In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past -
and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

Point of ignorance.. did *new technology* in the broadcast industry
displace labour?

I turned down a job offer at Vinten, Bury St. Edmunds where they were
proposing to remote control TV cameras. ( 1968?) Thinking back, I doubt
that would displace anyone.

The car industry automation; body welding etc. displaced lots of skilled
men.

What's needed is an agreement negotiated by both sides. As happens in the
likes of Germany. Not the macho posturing that was so common in the UK -
and heavily encouraged by both the press and some governments.

Post war industry was over bloated and needed serious rationalisation.
Aircraft manufacturing an obvious example.


--
Tim Lamb