howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 November 2008
20:258806#21
barry
you ask whether i have the interests of dover at heart?
my answer is, i have the interests of the human beings of dover at heart.
how is the harbour board struggling?
they are in a unique position, due to a geographical freak of nature.
their business keeps rising year on year, finally a 3% drop in business on the previous year and they take it out on the staff.
7 November 2008
21:578811#22
The only real commodity workers have is their labour - to withhold that is their final resort and only effective weapon against injustice. I am Management, but that doesn't mean I cannot recognise the real and pragmatic effectiveness of the withholding of labour. Proper and effective management would not leave DHB facing this kind of PR disaster. Think about it.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
7 November 2008
23:048816#23
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 November 2008
00:558821#24
howard, Bern and Brian.
No matter what you say the employees of DHB (like Local Authority employees and Civil Servants) have it very cushy compared to the millions who work for small companies and those who own and run small businesses. This is not anything to do with DHB struggling, they are not a small business so dont misrepresent what I am saying, those working for DHB have been feather bedded compared to millions of others who work very hard for a living.
'Withdrawal of labour' is not an option for those who work for a small businesses. These employees have to take a more constructive and intelligent approach rather than adhere to the old fashioned 1970's destructive attitude of them and us.
All these potential strikers will be after is to retain their priviledged position in comparison to those of us who work in the real economy and their actions could seriously damage Dover and that real economy.
They simply do not deserve any sympathy at all.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
8 November 2008
01:078823#25
Barry W since when was DHB a "small employer"?
I like most people have every sympathy with anyone who loose their job through redundancy or the insolvency of their employer; equally I am also sympathetic to small businesses who are struggling due to the current recession and financial crisis.
DHB on the other hand has and continues to make money, little of which, other than employees wages benefits the town or district. The ferry customers spend little or nothing in the town, driving directly to and from the port, DHB have made little or no effort to get cruise passengers to visit the town etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
8 November 2008
09:018828#26
Absolutely Ross,
When we have debated this subject before and I have expressed that I would be in full support of DHB workers striking, and so they should. I also agree with Barry that this is a 'them and us' situation, which cannot be said for the other examples Barry has mentioned. If a small business is struggling and makes people unemployed, that is very sad but in most cases unavoidable. It is also true that these people don't have it so 'cushy'. But organisations as large and profitable as DHB can offer security which is in their own interests. It's a fairly rudimentary business concept that the care of employees is in the employer's interest. This care then permeates into the rest of the social construct and town, for instance the children of the people being made jobless (not even redundant!) regardless of striking action will develop a 'them and us' attitude because of the way their parents are being treated. How it will be damaging to the town, I don't know. Good employment is the only thing that DHB has given to the town, so the only damage is being administered by them! It's not like they can move operations elsewhere...or even to Whitfield!
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a fairly accepted model and even 15 year old could tell you that it is beneficial to support the work force. From Sir Titus Salt building Saltaire to large American corporations offering free healthcare schemes, all concerned parties win! DHB have the ability to support their work force and are declining in favour of lining the pockets of 'them' at the top. I don't believe they should be running a charity but the people at the top (them) are proverbially dumping on the people at the bottom (us). It is this vast inequality that makes this situation unacceptable. Of course DHB have made sure that they are legally within their rights to do so...but then the legal system is still underpinned by 'them' anyway.
This isn't rooted in the 70's this is a fundamental problem in this country and another of the inconsistencies of modern Conservative thinking (perhaps an oxymoron) It's all well and good promoting individualism when faced with a level playing ground, but in Britain we are not. How we can have a system that is still so riddled with birthright (and in DHBs case jobs for the boys) and then say "people should get off their backsides earn they want" this is beyond logic. For instance it's funny how the same people that support the monarchy are the same people that moan about people not 'earning' their situations (from houses to benefits). Now I don't really mind the fact that we have a monarchy and I'm sure the royal family are all nice people, but how can we deny the existence of 'them and us' in this country all the time we have a permanent reminder that self determination is just an illusion. I'm all for a meritocratic nation, but let's face if however hard I work, I'm never going to be King of England...I'd even do it for less money; I know more about architecture and I reckon I could make better pork pies. The workers of DHB (if they do strike) are getting off their back sides and doing everything to fight this moral injustice.
