In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power,
then that's an understandable viewpoint.

Actually, no. I was all in favour of secret ballots, and careful logging
of the numbers attending meetings. Because I knew the idea of hairy arsed
miners etc being intimidated to vote against their true beliefs by a
couple of activists to be just so much media rubbish. And was proved right.
So when that didn't cripple the unions, Thatcher had to go further. She
didn't want fair industrial relations but the return to a master slave
scenario.

I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a
role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for
the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was
reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary
action was among the most obvious of those areas.

No - most of it came down to just plain poor management. BMC/BL being the
prime example. They released what amounted to prototypes and expected the
public to do the final testing. Forget poor workmanship - they simply
weren't properly developed. And if they had major engineering flaws it
doesn't take too much imagination to assume that the production
engineering was poor too, so they couldn't be built properly within the
time allowed. And that is going to frustrate a decent worker and make
disputes likely. Those same workers produced decently made cars before and
after.



We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
world.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.


This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee
relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.

Of *course* it shouldn't be. But when a company decides to increase
profits by worsening the pay and or conditions of the workforce - and
believe me it happens regularly - then at some point the workforce will
call a halt to it.

And it's not new. I left the BBC in '78 because their rigid following of
the so called prices and incomes policy meant I was getting close to being
no longer able to pay the mortgage. Others on the same grade as me - and
with say between 10 and 20 years service - were eligible for free school
meals for their kids and whatever the equivalent was to income support.

Shortly afterwards, due to vast losses of qualified staff, the BBC was
forced to revise conditions of service to pay them a *lot* more.

Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and
influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it
is conducted.

I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic
anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the
past.

Perhaps the majority of the workforce these days doesn't have experience
or indeed memories of the benefits of a good union. Many only 'know' about
them from the rubbish they read in the press. But things are changing. The
hours worked and the conditions of service for many in this country are
just plain ridiculous, and I can see a revolt coming. And this can only be
done by organising the workforce, now as before.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.