The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:05:31 GMT, Roger
wrote:

snip

You are looking at the situation from the old fashioned capitalist
perspective where all the profits of the enterprise belong exclusively
to the owner and the wage slaves are granted the smallest possible
pittance the employer can get away with.

I haven't said that at all and it is seldom the case.

It depends very much on the nature of the work. Those with highly prized
specialist skills are in short supply and it is neccessary for employers
to be considerate if they want to retain their employees services. Those
with no specialist skills (the majority) are treated on a take it or
leave basis. Outside of piecework (and the battle of the sexes) I have
never heard of any situation where adult unskilled or semi skilled
workers are rewarded differently to those they work alongside.

I gave a very typical illustration based on figures from a company
mentioned in another recent thread.

In that one, the wages were approx a third of gross profit, the taxman
took another third and out of the remaining third, after other
operating costs were taken out, most of the remainder was reinvested
in the business and about 3% of the total went to shareholder
dividends.

But I don't recall you mentioning whether the workforce had a union or
the ratio of the CEOs emoluments to the wage of of the shop floor
worker. Reinvestment is added value to the share holder but I am a bit
puzzled how the taxman got his hands on a third of the gross profit. I
thought Corporation Tax hadn't been as high as 33% for years and that is
charged on taxable profit rather than the usually much higher figure for
gross profit.

If there is a piece that could be usefully reduced, it is the piece
which goes to and is wasted by the government.

In no particular order: Armed Services, Police, National Health Service,
Education, Roads, Culture, Welfare, subsidies to parents, MPs (salaries,
expenses and pension fund), etc. etc. - all wasted. :-)


What is really at issue is the balance between the reward for the
employer and the reward for the employee.

Of course, and as I illustrated, it is very much in the direction of
the employee in most cases, certainly in anything that involves
manufacturing.

I doubt whether the employees concerned would agree with you.

Non specialist employees have
no leverage whatsoever. Supply is almost always greater than demand. One
employer negotiating with one union merely levels up the playing field.

The problem with all of that is ultimately with the employees (or
rather the individual employee). All that the union can ever hope to
do is to bolster up what is ultimately an unsustainable situation. If
the employee allows himself to be a commodity, then he is going to be
subject to the market pressures for that commodity. If the employer
can buy more cheaply elsewhere, with all costs considered, then he
will and does.

The focus for the employee should be on differentiating himself in the
employment market. This is not to say that anybody is ultimately
indispensible, but he can certainly make a bigger difference to his
situation than a union ever can because he can focus purely on his own
requirements.

But the individual has no weight at all if he is indistinguishable from
the next man or woman. Consequently the employer can see off each
employee one at a time. The union redresses the imbalance but the
employer ultimately remains in control. (The employees hang separately
if they don't hang together). As an investor or an employer you might
find the power of the union a bit of an inconvenience but that is a
minor matter compared to how the individual shop floor worker finds the
employer if he doesn't have a union for support.


The union movement is responsible for a trail of destruction as a
result of closed shops, restrictive practices, secondary action and
working days lost to strike action. It's a legacy of a bygone era
that really has no place in the modern world.

I doubt whether anyone apart from Dribble would argue that unions are
perfect but the worst excesses of union behaviour are hopefully a thing
of the past and some of them are now illegal.

I agree with you that the worst excesses are broadly a thing of the
past. However, fortunately I don't see a long term future for them
either. The've had their day....

You hope.

--
Roger Chapman