Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Unions cause unemployment

last reply
48 replies
2.3k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sorry Kaz, I'm not sure which aspect of flower's post you are referring to...
What this Mervin King you mean?

Oh dear.....I would have thought the very man the unions would have despised. The very man the unions would have never had at their TUC meetings, maybe that is why he is only the second to have addressed the TUC membership?
My the unions really are down to the last few speakers at the TUC.
Very easy to spout drivel with a 5 million quid pension pot, and a fecking huge salary eh?
Back to the op....
Quote by flower411
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 ?

In the private sector people would take a little less and keep their jobs, but in the public sector with the unions calling the shots, they just want want and take take. Look at Unite and the current strikes going on to give us all a lesson in union negotiations.
In the darkest part of union history there were many industries being hugely subsidised by the taxpayer....the railways and the car industry to name two. The unions and their pay and working demands eventually led to the closure of those industries, along with Government who simply was not going to keep pumping taxpayers money into a endless black hole.
The unions and their members never thought that would happen so just kept on with their demands and their strike actions. Funny how the strikes are now so few and far between when you compare now with the 70's?
The public sector have continually asked for more, until there became a time when there was simply nothing left, that just does not happen as much in the private sector....I wonder why?
Have these people actually learned anything over the last 30 years? You cannot keep taking what simply is not there, as the BA workers I am sure will find out soon enough as the public have become sick and tired and are now sourcing other airlines.
The only reason that I can see he was there was to try and talk the unions into not striking.

I bet this speech went down like a lead balloon at the conference....seems he is asking for the very opposite of what the unions are threatening.
Apparently there were a lot of union members that were not at all happy about the Governor of the Bank of England being at the TUC conference....all 50 of them apparently. lol The other 25 were asleep.:giggle:
What I would like to see in this country is more Cooperatives, then there will be no place for unions wink
Quote by Theladyisaminx
What I would like to see in this country is more Cooperatives, then there will be no place for unions wink

What a bit like this ya mean?

Tea and biscuits.....lovely.
Quote by kentswingers777
What I would like to see in this country is more Cooperatives, then there will be no place for unions wink

What a bit like this ya mean?

Tea and biscuits.....lovely.
Like minds have to understand the concept, as I don't see you as a like mind, I am not even going to explain. :-P
Need unions and need them to be stronger than they have been for 25 years. Corporate faceless business is destroying the social cohesion of society. Either that or start handing out lithium tablets sad
Quote by Lost
Need unions and need them to be stronger than they have been for 25 years. Corporate faceless business is destroying the social cohesion of society. Either that or start handing out lithium tablets sad

Well said Lost
Too many of Thatchers 'babies' about ruining the country, banking industry, outsourcing manufacturing offshore because on paper it's cheaper, and when it all goes 'boobs up' the tax payer has to bail them out/support them, whilst they mainly sit in the sun counting their bonuses rather than admitting they got it wrong and handing the money back. Their answer, well they don't have one and history is covered up as they come up with their next plan, usually involving cutting wages, employment benefits, laying people off, cherry picking things so as to privatise via the back door and ruin that as well.
Some one mentioned car industry. Well that strike was 70s and 80s, and things have moved on so without much effective 'union' opposition in the last 20 years look what's happened to the UK car industry. Besides Morgan and Ginetta, hardly car giants, name one other UK car company ?
Lets look at some of the other privately run 'success stories' in the last 2 decades, UK private coal industry, Gas, Electricity, Rail (manufacture or operating), or Water companies any one ?
Now look at their continental equivalents in say Germany, argueably our nearest equivalent northern European comparitor.
Sure you'll agree quite a difference, and with strong unions rather than weak 'where's my short term bonus' management
Well said HnS.
Could also point to Jimmy Reid and Upper Clyde shipbuilders. A bit back in time but proves the point.
On a slightly different tack, whatever happened to the "Workers Councils" that were going to be set up in all medium to large companies? Think it was an EU idea, pretty sure they have them on the Continent.
John
I would be the first to condemn the mindless industrial action of the 1970s and 1980s, where an entire workforce would down tools at the drop of the hat over minor issues. The car industry is a good example, and there is no doubt it contributed to the downfall of mass manufacturing in this country.
But those days are long gone now, and although you have the odd rogue branch or militant leader, in the main there is no doubt that industrial relations have improved immensely.
I know of one large private employer (a global business) where unions and management have a positive relationship, and the union helps management achieve concessions from the workforce in return for long term investment.
Another union I know came up with a workable alternative to a closure plan for a factory. It delivered the savings the company needed and ended up being a win win for everyone.
So it is not fair or correct - as some on here would have us believe - that the union movement is there merely to cause disruption and malcontent.
A good employer will recognise they bring added value and can help take a workforce through necessary change.
But you will never hear this context in the newspapers. They only do black and white, not shades of grey.
Liking what you say Steve though I think rather than just the ideal of having mutual agreement between union and employer the union should have some sort of teeth in which they can ask the emplers to justify their actions, especially when, for instance, the companies show massive, or even just growth, share prices yet the cutbacks on workers is still implemented. Yes OK i realise that the reason some companies get share increases is by 'effeciency' savings but then why not just ask the shareholders to expect just a little less profit and look after the welfare of the workers making them in the first place.
Quote by HnS
Besides Morgan and Ginetta, hardly car giants, name one other UK car company ?

