (striking) should only ever be a last resort and in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:28 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I actually agree with much of your post.
However, you choose to look as one side of the equation and not offer any balance.
To deny that unions have had ANY positive contribution to the well being of workers is pure denial and there are some who would love to treat their workers with utter contempt.
Even with the legislation already in place, some employers STILL flaunt the rules on working conditions, minimum wage legislation and the current hot topic "equal pay".

It's quite incredible that you cant see this (or choose not to) and instead choose to cherry pick one small aspect of my post.
Not everything that occurs to improve the plight of the "working man" results in strike action and nor should it, as I mentioned previously, it (striking) should only ever be a last resort and in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary.

THe unions do have a role in supporting some workers - in my experience workers in businesses without a union presence have better conditions, better pay and better benefits. I have never felt the need of union to either support a disciplinary or my T&Cs. For all the good the unions do has to be offset against the negative impact they have on business.

The gender gap needs to be looked at on a like for like basis i.e. do men and women doing the same job earn the same monies. All that will happen here is women will positively discriminated against to get them in higher jobs simply to reduce the gender pay gap.

Most employers value they employees yes you might have a few who view them as canon fodder but these are in the minority

Much of the change in working conditions is just natural social evolution - union positive impact is small on a macro level. The Health & Safety act evolved through disaster e.g. factory fires/explosions etc as knowledge was gained from investigation same with asbestos.

The problem with unions is the leadership who want to be celebrities and create situations to allow themselves maximum publicity. The SWT dispute is about keeping the union in the forefront of attention.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:23 am  

lets not forget the Union cheif who was living in a Council home and getting £120k a year, "workers rights"

laughable organisations, laughable politics.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (2) : Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:29 pm  

PCollinson1990 wrote:

lets not forget the Union cheif who was living in a Council home and getting £120k a year, "workers rights"

laughable organisations, laughable politics.

Crikey, there's been a hell of a lot of thread drift lately.

Let's not also forget that one of the largest businessmen the "Little Englanders" wheeled out prior to the referendum, moved all his production of vacuums & washing machines out to Malaysia & Singapore.

Perhaps he'll do a u-turn, once those nasty Europeans have been shipped out.