Unions cause unemployment

18 Sep 2010

I am very unfamiliar with unions, having never been in a job that has required membership. Most of what I have learnt about unions has been from reading debate here and then follow up research on the net.
From what I read into this the unions can play a vital role in the protection of employees against some of the big employers. The problems seam to start when the unions push too far and ask for more than is financially viable of the companies. It seams to me that some unions or maybe their leaders, are unable to police them selves, and for want of a better Fraze, get "pissed on power"
Is this a far analysis or have I got it completely wrong?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Too Hot
And lets not forget that the constant pressure to improve pay and conditions results in it becoming more expensive to employ people and therefore potentially creating a barrier to employers taking on new staff.
I was in the shipping industry in the 1970's and the Union was a closed shop. No option but to join. By the end of the 1970's the Unions had negotiated 1 on, 1 off - ie a full day in the UK at home (on fullpay) for every day spent at sea on the basis that it was abhorrent to spend your life away from home. It seemed great at the time until all the British Companies either sold out to Far Eastern Operators wh did not have such conditions or themselves moved out of UK jurisdiction to cut costs. The shipping industry remains a vital global industry but constant union pressure sent Companies to the wall and from 1978 - 1983 there were massive redundancies as the UK Merchant fleet virtually disappeared to flags of convenience.
So, who was to blame here then? Without any shadow of doubt the Unions by prressurising and forcing the seemingly wonderful conditions made the UK merchant fleet uncompetitive on a global scale and the result was hundreds of thousands of redundancies (including me) from an industry as old as Britain itself. The storyof stell, motor and coalis just the same, but with different characters.

Ah yes, the benevolent Britsih Shipping Companies, who during the Second World War had the following rule;
Under British law when a ship was sunk the obligations of the shipowner to pay the crew's wages went with it. Those fortunate to complete their Atlantic passages received their pay in full. Those whose ships went down, including the relatives of those killed, would, unless they were fortunate to work for one of the more philanthropic lines, only receive wages due up to the day of the sinking.
Full article here;
Really interesting reading about the conditions suffered by British working people in the 20s, 30s and 40s.
Perhaps the Union leaders of the 70s had been on one or two Convoys and remembered exactly how the conditions were and wanted to ensure that it was not like that for future seafarers? Or maybe there are some amoung us who think that the conditions of the 30s and 40s would fit in quite nicely with todays business models.
"These were the men... upon whom Great Britain called for a life-line during the years of war, and these were the men whose contract ended when the torpedo struck. For the owners had protected their profits to the very end ; a seaman's wages ended when his ship went down, no matter where, how, or in what horror."19[/i
John

18 Sep 2010

“In my view, the language of some union leaders who talk about the evil of capitalism, the class struggle and a call for a national strike turns most workers off. Most employees don’t identify with these terms, let alone believe in them. The public face of unions is represented by some very extreme views from high profile union leaders and if non-members are seeing those people as representative of the union movement, it is not surprising that unions hold little appeal for a majority of the workforce.”
Or...........
"Mccluskey has publicly declared that his policy will be to say “no cuts to jobs; no pay freezes; no cuts to pensions and no cuts to services”. For the average Private Sector employer that works with UNITE, those words make employers and employees very nervous. Maybe this and the high profile disputes at BA and BAA is the reason for the decline in Unite membership by 5.3% in the last year".
IF this idiot was to be listened too, how many of his membership would find themselves still in work in 12 months time I wonder?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
And lets not forget that the constant pressure to improve pay and conditions results in it becoming more expensive to employ people and therefore potentially creating a barrier to employers taking on new staff.
I was in the shipping industry in the 1970's and the Union was a closed shop. No option but to join. By the end of the 1970's the Unions had negotiated 1 on, 1 off - ie a full day in the UK at home (on fullpay) for every day spent at sea on the basis that it was abhorrent to spend your life away from home. It seemed great at the time until all the British Companies either sold out to Far Eastern Operators wh did not have such conditions or themselves moved out of UK jurisdiction to cut costs. The shipping industry remains a vital global industry but constant union pressure sent Companies to the wall and from 1978 - 1983 there were massive redundancies as the UK Merchant fleet virtually disappeared to flags of convenience.
So, who was to blame here then? Without any shadow of doubt the Unions by prressurising and forcing the seemingly wonderful conditions made the UK merchant fleet uncompetitive on a global scale and the result was hundreds of thousands of redundancies (including me) from an industry as old as Britain itself. The storyof stell, motor and coalis just the same, but with different characters.

