Potential mass strike action in the UK

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Meanwhile, the effects of immigration on the UK labor market have been relatively small and mostly affect the segment of wages that are occupied by immigrants in the first place. 

etc

You definitely researched and thought before replying.  +1

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

. The unions seem to regard them as cash cows, ready for milking. 

You do realise, don't you that:

A Union doesn't go on strike

A Union does not call for a strike

A Union doesn't get a pay rise?

The Union is the means by which the workers may organise  do those things.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

You do realise, don't you that:

A Union doesn't go on strike

A Union does not call for a strike

A Union doesn't get a pay rise?

The Union is the means by which the workers may organise  do those things.

 

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage". 

...and their leadership don't do it totally out of the goodness of their hearts...many get paid rather well. (though generally not as much as the top executives in the industries they target...as they don't have much interest where the money isn't flowing)

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You do realise, don't you that:

A Union does not call for a strike

No I don't realize that.

 

11 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The Union is the means by which the workers may organise  do those things.

Yes, and if you organise to damage the organisation that employs you, it's a form of self-harm, and needs to be prevented for their own good. 

In the case of public ownership, it's an attempt to milk the taxpayer cash-cow, when, as I said earlier, the tax payers are having to pay the exact same price rises that the unions are whining about. 

[studiot]

We in the UK are still suffering the effects of the extreme right wing rubbish that caused the low level civil war between two sections of our public sector in the 1970s/ 1980s.

This has seriously adverse effects to this day in a way that America and Poland are not suffering.

Edited August 30, 2022 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Yes, and if you organise to damage the organisation that employs you, it's a form of self-harm, and needs to be prevented for their own good. 

The other, much more common, form of self harm is the one where management give too much money to themselves and the shareholders. This obviously undermines the company.
For the good of the companies, the workers have to prevent this.

They do so via unions and, if needs be, strikes.
It is sometimes necessary to remind managers that, without the workforce, nothing happens.

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

the tax payers are having to pay the exact same price rises that the unions are whining about. 

That's a fine argument, right up until you realise that the people profiteering from work are generally wealthy enough to avoid paying taxes.

Do you understand that the majority of the public actually support better pay for public sector workers?
https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-public-support-for-nursing-staff-going-on-strike-builds-210722

 

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

many get paid rather well

You say that as if it's somehow a problem.
Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf.
Do you see this;
Many people are not good negotiators  doctors and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf.
in the same light?

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage".

A union will do well if the people they represent do well.
Bankrupting an employer will not meet that goal.
The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage". 

...and their leadership don't do it totally out of the goodness of their hearts...many get paid rather well. (though generally not as much as the top executives in the industries they target...as they don't have much interest where the money isn't flowing)

This is exactly the propaganda the tory government/fat cat's want you to swallow; they're targeting the poor old companies, who do their best to pay everyone a fair wage, by which they mean, it's unfair to take away my pastry chef, so the worker's can afford a packet of bourbon's.

One day they'll understand the value of a bin man...

Quote

 

One day, all the parts of the body were talking about who was most important.

THE BRAIN SAID – “Since I control everything and do all the thinking, I am the most important therefore I should be boss.”

THE FEET SAID – “Since I carry him everywhere he wants to go and get him in position to do what the brain wants, I am the most important.”

THE EYES SAID – “Since I must look out for all of you and tell you where the danger lurks, I an the most important body part.”

THE HANDS SAID – “Since I do all the work and earn all the money to keep the rest of you going, I am the most important.”

Of course, everyone got into the arguments and the heart, lungs, and ears all say the same thing.

Finally, the asshole spoke up and pointed that he was the most important even though the others didn’t know it. All the other laughed and laughed to think of an asshole being boss.

The asshole decided to prove the point and refused to function. Blocked up tight.

Soon the brain was feverish, the eyes crossed and ached, the feet were too weak to walk, the hands hung limply at the sides, and the heart and lungs struggled to keep going.

All pleaded with the asshole to relent and agreed that the asshole was the most important and so it happened.

 

 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The asshole decided to prove the point and refused to function. Blocked up tight.