LTI

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Well said HnS.
Could also point to Jimmy Reid and Upper Clyde shipbuilders. A bit back in time but proves the point.
On a slightly different tack, whatever happened to the "Workers Councils" that were going to be set up in all medium to large companies? Think it was an EU idea, pretty sure they have them on the Continent.
John

John,
There are many other industries like Steel, Ship Building (actually briefly met Jimmy many many years ago, great to talk with).
Essex34m also mentioned LTI (aka London Taxi Int'l), though not sure many accept as a car per se, but yes I agree another niche 'car' manufacturer.
As for "Works Councils", they still exist and can be particularly effective, something our continental cousins are aware of. Think back a couple of years ago, sorry but another car example, and when BMW were facing the depths of the recent recession. The 'power' of the employer/employee BMW 'council' was well reported at the time in the UK media, as was the difference between what happened elsewhere within the BMW empire between different countries, i.e. BMW 'Germany' and jobs vs BMW 'UK' (aka MINI) and jobs.
Alternatively, compare and contrast with Vauxhall (UK) and Opel (Germany) when General Motors, owners of both, wanted to sell off their non-US divisions. The combined efforts in Germany were more successful than those in the UK, although General Motors eventually cancelled the sell off.
Am I belittling fiends within Oxford (MINI) and Ellesmere Port (Vauxhall)? No not in the slightest. Look at the records of both areas between employer/employee in the last 20 years, as well as those in non-UK owned car plants like Nissan, Honda and Toyota.
banghead It's sad that the UK media (particularly the print area where proprietors have their own political affiliations and agendas which usually go hand in hand with reducing their own experienced workforce and reliance on many that remain to 'fact' check or 'detect' stories via Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and Wikipedia) are so negative about things that don't agree with their owners view of their world, aka bottom line, bonus, etc. So their 'attack' on Bob Crow, amongst others, is only to be expected.
Whilst not defending him, you also need to look at the history of London Underground and the obscene amounts of money poured into their failed maintenance contract the other year, which could of been better spent in house with money left over to address a number of issues being raised by RMT members and non-Union employees of LU alike. Alternatively, look at any number of other PFI contracts......:small-print:
Quote by HnS
Essex34m also mentioned LTI (aka London Taxi Int'l), though not sure many accept as a car per se, but yes I agree another niche 'car' manufacturer.

