Sorry Kaz, I'm not sure which aspect of flower's post you are referring to...
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.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
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.
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.
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.
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.