You're talking about Arthur Scargill aren't you ! 

But the truth is, the asshole took on the government and lost. And where did it get him, or the miners? 

Scargill ended up as leader of the scabs, walking back into work while others were still on strike, like King Scab. 

Now there are a bunch of new assholes, intent on the same battle. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

You're talking about Arthur Scargill aren't you ! 

But the truth is, the asshole took on the government and lost. And where did it get him, or the miners? 

Scargill ended up as leader of the scabs, walking back into work while others were still on strike, like King Scab. 

Now there are a bunch of new assholes, intent on the same battle. 

No, I'm talking about bin men, nurse's and farmer's; what arseholes are you talking about? And how do they function?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You're talking about Arthur Scargill aren't you ! 

But the truth is, the asshole took on the government and lost. And where did it get him, or the miners? 

Scargill ended up as leader of the scabs, walking back into work while others were still on strike, like King Scab. 

Now there are a bunch of new assholes, intent on the same battle. 

As I have already mentioned, how ironic is that ?

 

Who would be the greater threat to our society Comrade Putin or Comrade Scargill MK2 ?

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

But the truth is, the asshole took on the government and lost. And where did it get him, or the miners? 

That's not the truth is it?
It wasn't the miners who picked the fight; it was the government.
And they did it because they wanted to deprive workers of any means to resist their dictatorship.

"You can't fight city hall". The miners were doomed when Maggie decided she didn't want them.

As Bob Crow pointed out, "If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose".
 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As Bob Crow pointed out, "If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose".
 

That's how the union bosses see it these days. A fight. Meanwhile, in Germany, they get on with the job and make stuff. Mostly without fighting. 

Britain got rich by fighting foreigners, not each other. Maybe the pendulum has swung back too far. I still say the market is the best judge of a jobs worth. Private employers will pay to get staff, but only if they can make money. The unions are only getting militant where they have a captive defenceless cash cow, like the tax payer, or the train traveller. People who have no choice but to pay. You don't see the same militancy in private firms, because they know that the customers can go elsewhere, and they will end up out of a job. 

Negotiation by strike has had it's day. I will welcome any laws that are brought in to curb it. 

[John Cuthber]

In Germany the business owners listen to the unions before there's a strike . In the UK they wait until afterwards.
The difference isn't the Unions.

 

 

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

In Germany the business owners listen to the unions before there's a strike . In the UK they wait until afterwards.
The difference isn't the Unions.

 

 

I do not understand the comparison with Germany, to be honest. Germany has or had fairly strong trade unions, and the strike rate is the closest there is within OECD countries to the UK (21 strike days per 1000 employees UK vs 16 Germany between 2008-2017). Compare that to US (5) or Canada (74). France is of course top of the list (118).

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. 

Of course. Yet you took issue with Mistermack for pointing out that Unions were very aware. i.e. cash cow

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

Right. By taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs, to the sometimes exclusion of others. When they get there way, it's to the exclusion of others.

Rarely is it fair to society as a whole. At best it's a counterbalance to Employers that have positioned themselves to "maximise commercial advantage" in the marketplace, and/or otherwise have an overwhelming advantage in the labour market...something governments generally don't enjoy.

What makes this, essentially setting up a game of chicken to see who caves first, all the while to the detriment of the public, an equitable method of setting wages?

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is exactly the propaganda the tory government/fat cat's want you to swallow; they're targeting the poor old companies, who do their best to pay everyone a fair wage, by which they mean, it's unfair to take away my pastry chef, so the worker's can afford a packet of bourbon's.

One day they'll understand the value of a bin man...

 

No Dim. That is not exactly what I said. If I believed that, or wanted to say that, I would have.

[John Cuthber]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs, to the sometimes exclusion of others

And once again...
All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)^[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. 

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

At best it's a counterbalance to Employers that have positioned themselves to "maximise commercial advantage" in the marketplace, and/or otherwise have an overwhelming advantage in the labour market...something governments generally don't enjoy.

In most countries, the government is the biggest single employer.

Of course it has an advantage in the labour market.

Even more so in some situations, for example the NHS is by far the biggest employer of doctors and  nursing staff.
 

