Trade Unions! Do They Still Have A Role To Play?

[NorbertColon 10]

This could be a factor in the rash of firms going bankcrupt, shortly after I leave them. :hihi:

You're a bad, bad man Artisan. Keep it up!

[NorbertColon 10]

So if we all work and study hard, we can, in the capitalist system, all earn good wages AT THE SAME TIME? With no-one earning crap wages on long hours? Please tell me how we do this.

Mmm - I shall try to explain.

 

As a lefty, you will be familiar with Orwell, the concept of 'All Animals Are Equal' will be familiar. Not all of us agree with that. I see no two people as equal - they all have varying abilities, drive and potential.

 

If you give 1000 people the same education, some will work harder, some will have greater native wit and be able to learn with ease, some will be workshy and not apply themselves, and others will fill the middle ground.

 

Would you expect them all to gain identical results? I'm sure you would not be so blind as to answer 'yes'. Similarly, would you expect them all to achieve as much as each other in their careers? Again, of course not - they are all different.

 

Natural ability counts for much, but by far the greatest variable is drive and commitment. Those with energy and motivation - call it ambition if you will - will achieve more.

 

It's a matter of natural selection, and it means that in a modern society, just as on the plains of the savannah, the strong will achieve more than the weak.

 

We may have to look after the weak in terms of supporting the disadvantaged, but for there to be goals and motivation in our society, we must also reward effort and achievement - and that's why some people get paid more than others.

 

Is that such a bad thing?

[TeaFan 10]

Mmm - I shall try to explain.

 

As a lefty, you will be familiar with Orwell, the concept of 'All Animals Are Equal' will be familiar. Not all of us agree with that. I see no two people as equal - they all have varying abilities, drive and potential.

 

If you give 1000 people the same education, some will work harder, some will have greater native wit and be able to learn with ease, some will be workshy and not apply themselves, and others will fill the middle ground.

 

Would you expect them all to gain identical results? I'm sure you would not be so blind as to answer 'yes'. Similarly, would you expect them all to achieve as much as each other in their careers? Again, of course not - they are all different.

 

Natural ability counts for much, but by far the greatest variable is drive and commitment. Those with energy and motivation - call it ambition if you will - will achieve more.

 

It's a matter of natural selection, and it means that in a modern society, just as on the plains of the savannah, the strong will achieve more than the weak.

 

We may have to look after the weak in terms of supporting the disadvantaged, but for there to be goals and motivation in our society, we must also reward effort and achievement - and that's why some people get paid more than others.

 

Is that such a bad thing?

 

 

There are plenty of intelligent people getting paid crap because that is all they can get. I know, cos I was one of them for years. As you know, despite your attempt to persuade us that it's all inevitable, capitalist business will only be profitable if the workers' wages (plus other costs) amount to less than the value of that which they produce (basic Marxist economics - "surplus value"). Therefore, there can be no equity under capitalism. I'm not saying that equity must exist in any system other than capitalism, just that it cannot exist in capitalism. This then sets up a struggle between those who work and those who profit from that work, in which economic blackmail (careful, or we'll send your jobs to India) is a key weapon for employers, and self-organisation in unions a key weapon for employees, with the ultimate threat of withdrawing labour (a strike).

 

Some companies have tired of this struggle, as have some unions. Some companies continue to attempt to screw as much as possible out of their workers, thus giving their workers an incentive to organise. Look at M&S; when their profits were down they argued economic necessity for reducing their staff's pay and conditions. Now they are doing very well, are these to be reinstated? No. M&S does not recognise a union.

[Dick 10]

The standard reply of all politicians when they've messed up is to say we've got to put that behind us and move on. Or to put it another way, shut up and keep paying.

But if you don't try to analyse the mistakes of the past you just keep repeating them.

Having said that, yes, they're making plenty of new ones everyday.

At one time I certainly thought the chief problems facing industry were trade union power. But now I'm admitting that industry bosses have shown themselves more than capable of messing up on their own.

To get back to the subject of the thread, yes, there is a need for trade unions to protect the interests of their members. Unfortunately they still seem to think they can't exert influence without going on strike, an action that will finish firms off even faster than it did 20 years ago.

Many employees don't seem to see any connection between the work they do and the wage packet at the end of the week.

A friend of mine who runs a steel stockholders says all his men have to do when they arrive in the morning is do the work.

He has to find it!

Both are equally important to the company. But the boss can find new workers a lot more easily than they can find a new boss.

[NorbertColon 10]

There are plenty of intelligent people getting paid crap because that is all they can get. I know, cos I was one of them for years..

Perhaps, but as I said, drive, energy and ambition count for more than just intelligence. People with such qualities are never out of work.

 

As you know, despite your attempt to persuade us that it's all inevitable, capitalist business will only be profitable if the workers' wages (plus other costs) amount to less than the value of that which they produce (basic Marxist economics - "surplus value"). Therefore, there can be no equity under capitalism.

Why on earth would we want equity?

If I work harder, have more ability, energy and drive than another man, I do not seek equity with him.

[TeaFan 10]

Perhaps, but as I said, drive, energy and ambition count for more than just intelligence. People with such qualities are never out of work.