It's interesting Barry has a house in France, I would love one. I'd like to live in France one day, the sense of community, tradition and social solidarity; all things in direct contradiction with 'individualism' I think we could learn a lot from them and also relearn a lot of what we have forgotten since the 1980's. Protest and strikes, based in fairness and solidarity are what made this country great. From the Levellers to the Chartists, we live in a society (if there is such a thing) that has shown the world democracy...although there are still a few things we need to sort out!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 November 2008
09:468829#27
Ross - did you not read my posts properly. I am not suggesting that DHB are a struggling small employer.
My lack of sympathy for the strikers is simple:
1/There are many people working for small firms that are in far more difficult circumstances that those employed by DHB. They cannot strike because their jobs would disappear as their employers go bust, they need to, and do, take a more intelligent and constructive approach. These are far more deserving than those striking to defend working conditions and pensions that are far superior to what they enjoy.
2/ I have a principalled objection to strikes anyway. They do not achieve anything and are only destructive. To strike at a time when the ecoonomy is in such difficulties and Dover itself even more so makes it worse.
Incidentally DT, the house in France is a family one in which I have invested a stake and in which my father in law lives. It is not wholly owned by me though we do talk about it as 'our place in France'. There is much about the rural French lifestyle that is indeed to be admired but it also demonstrates how their overly socialised system destroys jobs and prosperity. They need to encourage more of a spirit of individualism and enterprise, getting rid of red tape and excessive taxation without losing what make their rural lifestyle attractive. All is certainly not idyllic in France and their cities have exactly the same problems that many of our towns and cities face though we are in some ways further down the road.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
8 November 2008
10:328833#28
1. Just because there are people in a worse position it doesn't make the DHB workers situation any better. Thats much like saying child poverty isn't a problem in the UK, just because there are children in the 3rd world who are in a worse state.
2. Strikes if nothing else raise awareness of a situtation and show that people can stand together against something they see as being unfair. They are also expressing a 'principled' objection to the way in which they are being treated. The difference is that theirs is a shared principle against the greed of DHB. This shared belief is far more powerful than a personal principle, after all this is the basis of morality, democracy and essentially law.
It is impossible to say that a socialised system destroys jobs and properity, it simply isn't true...look at China. An over socialised system does limit social mobility but as I said what does that matter when you live in a class ridden country anyway. 'You can have it if you really want' simply isn't true, we're all products of determinism.
As for your house in France even if it is your father in laws, I can only say that I'm a little jealous (another nasty element of the human condition)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 November 2008
10:588834#29
DT, you and I simply have totally diffferent attitudes and perspectives and this perhaps arises from our different experiences in life. We will never agree about this but I certainly will not be offering strikers any form of sympathy as they will just end up making things worse for themselves and others.
You mentioned China, I would actually suggest that this is an example that proves my point. China's economy has risen a very long way only because they have allowed in an element of free market enterprise. It is that which has sparked their remarkable growth. If they dropped their Communist system all together, opened up to democracy and opened their economy fully to a free enterprise system imagine what they would achieve then, there would be no stopping them.
8 November 2008
11:088835#30
Strikes often happen in times of crisis - they can be a potent symptom of all kinds of challenges in the social structure. They are supposed to be a last resort (sadly they are sometimes mis-used by union reps with a power-and-control thing going on!) so should come after all the intelligent and creative solutions have been tried and have failed. At that point it is clear that all sides have failed and the withholding of labour becomes the only step left. Strikes rarely happen in firms where the people working in them have a degree of accountability and a stake in the results, hence part of the reason why smaller businesses experience strikes less - everyone feels part of the group and has a real reason to make it all succeed. DHB has probably failed to engage its workforce properly, or to motivate/galvanise them with sufficient reason tio make it all work.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
8 November 2008
11:228836#31
Totally agree Bern.
