I was a trade union rep for 25 years and I don't recognise any of what you're describing. The appalling things you are talking about are not the fault of "the unions". Perhaps with your detailed knowledge of these events you should be organising opposition to them yourself instead of blaming everyone else for them.
He's definitely one of the good guys. Saw him speak during the miners' strike and have never laughed so much.
People like me have been saying this non stop for a decade and it is instantly batted down as not being true. Doesn't matter that there are so many of us saying the same things from many different factories owned by many different companies, in differing areas of food processing or distribution or landwork. Every BBC programme will belittle us. They just perpetuate the 'lazy Brit' myth and state that they aren't undercutting wages because there is a NWM. Doesn't matter that we were all paid above NWM in 2005 yet those jobs are all NWM now. The problem is that the middle classes and middle earners just do not believe it. They believe stats and what the Beeb and John Snow continually tell them. There are a lot of Lazy Brits and scroungers that is a fact however there are more that do want to work and were working in the very same jobs that the middle earners upward believe that 'Brits don't want to do'. That in itself is a myth because we were doing those jobs. Watch the news. At least once a week the Beeb will find someone with my story and experience. Normally pick the one that does not have the vocabulary to not sound like a jobsworth racist and then bring out the stats to backup that belief that it is all lies. In my case my wife went through a difficult pregnancy and I had 4 single days off in a month when she was rushed into hospital. Each time I rang into work from the hospital before my shift to let me know. The day after that fourth day I was called in to the manager and told I was now on the first stage of disciplinary and had to keep my nose clean for 6 months or I would be moved onto the 2nd stage which was a year and then dismissal. I told them I could bring in my wife's medical reports form the hospital to prove where I was and was told 'Sorry that is the process. Nothing we can do'. I knew my number was up because it was 2005 and the cull of British workers had commenced months earlier when they stopped the transport into the countryside at a month's notice which wiped out a third of the British shop floor in one fell swoop. I called a cab and went home. I never went back. Lots of us did the same. If you got that first disciplinary you knew you were out and we were naive to think we could just get another job quickly because the labour market for that kind of work was now very different from how we knew it when we had last been looking for work. That was the first time I had ever been out of work in my life despite 2 redundancies. Fortunately I returned to the accountancy sector within a couple of months even though I hated it. Others weren't so lucky. Some are still a mess. All parties know the score here. Labour, Tory, Liberal. They all know what is happening yet deny it is happening and perpetuate this lazy Brit image for everyone. I worked in eggs. The owner of that business who continually told us that due to supermarket pressure the company made no money always found enough for substantial donations to whichever party benefitted his pocket. He donates mainly to the Tories. The Next article above is another. They are run by the Tory Peer Lord Wolfson. It isn't just Tories though. Blair, Brown and Milliband continually spouted the 'doing jobs the Brits don't want to do' and 'not undercutting wages' mantra. Only just before the last election did Milliband finally concede that they were keeping wages low. Still nothing is being done about it though.
I am a cynical person by nature but this paragraph caught my eye. This article is very timely I think: Chayes later began working for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, waging an internal war to persuade policymakers to focus on corruption. The issue ultimately reached the desk of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who largely dismissed it in a 2010 memo that remains classified.
And all of the parties are guilty of emasculating the unions, citing another great myth - union power of the 1970's. The destruction of the trade union movement is another example of this country sleep-walking into a world in which the voice of the oppressed and the weak is lost. Unions allegedly caused the economic woes of the 70's and had to be curbed. Bankers caused the woes of the 00's and had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Compare and contrast. The unions are victims of the shifting political consensus, not the cause.
Hmmm I have tried to keep out of this discussion......but sorry it is becoming more and more difficult. There should be no doubt that the concept of unions are a good thing. In the early days they certainly excelled at what they were formed for. However as time went on some unions realised the power that they had and began to use it and the workers themselves began to become pawns in the political beliefs of some union personnel. That is a matter of history. In the 30's they brought this country to its knees at a time when when the banks too were having problems of their own. Things levelled out during the war a bit and for about 20 odd years after, during the rebuild. During the 70's the unions used the workers again as pawns and succeeded in bringing the government of the time down.However the people decided enough was enough eventually and brought Maggie Thatcher in on a promise that she would do something about it....and did. I would not argue as to whether she went over the top. I would agree she went too far to the right towards the end of her reign as Pm. However you cannot change history no matter how you dress it up. During those torrid years was when I lost faith in the unions.