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Of course. Yet you took issue with Mistermack for pointing out that Unions were very aware. i.e. cash cow

Did I?

Where?
 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

43 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And once again...
All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)^[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. 

Are you suggesting that for the last 30 years in the UK, striking workers could be replaced, permanently or temporarily?

If not, how does that reflect on my referring to "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"?

For the black and white thinkers out there that think I'm entrenched in one side of this argument, just because you (by definition) must be...think again.

There are good arguments for the rights of Unions...mostly due to bad arguments in favour of capitalism, which generally don't equate to free enterprise. (not saying there aren't good arguments for capitalism when it's based on the public good)

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you suggesting that for the last 30 years in the UK, striking workers could be replaced, permanently or temporarily?

Yes and no.

You can't sack them for striking.
But, if that strike leads to customers taking their business elsewhere then you can lay off staff because you no longer have work for them.
That also applies if you want to shed staff for other reasons.
 

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If not, how does that reflect on my referring to "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"?

If, for example, the postal workers are on strike, that doesn't mean that other courier companies like TNT or FedEx are unable to do the work.

 

In what way do you think that unions are "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"?

Re.
 

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Of course. Yet you took issue with Mistermack for pointing out that Unions were very aware. i.e. cash cow

 

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Did I?

Where?
 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by John Cuthber

[J.C.MacSwell]

@John Cuthber Where? You didn't take issue with Mistermack calling potential targets for Unions cash cows ready for milking?

Because you quoted it directly (cherry picked from a post) and posted:

On 8/29/2022 at 7:41 PM, John Cuthber said:

You do realise, don't you that...

Yet you seem to be very aware that Unions follow the money.

 

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No Dim. That is not exactly what I said. If I believed that, or wanted to say that, I would have.

No, it's not exactly what you said, but it is the language you used.

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's how the union bosses see it these days. A fight. Meanwhile, in Germany, they get on with the job and make stuff. Mostly without fighting. 

Britain got rich by fighting foreigners, not each other. Maybe the pendulum has swung back too far. I still say the market is the best judge of a jobs worth. Private employers will pay to get staff, but only if they can make money. The unions are only getting militant where they have a captive defenceless cash cow, like the tax payer, or the train traveller. People who have no choice but to pay. You don't see the same militancy in private firms, because they know that the customers can go elsewhere, and they will end up out of a job. 

Negotiation by strike has had it's day. I will welcome any laws that are brought in to curb it. 

It's never a problem, if it's not happening to you 'Mr Jack'.

 

The unions don't have a target, they have an aim; to maintain, at least, or improve the rights of their workers.

I wonder how many people would choose not to strike...

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's not exactly what you said, but it is the language you used.

No. It is not.

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. It is not.

 

Are you sure? 

Word's matter, sometimes it's almost imperceptible, but there's a difference between target and aim...

[John Cuthber]

On 8/28/2022 at 9:51 PM, mistermack said:

I'd like to see a compulsory no strike contract for all essential workers.

Would you take on a job based on that contract?
In particular, would you do it given that the employer is known to want to cut your wages and remove employment rights?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Would you take on a job based on that contract?
In particular, would you do it given that the employer is known to want to cut your wages and remove employment rights?

mistermack doesn't have too, therefore he couldn't care less what 'they' do; so don't hold your breath waiting for a considered answer...

[John Cuthber]

On 8/31/2022 at 11:27 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

@John Cuthber Where? You didn't take issue with Mistermack calling potential targets for Unions cash cows ready for milking?

Because you quoted it directly (cherry picked from a post) and posted:

Yet you seem to be very aware that Unions follow the money.

 

 

OK. One guy says "Unions do [some action]."
I point out  unions don't do [some of the actions they are widely said to do].
You say that means I don't think that unions do [ some third thing], even though I pretty much said that they do.

Fundamentally, Unions choose member, they don't choose employers.
So, no, they don't target the government as a "cash cow" because- guess what- the government doesn't pay unions.
Unions will target angry workers.
If governments want to make life difficult for unions, all they have to do is treat their staff well.