Barry I agree that we won't see eye to eye on issues like this, but as you said last time we spoke, that's half the fun.
As for China "If they dropped Communism...there would be no stopping them" There is already no stopping them now! If they wanted to take over the world they could do it tomorrow, thats the power of the whole as oppossed to the sum of the parts.(and the fact it has a ridiculously large population.)
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
8 November 2008
14:298839#32
Barry I did read your posts, the juxtapositioning of your arguments clearly was meant to show a link between them and lead the reader to the belief that DHB's situation and that of small businesses was somehow linked.
With regard to striking it is an essential right of working people whilst our employment law is based on the old "master and servant" principle thus creating an unequal playing field. Also the free market does not work particularly well in the context of employment as the whole premise of the free market is predicated on the concept of free and equal access to information, which patently is not the case in employment situations.
DHB's disregard for its workers is in marked contrast to such employers as say JCB; who when faced with reducing sales etc. engaged their work force and the unions to try to find ways to minimise lay-offs and keep as many workers as possible in jobs. This collaborative approach worked as the workers agreed to £50 per week pay cuts in order to cut the lay offs from 150 to 45.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
8 November 2008
17:558843#33
there you go barry the above have spoken and you still see the truth because of your rose tinted glasses,the majoroty of the town supports the strikers.this town town has sufferd enough over the last 20 years,what with maggie t closing the 3 remaning pits then a few years later the p&o strike she virtuly killed the town and know is struggerling to get back on its feet.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 November 2008
10:438863#34
Ross, you are wriggling a bit with that juxtaposition argument. I was not in any way suggesting that DHB is in any way affected like small businesses. I have been very specific referring to small businesses and their plight at all times which is far different to that of DHB/Government employees and to a large extent those of bigger companies.
I am making reference to the employees themselves and those of DHB/Government who have a privileged position compared to those of us in small businesses.
I cannot and will not sympathise with the DHB employees threatening strike action when comparing them to the more constructive behaviour of those working in small companies who face a far more serious threat.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
9 November 2008
11:148865#35
I think it is you wriggling Barry
We will not agree on this, however...
DHB could have chosen to act like JCB - engaging their work force in constructive dialogue to protect the company's future and minimise the loss of jobs, it has so far chosen no to.
No trade union these days considers taking industrial action lightly, it is always a last resort. However, sometimes it is the only way to get an intransigent management back to the table to engage in discussion and negotiation. Equally no one particularly wants a strike as it costs the workers their pay, loses a days income for the employer, and if extended can become a self fulfilling prophesy; but, as I said, sometimes the mere threat is enough to break a stalemate and get discussions re-started. In fact the reality is both workers and employers have the same long term interest, which is to make their organisation successful as this is the best way to protect employment and reward shareholders. Employers need to remember that their success is built from a number of things, one of which is the efforts,skill and dedication of their workers; along side the employers leadership, drive, ideas etc., support of shareholders and loyalty of customers.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 November 2008
11:188866#36
As I said as well Ross, I am no admirer of DHB at all but I will not condone of defend strikes under any circumstances.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
9 November 2008
11:248867#37
So how are ordinary people going to get improvements in their lives?
Through the largesse of those in power?
Through the Thatcherite trickle down principle?
Or through some form of direct action?
History is littered with examples of change only happening through direct action, whether industrial or civil. Just because someone is in a position of power does not mean that they know best...
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
9 November 2008
12:208871#38
Strikes happen when all sides have lost faith: management also have to bear some responsibility for failing to engage and motivate their workforce - that's not "giving in", more looking ahead and planning properly. It is not up to us to condone or otherwise, but to understand so that we can try to make sure it doesn't happen when it need not. That's proper management.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
10 November 2008
14:438921#39
The BBC are reporting that the dockworkers have voted to STRIKE! 84% are in favour as I understand it.
details of when and where etc will be released tomorrow.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 November 2008
16:038922#40
That is sad and if they do strike they it is they who will suffer the most but the rest of us in Dover will suffer a knock-on effect.
Bad for Dover, bad for the DHB employees.