His remarks seem more suited to a football forum than the HoP. Makes him as silly as the schoolboy behaviour that goes in there everyday and in here from the less sensible posters..... Whomever they are
I too tried to stay out, so we've both failed, mate. The problem here is that it is a complex debate in which both "sides" fall back on tired cliches. Were there union leaders who buried their heads in the sand in the 1970's and saw everything as an us and them battle? Yes there were. Did they represent the trade union movement as a whole? No they didn't. The trade unions took on the government in the early 1970's because they were planning the sorts of assaults we later saw enacted by Thatcher. And what a terrible time it was (not). Workers were paid extra if they worked unsocial hours (compare that to this government's determination to change doctors' contracts). The working class were holding down jobs, buying their first houses, buying cars and other "luxury goods". In other words they were sustaining capitalism. The make the rich richer and keep the poor in the gutter will eventually be the death knell for capitalism, and should be supported by old Marxists like me! But the trade unions I have worked for cared about the work of their members. They were pragmatic not merely idealistic. Yes, they wanted the best for their members, but realised that the best required negotiation not confrontation. Increasingly over the years we encountered managements who were clueless about running the services and industries on which their members would depend. Yet still we continued to "jaw, jaw". The public sees trade unions and thinks strikes. It's become a Pavlovian response. In the thirty odd years I worked for trade unions I was involved in one strike ballot and despite winning it the strike didn't take place as we settled. The current round of trade union bashing is being foisted, like one its allied issues of privatising schools, on a public that didn't vote for it. Less than 25% of people eligible to vote elected this government - yet the same government accuse the trade union movement of holding undemocratic ballots. The Tories accuse the trade unions of pursuing ideological aims, yet deny that their actions are ideological. It's rank hypocrisy fuelled by the right wing press.
I do so wish arguments were reasoned - like the Cameron remark about Corbyn recently! The Punch and Judy is crap for all of us, whatever our political views. Your comparison to terrace chanting is apposite. The Northam can start an entirely inappropriate chant that makes me cringe. The chant to Villa fans a few years ago (where's your Rover gone) had me walking out (not the best as we were 2-0 up and then I heard we'd lost 3-2!). There is no excuse for such behaviour in our "cradle of democracy". PS. Am I one of those posters of whom you speak, you cad? PPS .. the beast quote was bloody funny though!
Even though I am pretty much a tribal right of centre voter I know unions are very a very useful and helpful tool used in the right way. I am also clever enough to not just see the stereotype of unions being strike, strike, strike or the Tories trying to help the rich at the expense of the poor. The reality with the latter is that they (as all politicians and governments do) need to help businesses and commerce thrive. They also have to do it in a way that keeps the punters happy as well. The reality with the former is that to me they are a mediator. They are there to make sure the balance between keeping costs down and taking advantage of people is kept. The problem with both is that they struggle to find that balance and get it right. Blair went too far in trying to make both parties happy and Cameron has as well. A balance is a single point somewhere in the centre but both of these governments have tried to maximise business potential while at the same time giving in to every public demand. Blair gave the hush money of tax credits and then it got out of hand. The Tories are too scared to remove it. Blair and Brown also used the housing market to make middle England feel better with their house prices rising. These policies have not helped those at the bottom though and that level where the pain is felt is creeping up and up the social ladder. People want jobs and better pay, not hush money tax credits and higher welfare payments. What use is welfare when you have skewed the housing market which now soaks up vast amounts of the welfare that was given out? The problem was caused by Blair and Brown though, pretending to be the friends of the working class while they bought the working class off with tax credits and higher welfare to soften the blow of bringing in a cheaper workforce for the businesses. I have no doubt that the Tories are quite happy with that policy whilst at the same time they would like to reduce welfare and tax credits. In effect they can blame Blair for what the Tories would have done on a smaller scale. That balance has to be found again. So yes