 

Even in a recession?

 

Equity as in being just as able to earn a decent wage and have a reasonably good life, as opposed to vast differences in wealth and quality of life (like the 15 years average age differential between women who live in S10, and women who live on the Flower Estate).

 

Not "to be the same". It usually seems to be capitalists who want everyone to be the same (white, Christian, heterosexual).

[NorbertColon 10]

Even in a recession?

 

Equity as in being just as able to earn a decent wage and have a reasonably good life, as opposed to vast differences in wealth and quality of life

Quality of life has to be earned, it is not and should never be a right.

[donkey 10]

Mmm - I shall try to explain.

 

Natural ability counts for much, but by far the greatest variable is drive and commitment. Those with energy and motivation - call it ambition if you will - will achieve more.

 

It's a matter of natural selection, and it means that in a modern society, just as on the plains of the savannah, the strong will achieve more than the weak.

 

We may have to look after the weak in terms of supporting the disadvantaged, but for there to be goals and motivation in our society, we must also reward effort and achievement - and that's why some people get paid more than others.

 

Is that such a bad thing?

 

 

What about senior managers who get awarded massive increases in their bonuses, while the company profits go down. It happens all the time. It's called corruption and cronyism. The people running things and earning the most money, aren't neccessarily 'the fittest', but often simply the most self-serving and manipulative.

 

You present senior management people as if they represent the highest ideal achievable by humankind. Some of them are very good managers, but a lot of them are just good at promoting themselves and office politics ( hence the big bonuses for non-existent achievements.) These types generally tend to stick together and sing their own praises.You'll never hear one of them say ''Oh, I'm only a senior manager because my dad had all the right connections. ''

 

No doubt this will ruflle the feathers of all those 'self made men' out there, but thankfully, they're a minority, because most of them are even more arrogant and insufferable than those that were born into it.

 

Praise be we have the unions to keep these puffed up monkeys in check.

[Sutcliffe 10]

What about senior managers who get awarded massive increases in their bonuses, while the company profits go down. It happens all the time. It's called corruption and cronyism. The people running things and earning the most money, aren't neccessarily 'the fittest', but often simply the most self-serving and manipulative.

 

You present senior management people as if they represent the highest ideal achievable by humankind. Some of them are very good managers, but a lot of them are just good at promoting themselves and office politics ( hence the big bonuses for non-existent achievements.) These types generally tend to stick together and sing their own praises.You'll never hear one of them say ''Oh, I'm only a senior manager because my dad had all the right connections. ''

 

No doubt this will ruflle the feathers of all those 'self made men' out there, but thankfully, they're a minority, because most of them are even more arrogant and insufferable than those that were born into it.

 

Praise be we have the unions to keep these puffed up monkeys in check.

This is an incredible post - would I be right in guessing that you are not in a senior or well-paid position?

[waldershelf 10]

You are deliberatley manipulating what I said - and you know it.

Please quote where I said "workers should be paid as little as their employer can get away with".

 

I said they should be paid what their skills are worth in a competitive market.

 

That's why, in case you hadn't noticed, plumbers and plasterers can demand a better daily rate than labourers and cleaners.

 

Or are you saying that they should all be entitled to the same rate?

 

Quote "A worker, whether skilled or unskilled, should only be worth as much as his skills - or lack of skills - are worth to an employer."

 

That sounds like paying as little as you can get away with to me not the same words perhaps but the meaning is clear to me.

 

"Plumbers and plasterers can demand a higher rate than labourers and cleaners" but now thats changing, you can now hire a Polish plasterer for the same rate as a cleaner. Thank goodness for the minimum wage or I despair at how little these people would be paid by unscrupulous employers especially in the building trade where there are well documented instances of uk workers being laid off and foreign workers being set on at the minimum wage so we now have the situation where everyone on a building site is paid the minimum wage.

[Sutcliffe 10]

Quote "A worker, whether skilled or unskilled, should only be worth as much as his skills - or lack of skills - are worth to an employer."

 

That sounds like paying as little as you can get away with to me not the same words perhaps but the meaning is clear to me.

 

"Plumbers and plasterers can demand a higher rate than labourers and cleaners" but now thats changing, you can now hire a Polish plasterer for the same rate as a cleaner. Thank goodness for the minimum wage or I despair at how little these people would be paid by unscrupulous employers especially in the building trade where there are well documented instances of uk workers being laid off and foreign workers being set on at the minimum wage so we now have the situation where everyone on a building site is paid the minimum wage.

Suppose those building companies are paying £200 for a thousand bricks, but another supplier can do it for £100 - should they keep paying the £200, or should they use their common sense?

 

Would you advocate firms having to pay high labour rates and going out of business, losing the jobs altogether, or paying what they can afford to pay?

[donkey 10]

This is an incredible post - would I be right in guessing that you are not in a senior or well-paid position?

 

You're correct, I'm not among the ranks of evolutionary super humans to whom Mr Colon refers. My inferior genes have left me with a lack of motivation to spend my life striving for maximum material gain and status. I do provide adequately for my family however.