On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:58:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Not quite sure why you included (union) there as it's rather irrelevant.

Because it was effectively the union that set the pace in that case?

I'd be most surprised if the likes of Scargill got involved in such
things. ;-)

Quite. ;-)

It will have been agreed at local level. Not 'set' by the union.

Well yes ... if 'da management' asked for X but the union would only
accept Y then that's what 'they' effectively set? I wasn't suggesting
that they pulled some number out of the air and said this is it, but
seen what was possible by 'most workers' and set it to that.

It is in a union's interests - ie the interests of its members - to have
high efficiency in any workplace.

Sure, within reason and dependant on the organisation.

Provided those workers also benefit from
working at high productivity.

Quite, and we didn't, other than the potential of losing our jobs (or
being moved to a different role) if we couldn't keep up.

Hence why the union would (indirectly maybe) 'set' the maximum pace to
protect it's 'less active' members.

Cheers, T i m