Ah yes, the benevolent Britsih Shipping Companies, who during the Second World War had the following rule;
Under British law when a ship was sunk the obligations of the shipowner to pay the crew's wages went with it. Those fortunate to complete their Atlantic passages received their pay in full. Those whose ships went down, including the relatives of those killed, would, unless they were fortunate to work for one of the more philanthropic lines, only receive wages due up to the day of the sinking.
Full article here;
Really interesting reading about the conditions suffered by British working people in the 20s, 30s and 40s.
Perhaps the Union leaders of the 70s had been on one or two Convoys and remembered exactly how the conditions were and wanted to ensure that it was not like that for future seafarers? Or maybe there are some amoung us who think that the conditions of the 30s and 40s would fit in quite nicely with todays business models.
"These were the men... upon whom Great Britain called for a life-line during the years of war, and these were the men whose contract ended when the torpedo struck. For the owners had protected their profits to the very end ; a seaman's wages ended when his ship went down, no matter where, how, or in what horror."19
Does any one know, just for comparison, is this any different than what the Royal Navy would have received during the same period? I ask as I do not know

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Good managers can stop strikes any time they try.

Can they really?
What like give in to the demands of the union, or they will go on strike, kind of trying?
It was very funny with the current Unite strikes.
From memory BA put an offer on the table that was rejected. After more negotiations the offer was asked by the unions to be put back onto the table, which BA then refused to do.
That was nothing to do with managers, that was to do with the fact that the unions wanted to call ALL the shots, of which BA was not prepared to do, nor would I in their situation.
Of course they can,you assume people strike for the fun of it,the fact is people are all pretty similar under the management is about achieving most successful companies recognise this.
BA has looked for confrontation,and now has economists shake their head at the mistakes BA has made.
Of course I do not...where have I stated that exactly?
So BA looked for confrontation? Where exactly?
As has been stated already which some just seem to fail to grasp, is that when the Unions start bleating on about working and pay conditions, to meet those conditions is going to cost money. That over a period of time then makes that industry or even a company,ineffective to compete on a financial level.
As I find out almost on a daily basis in my business in the private sector....there is always somebody out there willing to do the job for cheaper than I can do it for.
The money has to be found from somewhere to be able to satisfy whatever conditions the Unions are asking for, then a situation can arise where it is no longer viable to be able to compete, certainly when you are dealing on a global market, just like BA is trying to do.
The Unions in this dispute will not be happy until BA are on their knees,maybe then the members of BA will lose their jobs, for I bet within three years after all these strikes BA will cut back it's workforce...it is inevitable,
That is the time then for people to look at the Unions and ask themselves questions.

A good article on the failure of Ayling to learn from the past.
Unions exist to protect their members,nothing problems BA faces are ones of poor managemnt.
Ayling was at least 3 Chief Executives ago....and had nothing to do with the current union dispute other than the fact he did not address some of the issues during his time in charge.

18 Sep 2010

I THINK, from memory, as a relative worked in the shipyards during the war, so am relying on secondhand info here, that the Royal Navy men were paid when their ships were sunk.
However, even the Royal Navy has been subject to pay cuts and subsequent "industrial action" against them. See below, notice also the "fairness" of the cuts across the ranks.
In September 1931 the National Government led by Ramsay MacDonald announced a reduction in pay for sailors serving in the Royal Navy. The actual reductions were Admiral (7 per cent), Lieutenant Commander (3.7 per cent), Chief Petty Officer (11.8 per cent) and Able Seaman (23 per cent).
Copeman thought this was unfair and helped organize what became known as the Invergordon Mutiny. Copeman was a member of the strike committee that persuaded the sailors on 15 ships of the Atlantic Fleet not to obey orders until the pay cuts were reviewed. The strike lasted for two days and was called off when the wage cuts were withdrawn. As a leader of the revolt, Copeman was victimized, and was forced to leave the Royal Navy.
In edit, after reading a bit more about the above, this snipit came to light,
The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound, bringing Britain's economic troubles to a head that forced it off the Gold Standard on 20 September 1931.
So, anyone care to blame the Unions for that one???
John

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I am very unfamiliar with unions, having never been in a job that has required membership. Most of what I have learnt about unions has been from reading debate here and then follow up research on the net.
From what I read into this the unions can play a vital role in the protection of employees against some of the big employers. The problems seam to start when the unions push too far and ask for more than is financially viable of the companies. It seams to me that some unions or maybe their leaders, are unable to police them selves, and for want of a better Fraze, get "pissed on power"
Is this a far analysis or have I got it completely wrong?

I think that is a fair analysis Blue. As ever, no one side causes all the problems.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777
I think that is a fair analysis Blue. As ever, no one side causes all the problems.