unions are a good thing however they have turned into businesses that do union things for the benefit of unions. They are far too involved IN politics rather than being that unofficial independent regulator/mediator that they should be. They often only take up the news worthy issues these days. They don't fight for the low skilled workers anymore and are quite happy to nod their heads when the politicians lump all the unskilled workers in with the dossers and label them lazy and don't want to do these jobs. As you saw in those links above the unions are fighting for a teeny pay rise in Greencore. One of the massive employers but have done nothing about other issues or the smaller processors or the supply chains to these factories. It is all about big businesses because that gets the headlines. On the reverse side they are all over the TV in regards the steel industry. These are skilled jobs. They require trained people. It is newsworthy and they are very quick to act on it. The food jobs need almost no training. You need to learn procedures and you need a couple of weeks to get up to speed. That is it. They are non skilled in essence, not low skilled. The difference is though that there are 30,000 direct jobs in the Steel manufacturing sector. There are 400,000 direct jobs in the food manufacturing sector. That does not count indirect jobs in either sector. Why have they been silent on the 400,000 non skilled food jobs when they are so very vocal about the steel jobs? As for the steel industry I suspect that they are having to weigh up 30,000 direct jobs in the steel industry against the many more jobs that use steel. Propping up British steel may well have repercussions for the aerospace and automotive industries that actually do make profit. It is a tough decision to make because saving 30,000 steel jobs could end up making it more expensive to build cars and aeroplanes and cost more than 30,000 jobs. That is what governments are for and no government can give everyone a perfect life. Its that balance that needs to be found. It could very well be that the industries that use steel are quietly lobbying for Chinese cheap steel because it makes them more competitive. This could be why it was the UK government that blocked the EU tariffs being raised any higher this week!!!
Bloody hell. A right winger? I find myself agreeing in principle (if not the language or intent) with far too much of this than is good for my health. Off to lie down. Meanwhile back at the referendum ...
In regards to the Steel subject. We often hear the mantra of rising energy costs being bandied about with politicians and media all talking about UK industry paying twice as much as German industry. There are lots of graphs and charts out there to show this however I was linked to this article yesterday and it makes you wonder how much truth there is in this (link below the chart) : please log in to view this image http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-the-steel-crisis-and-uk-electricity-prices
While showering this morning I was thinking about who would be the best people to run the country - very successful business men? I only needed to think of Trump to reject that. Then I thought Eton Toffs? I only had to see every cock up that shower has made since they came to power as is their birth right. After a while I hit on just the right people. Compassionate, caring, fair and unbiased. Yes you got it. Year 5 in my local Primary School. A more heart warming and caring bunch you will never meet. On my ballot paper in May I am going to add "I am voting for the Year 5 Primary School Candidate" better than all the rest put together.
Yep, this is going to run and run. The Panama Papers are the biggest leak in the history of journalism. Here's a graphic illustration of how big the leak is (in terms of files obtained by journalists) in comparison to previous high-profile leaks. please log in to view this image See here for bloody brilliant explanation and graphics as to who/what/why: https://panamapapers.icij.org
How big is it? Mossack Fonseca is the world’s fourth biggest provider of offshore services. It has acted for more than 300,000 companies. There is a strong UK connection. More than half of the companies are registered in British-administered tax havens, as well as in the UK itself. Are all people who use offshore structures crooks? No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers
Nope, forget it Beefy. All journalists are the same and the industry doesn't serve any worthwhile purpose. They just rush off stories, don't investigate and aren't interested in accuracy and justice. It's the truth, there's no debate to be had. It's already been decided on the doping thread.
His name was linked a couple of years ago...... When Cameron publicly slated Alan Carr for tax evasion, a journalist asked him how come it was ok for for his dad to to have made a fortune evading tax with offshore accounts........Cameron refused to answer and got away sharpish.