Just me having a rare moment as a smartarse.
I have spent the last 8 years working in the railway industry, building and maintaining the infrastructure (a hugely simplified explanation) and I also work on the London Underground network and am also certificated to work on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) although with DLR, I rarely work on that, due to reasons I won't be going in to.
Some of the reasons Bob Crow wants strike action, I actually agree with, the latest strike (last week) was basically about the loss of jobs that could make a negative difference to the Underground system, his strikes about fair pay etc, I do not agree with, I do, to a certain degree, agree with the view of "You have a job, be grateful not greedy" because in this recession, they have had it pretty bloody good.
As long as Mr. Crow is in charge of RMT, I will not join them, purely because I feel he is out for his own agenda, which is purely to make a name for himself, and to fuel his ego.
There is a lot wrong with the railway industry, a lot that I can't see getting better for a number of years, if anything, they will get worse, and as wrong as this is, a lot of talk at track level is that "we need another Potter's Bar" because that will be the only thing that will change anything.(and it is my own personal opinion that something of that ilk will happen, perish the thought) It is sad that the only change will more than likely be caused by an horrific incident, rather than from a union which could and should be pushing to make changes the right way.
It has been mentioned that Crow may be rubbing his hands at the thought of holding the suits to ransom around the time of the Olympics, worse is to come, as there is talk of the Crossrail project taking over the running of the Underground, a huge amount of money is being spent by the Crossrail project in creating a series of tunnels similar to the Channel Tunnel to run underneath London, and various routes feeding into this, with 5 new stations being built, and some existing stations either being removed from the network, or being significanly developed, and all of this, tying into the Crossrail system.
These developments will lead to a huge shake-up of the transport system in London, and the way it is run, and these changes will no doubt have Mr. Crow chomping at the bit - I think there is a lot more trouble to come, and sadly, I think it will come from a union that seems to feel the way it conducts itself is fine in 2010, despite being run with a 1970s mentality.
And this potential 'battle' stirred up by Mr. Crow will lead (IMO) to RMT members causing themselves more trouble than they will solve.
That all makes a lot of sense Essex :thumbup:
Whilst I can see why some people might be persuaded that unions are the cause of unemployment within this country.......can any of those same people explain to me the rationale of large companies making huge profits who close UK plants, offices, etc and move the SAME work to countries which are still developing and,therefore, sources ( probably temporarily) of cheap labour????
This has happened so many times over the past two decades that it appears to be 'accepted' by many - presumably accepting that those companies who have made those huge profits owe NO obligation to their workforces at all.......OR to the UK ......except as a market.
I'm sure there are arguments against.......but given the option.....I'd ban ANY company taking such decisions from the UK markets altogether!!!.......If nothing else I'm sure it would make them hesitate before taking such decisions!!
trade unions have absolutely no effect on jobs or employment. absolutely no grasp of economy implicit in the question but excellent propagander at work here.
i thort it was the kosovans, the poles, the whities, the blackies, the muslims, al cia quader, osama bin liner, the lazy phuckers on the dole, the chinese, the claimants ?
the men behind the curtain are laughing their socks off now its the unions fault.
Same old...same old eh Guls? lol
I got bored with that after about ten seconds to be honest.
Did anyone actually spend the whole two minutes watching it?
Anyone with even the most basic grasp of economics cannot fail to see that Unions are the cause of unemployment. It is a facet of their very existence.
1) They push for higher wages than the free market can actually afford
2) They reduce the effectiveness of strong management and leadership
3) They push for working conditions that nullify competitive edge
As has been said many times before - weak management and a fear of the Unions led to extremee Union militancy, unsustainable wage demands and ineffecient practices which directly led to the collapse of UK shipping, car, steel and coal mining industries.
Look around - The private sector today is largely free of Union erntaglement and many companies have had to react to the current economic crisis by cutting costs, reducing inefficiencies and running leaner. In the public sector wheree management is weak and Unions still rool the roost there is now this idiotic threat of mass civil disobedience because the public service Unions fancy taking on the new government. Rubbish.
Unions cause unemployment and they are directly responsible for the loss of British manufacturing industry
:thumbup:
Cannot be more of a truthful statement Hot.
Quote by Too Hot
Anyone with even the most basic grasp of economics cannot fail to see that Unions are the cause of unemployment. It is a facet of their very existence.
1) They push for higher wages than the free market can actually afford
2) They reduce the effectiveness of strong management and leadership
3) They push for working conditions that nullify competitive edge
As has been said many times before - weak management and a fear of the Unions led to extremee Union militancy, unsustainable wage demands and ineffecient practices which directly led to the collapse of UK shipping, car, steel and coal mining industries.
Look around - The private sector today is largely free of Union erntaglement and many companies have had to react to the current economic crisis by cutting costs, reducing inefficiencies and running leaner. In the public sector wheree management is weak and Unions still rool the roost there is now this idiotic threat of mass civil disobedience because the public service Unions fancy taking on the new government. Rubbish.
Unions cause unemployment and they are directly responsible for the loss of British manufacturing industry

In what way does the fact of workers bargaining for pay in the open market place inhibit the action of a free market? The negotiation of a price for the job is a feature of the free market. Of course it's the choice of manufacturers what price they will pay for the work. Good managers can stop strikes any time they try.
Your point about strong management and leadership is mere fetishism. I'll give you a clue. In my work I help teams use the Toyota Production System to improve quality, performance and efficiency. No-one uses the British Leyland production system. The unions weren't to blame for the fact that British management was inept, introverted and incapable of delivering quality products. The unions weren't to blame for the fact that British Leyland designed cars no-one wanted and closed down the projects that might have been popular. Those were management decisions made by inept mamnagers obsessed with short term output, not long term productivity.
Coal mining in Britain wasn't inefficient. It was closed in spite of its efficiency.
Quote by awayman
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.
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.
I have a very simple view.
This is the way we work-if you don'tlike it get on your bike and we will employ someone who does.
Regrettablty there is an inherrant fault in the human psyche which causes mayhem and panic at the prospect of change. Instead of rejoicing and embracing change, human instict is to resist and this is how genetically the strongest survive and the weakest fail, starve and die.
The lesson is to embrace change and dont be afraid of a changing world.
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.
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.
Actually, people are very different under the skin, one only has to look at the huge difference of opinions/views expressed in this forum.
Your statement regarding good management being about achieving consensus must equally apply to the unions and you're obviously assuming that they never look for confrontation.
As for independent economists shaking their heads, I'm sure that is true of SOME of them but I'm also sure that there are others nodding their heads in agreement.
Invariably Max it always ends up with the situation of " them and us ".
If I was the boss/owner of a large global company, no way would I be dictated to by left wing trouble makers, on occasions being hell bent on trouble. That is why so many hate Murdoch. It has nothing to do with his media empire, but purely and simply that like Thatcher he smashed and pulverised the printing Unions, over the Whapping dispute.
Remember Unions and it's members have very long memories....jeeze they still blame Thatcher for things happening today....deluded I think.
The problem is that the Union fat cats of which there are many, sometimes have to be seen to be earning their huge salaries...Bob Crow is a typical example of this.
Thankfully his ilk died out in the 70' mainly, but can you imagine what it must be like to hear him speak in front of union members?
The Unite leaders were filmed in this current dispute doing only what I can see as deliberate incitement.
We are now in a situation where this country is almost skint...." no money left " was I think Labours snide remarks that were left. The sooner the Unions realise the money is no longer there to meet their sometimes ludicrous wage demands, the better for all concerned.