But one side normally starts it. :twisted:

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
I THINK, from memory, as a relative worked in the shipyards during the war, so am relying on secondhand info here, that the Royal Navy men were paid when their ships were sunk.
However, even the Royal Navy has been subject to pay cuts and subsequent "industrial action" against them. See below, notice also the "fairness" of the cuts across the ranks.
In September 1931 the National Government led by Ramsay MacDonald announced a reduction in pay for sailors serving in the Royal Navy. The actual reductions were Admiral (7 per cent), Lieutenant Commander (3.7 per cent), Chief Petty Officer (11.8 per cent) and Able Seaman (23 per cent).
Copeman thought this was unfair and helped organize what became known as the Invergordon Mutiny. Copeman was a member of the strike committee that persuaded the sailors on 15 ships of the Atlantic Fleet not to obey orders until the pay cuts were reviewed. The strike lasted for two days and was called off when the wage cuts were withdrawn. As a leader of the revolt, Copeman was victimized, and was forced to leave the Royal Navy.
In edit, after reading a bit more about the above, this snipit came to light,
The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound, bringing Britain's economic troubles to a head that forced it off the Gold Standard on 20 September 1931.
Why on earth are you drawing referencefrom the 1930's?
I am talking about a modern, well managed shipping fleet whose officers and crews ended up so well paid and so priviliged with working conditions that the shipping companies could no longer compete and that was the end of the British Merchant Fleet as a global entity. I was there, I was affected - this is exactly how it happened.
So, anyone care to blame the Unions for that one???
John

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Too Hot
And lets not forget that the constant pressure to improve pay and conditions results in it becoming more expensive to employ people and therefore potentially creating a barrier to employers taking on new staff.
I was in the shipping industry in the 1970's and the Union was a closed shop. No option but to join. By the end of the 1970's the Unions had negotiated 1 on, 1 off - ie a full day in the UK at home (on fullpay) for every day spent at sea on the basis that it was abhorrent to spend your life away from home. It seemed great at the time until all the British Companies either sold out to Far Eastern Operators wh did not have such conditions or themselves moved out of UK jurisdiction to cut costs. The shipping industry remains a vital global industry but constant union pressure sent Companies to the wall and from 1978 - 1983 there were massive redundancies as the UK Merchant fleet virtually disappeared to flags of convenience.
So, who was to blame here then? Without any shadow of doubt the Unions by prressurising and forcing the seemingly wonderful conditions made the UK merchant fleet uncompetitive on a global scale and the result was hundreds of thousands of redundancies (including me) from an industry as old as Britain itself. The storyof stell, motor and coalis just the same, but with different characters.

Sorry, but this is spectacularly one-eyed.
Cars first. The British car industry failed because British car manufacturers eschewed the things that made Ford and Toyota successful, like work organization and marketting, for needless technical complexity, under capitalized badly organized plants and esoteric designs that were, frankly, suicidal. It wasn't the AUEW who designed the square steering wheel on the Austin Allegro, or the Austin Princess /Ambassador, a car so bad that owning one should be sufficient cause for anyone to be sectioned. It wasn't the unions who designed the Morris Marina / Ital, or, who once the Mini was successful, refused to redesign it for more than twenty years so that the 1950s innovations became 1970s anachronisms.
Wages and conditions as the cause of industrial decline? Why does no-one ever ask how much money the owners were taking out of industries while bleating about the cost of British labour? The reality is that many Britihs industries were hopelessly skewed and skewered by the insistence on paying short term dividends instead of engaging in long term investment. Nationalization of key industries didn't help, since politicians are all too prone to seek short term solutions.

19 Sep 2010

the ruling elite (men behind the curtain) are laughing even louder.
it was'nt the unions WORLDWIDE that lent credit created out of thin air (fractional reserve) at interest, to people who could'nt pay it back, packaged the loans up and resold them around the world to other greedy bastards, causing the banking system to collapse saved only by the taxpayers who now have to pay with austerity and job losses.
musta bin the unions faults in greece, ireland, portugal, france, iceland and britain. probably the united auto workers fault in the u.s. and i.g. metal in germany.
greedy bastards them phuckers in unions espech in them public services. they are all too small to save and not one of the too big to fails (big bonuses)
must be a lot of amnesia about.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411
I`m sure that most people would accept that there have been times in history when the union movement has acheived great things for ordinary workers and that without it we would have more poverty in this country.
But have we now come too far ....is the union movement as a whole actually causing unemployment and by involving themselves in national politics have many union leaders become so distanced from their members that they haven`t a clue what they doing ?
When it comes to the crunch, would you rather take a little less out of the company you work for and keep your job or would you keep asking for more until the inevitable happens and the company simply can`t afford to pay ?

Just answering the original post. From my point of view its not taking less or more I want but a fair distribution of the money. For example my employer currently tries to cut the staff wage bill by natural wastage and in other departments redundancies. We had last year 0.5% rise and this year the offer is 0.4%. We did before that have two large rises but whats the point in large rises if for the next 4-5 years they just claw it back with piddly ones? Another point is our company just upgraded its security system :twisted: at the cost of around 3 million. This improved security system means you have an ID card that you just wave in front of a scanner and it lets you in. The old system you had to swipe the card and enter a unique pin to get in a building. So with the old one if I dropped my card outside the building a thief could not get in but with the new improved security system they can! dunno

Thats an upgrade lol

Waste of fucking money is what it is and could have been used to pay for wages. I could on and on and on and on about waste where I work all of which is money that if saved could mean less job cuts or a better pay rise. So I opt to try and take more and they should try harder to save more and make better decisions.