Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Keef
I wonder whether BarryW's selective memory can recall 1970 when Ted Heath posed the question ''Who governs Britain?'' the resounding answer was ''Not you Mr Heath''
So I think the coaltion should be careful of pushing the Unions too far. Todays unions represent a quarter of the workforce.They have about 7million members.Unions are more important today than they have been since the 70's.They act as a voice for the workers ensuring it's not just the rich, privileged and powerful that get to be heard.
It's a myth that Unions don't want companies to do well. Of course they do it's in their members interests.They are also there to ensure a fair minimum wage,better pensions,paid holidays ,safer workplaces and sick and compensation pay for injured workers.
As for the right to strike it should be used as a last resort but that right should exist that's what democracy is all about.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MAREK;
You are as usual correct.
most trade unions are responsible organisations, working closely with employers for a better company.
The list is endless of the good work unions do, and get involved in, but allow me to tell you of one case to show the need for trade unions.
A chap on the railweays was told to go up on the roof at the now defunct Dover marine station, it was very windy, and realy the chap should have declined,
but under pressure from the manager the chap went up on the roof.
Sadly for him he was caught by the wind, fell through the very high roof, the safety nets in the high roof didnt hold him, and he fell on the platform below.
The railway manager, and British rail(as it was then) denied any responsibility
trying to blame the bloke for going on the roof.
The N.U.R (Now RMT)took up this chaps plight, as sadly he was left wheelchair bound.
The N.U.R FOUGHT for better woking conditions, an better managers, and got the man an adapatable house for his disabilities plus £100,000 compensation.
This also sent out aclear message to both the British Rail top brass, but also employers in general, that managers cannot put employees under pressure into unsafe practices.
Without the N.U.R this chap was likely to have got nothing and struggle on with life.
this is one of thousands of cases unions take up, fight for
and every day work with employers to make sure cases such as the one above don't ever happen again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i suppose that if all unions were abolished we would see the end of the c.b.i. institute of directors and various chambers of commerce.
a bit unsure how freemasons lodges would be affected.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
the 2 most powerful trades unions in the country are ?
Oh and recent government policy announcements if followed would potentially create a third
"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 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Unison and Unite.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To close down the Trade Unions,or cripple them to an extent that they had no right to be meaningful, could equate to Communism.
In a prosperous and fair economy, people wouldn't feel the need to go on strike; but if some are very rich and get richer still, while the masses are getting poorer, how can one say: "you cannot go on strike"?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MAREK;
Maybe your correct in numbers
but in effectivness maybe the RMT is one of the strongest
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Actually I was thinking
The Law Society
and the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales
"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
Marek - that was 1974, February in fact. Heath actually got more votes than Labour though Labour won more seats and formed a minority government that lasted until October when they won a tiny majority (of 3 I think). That government was in the end only sustained by a 'LibLab pact' that collapsed leading to the 1979 general election with Mrs T elected on a pledge to deal with the menace that the Unions were.
Strikes and resrictive practises destroyed jobs and whole industries in the 60's 70's with a knock-on impact in the 80's because it was by then too late for businesses to moderise to compete that were prevented from doing so in the previous decades by the Unions crazies.
I know my post war political history and that October 74 election was the first one I was involved with helping Peter Rees.
I would not ban Trade Unions - just bring them up to date in their practises and stop them from causing public disruption through stikes where less that 50% of the membership vote for it (instead of 50% of those who vote). I would ban payroll union subs payments as well.
The simple fact is that Union bosses are self-serving with a political agenda and they see their members as no more than cannon fodder.
In the world outside the public sector and some of the larger privatised companies the Unions are almost non-existent thankfully. Most people do not want anything to do with them and are better off as a result.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ross and Howard- the organisation that you refer to are a far cry from Unions. Two are actually regulatory bodies for professionals while others are there to help businesses deal with the complexities of doing business in an age of excessive red tape. Non of these bodies would ever suggest some kind of strike or action that disrupts the public and do not have a political agenda.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Trade Unions play a vital role. They endeavour to create a fair society. We have seen many reports and features very recently about the ever widening pay gap between employers and workers. Even traditional Tories like David Cameron himself is beginning to baulk at the levels of salaries that top management are paying themselves. There is no retraint. The gaps have widened significantly in recent times. High flying salaries and remunerations get ever more..well high flying. Wages for the average worker, as one report said yesterday, havent significantly increased at all in 30 years.
