On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:23:28 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

For at least half the population there is no realistic prospect of them
taking any action that would differentiate themselves from the herd.

I don't buy that argument. It is almost always possible to take some
action. The issue is much more about whether the alternative action
is felt by the individual to be unacceptable or to carry too high a
risk.

I think you missed the point.

Not at all

If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd.

Obviously they should look at what others are doing and not copy.


And if
you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

It isn't a luxury. Ultimately it's a necessity from the perspective
of the employee.




I'm not at all. My point is that it is not a long term effective
strategy for an employee to cast his fate to others on a group basis.
It's much more effective to take more control of one's own destiny.

But it is an effective strategy for the employee who has no unique
selling point.

My point is that everybody should make sure, in whatever way they can
that they have USPs (or at least sufficient SPs).

Relying on others on the assumption of no SPs is doomed to inevitable
failure at some point and limits the scope of what an individual could
achieve if he looked for himself.


The wages amounted to about £1m including approx £140k between the
three directors.

I didn't see that thread. (Can't find the time to keep up with all the
traffic).

Nothing unreasonable there at all. £50-60k for a managing director is
hardly excessive.

Probably not. But does £40 thousand go to the wife for doing bugger all?

Nope. Three completely separate directors.

Makes a change. :-)

Small closed companies, possibly, but it becomes impracticable beyond
a certain size of company.




By hook or by crook the government gets its hand on more than 40% of the
GDP but I still think you are over estimating the amount tax in this
particular instance.

Even if it were 25%, the point would still stand. It's a huge slice
of the pie for very little return.




I didn't say that it had to be the private for-profit sector. It
could also include trust organisations.

Which may be no better at it than the current setup and would be even
more unaccountable than at present.

Crown immunity?

Do people get fired from the civil service for incompetence?





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.

They may well not. However, if one sits and thinks for a few minutes
and compares the commecial aspect of an employer/employee relationship
with any other transaction, it is pretty obvious that businesses which
sell commodities purely on price are highly exposed to market
conditions. Can you imagine all the shops getting together and
refusing to sell apples because the price is too low? Yet this is, in
effect what union negotiation seeks to achieve.
The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.


Ignoring political ambitions of unions for a moment; even with the
best of intentions, my point is that a union which is operating on the
basis of simply trying to secure better conditions for its members
based on status quo is doing them a huge disservice.

It is far better for people to be encouraged to make what they are
offering genuinely more valuable to the employer such that he is
willing to pay more for it; or to seek opportunities with a better
outcome.




Some employees really have no choice. They have little to sell other
than their presence.

I think that is sadly defeatist.

Not everyone is a born businessman and for everyone with above average
intelligence, drive, etc. there is another below.

Of course that's true. The harsh reality is that not all animals
are equal. Therefore why should almost all, who are able to achieve
more than they thought they could be limited?




Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.

That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation.

There is no justification for fighting a "class war" because it is a
relic of a previous era.

The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake.

Not true. At a certain point, the shareholders, whoever they may be
(probably a pension scheme or other widely held investment) will
decide that the return on investment is not good enough and withdraw
their money.


What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee.

Only if one's mind is limited to an adversarial situation between the
two. The real and sustainable point should be about growing the size
of the cake in comparison with the external competition.

A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

It's the wrong focus for both parties.





I didn't seek to get rid of anybody. In fact I made the point several
times that individual achievement should be encouraged. Collective
negotiation has the opposite effect.

You would sack half the civil service given half a chance.

Actually I would sack most of it and encourage a much broader
perspective.

Bloat isn't
the sole preserve of bureaucracy. It is inherent in any large
organisation.

Of course.



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.

Yes I do, but it will happen anyway as the nature of industry and
services change.

Unions will be around as long as their members see an advantage in
belonging to them.

Probably, but I very much doubt whether that will be in anything like
their historic or present form a generation from now.

Now would that be the shirking classes generation (new generation every
15 years or so) or the thinking classes (new generation every 30 years
or so). :-)

Ah well.....

--

..andy