On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:42:40 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price. If you consider virtually any other transaction of
services, that which is better usually costs more.


In the short
term at least the employer is exactly where he wants to be - in a
monopolist position.

I didn't say that there wouldn't be competition between employers.


With maybe hundreds of employees doing exactly the
same job it is of absolutely no consequence to terminate the employment
of the occasional one who gets uppity. The more devious employer would
sack the occasional employee for no better reason than to worry the rest
of the workforce.

This is exactly my point. Employees should not be putting themselves
in a position where they have no differentiation. It is asking for
exactly the scenario that you have described to happen.




If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.


The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Of course. You have described one aspect of it, the other is that the
industry had become untenable.

The only ways that that could have been avoided would have been people
being willing to pay more for coal or to erect trade barriers.
Unfortunately the first didn't happen and the second has a habit of
backfiring.




--

..andy