The problem for some unions though can be one of public image. Some of the guys that lead the unions are unfortunately fairly awful in this media age. Bob Crowe for one. I admire his gusto but he comes from and/or belongs in a different age. You now need persuasion and cajoling to get the unions back on a more powerful footing. Its a media image thing, but it is important because you have to take the people with you, you have to have support. The old barrel thumping stuff is out.
The latest move from the Conservatives that 50% of the workforce or more must vote for a strike to be valid, doesnt hold out in any other democratic vote. If more than 50% of those that actually vote, vote for strike action, then that should be all thats required. If the silent section of the population dont vote in a general election it doesnt stop the MP being returned on say a 37% turnout.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
In reality Unions are limited in what they can achieve nowadays. Unison, which claims to be the largest public sector union, has not reacted as one would hope to the slashing of services and jobs and while some would claim this is common sense leadership I think it is down to the fact that most employees are reluctant to take industrial action for fear of recrimination. It is this fear, not a desire to work harder while getting less money and/or poorer conditions of service, that keeps people at work and government policies are feeding off this.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You have a very naive view of the Unions PaulB - historical evidence is against you. The 50% of membership vote is justified because that action puts at risk the jobs of all who work for those employers (if in the private sector) and impacts on the general public who are nothing to do with the dispute. Many a business has gone bust as a result of Union militancy throwing out of work more than just those who supported the strike.
Unions working for a 'fairer society' now that really must be a joke! As for having a 'vital role' - they are virtually non-existent in the private sector, hardly a 'vital role'. They exist only to keep a grip on the priviledges and benefits of the public sector paid for by us out of our hard earned cash.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
governments get elected on a lot less than that and that impacts on us a lot more than any union actions.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
PAULB/HOWARD
You are expecting baz to look at this in a fair and justified way, of course he wont he comes from the ultra right wing of the conservative party, and is proud to be such.
I have no problem with that, but i certainly realised 25 years ago baz's blinkered out;look on life.
PAULB;
If unions in your opinion have to dress to act in the new p/r arena, then there not for me.
Bob CROW{NO E)
IS a passionate geezer, i'v been on negotiating tables with him, he is a very talented guy, and obviously the workforce supports him or they would have got rid of him.
He still does believe in stickin up for the membership and getting the best deal possible, that's not to say i support all of his actions.
He's not an image person, if you ever get to speak to him in person(as i did for many years on the national negotiating committee)he will tell you hes a proud millwall fan, i watched the gills play there once and he was there in the stand
Anyway it's all very well saying no strikes ever, but before you can get to that stage you must have a level playing field.
IT''s very difficult even for trade unionists to try to sell to the membership pay cuts, worsening of working conditions, when ythe workforce is fully aware that many of the senior managers are getting bonus's, and wages of over £100,000
its not envy, its about fairness.
Then we move to okay once we do get the level playing field(unlikely under this govt)then if no strikes are considered, then what happens when negotiations come to a stalemate?
Just a few of my thoughts,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
presentation is all important nowadays and many union leaders have not grasped this.
the reds saw this when appointing tony blair, the blues were slow to catch on, remember ian duncan smith and michael howard?
the party would have preferred david davies but chose david cameron because of his tony blair style.
the public sector unions have a good case it is just about putting it over persuasively.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
HOWARD;
I understand where your coming from
but don't agree with your view.
I didnt want blair as leader but that's history, you speak on what he did do, yep your right he is doing what cameron/milliband are doing now, appealing to middle England.
taking this route was all well and good, but it isolated many hard working labour person's.
There wil always be the debate on whether or not a more left wing agenda would have got him elected, it might well have done as the tories were so unpopular at the time.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
the whole point is that both blair and cameron got their respective messages across, even if there was not much backing it.
it matters not if one has good ideas and intends to do well for the good of all if no-one will listen.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
HOWARD;
YOU miss my point, the tories were so unpopular at the time, his presentation, slickness could have been on a more or even a little bit more left leaning.
You may see now my reasons(have many)of not being a member of the labour party for some 4 years now
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think you may be missing mine keith.
the content is irrelevant, blair could have come up with more left wing rhetoric, he would still have won comfortably due to the image given to the cameras.
