Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.




Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person" is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....



or, as I would put it, "The British cult of "ENVY" in full flow"
blaming everyone else for their own inadequate attitude to life and
unwilling to accept that some people(they) can only be failures whilst
they retain this approach. Essex man and woman are laughing themselves
silly at this level of whinge!

Regards
Capitol

Doctor Drivel wrote:

I love it when useless parasitical Little Middle Englanders are made
redundant.

So that they can join you? IME Middle Englanders don't stay redundant
long, they're too versatile and willing to work.

Regards
Capitol

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages. In the short
term at least the employer is exactly where he wants to be - in a
monopolist position. With maybe hundreds of employees doing exactly the
same job it is of absolutely no consequence to terminate the employment
of the occasional one who gets uppity. The more devious employer would
sack the occasional employee for no better reason than to worry the rest
of the workforce.

If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one. The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

--
Roger Chapman

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall aka Matt wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


In article , Andy Hall aka
Matt wrote:

I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve

And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

Oh dear. What a lot of bigotted nonsense.....

Presumably, your idea of a "reasonable person" is somebody who doesn't
want to improve himself and is happy to sit back and let the state
organise his life for him.,....

or, as I would put it, "The British cult of "ENVY" in full flow" blaming
everyone else for their own inadequate attitude to life and unwilling to
accept that some people(they) can only be failures whilst they retain this
approach. Essex man and woman are laughing themselves silly at this level
of whinge!

John Cartmell was highlighting a strata of people who basically rip us off
big time. There are there and if you didn't know that now you do. I saw no
whinge only an acute observation. BTW, you are one this is being ripped off
too.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

I love it when useless parasitical Little Middle Englanders are made
redundant.

So that they can join you?

They wish they could join me.

IME Middle Englanders don't stay redundant long, they're too versatile and
willing to work.

You must know different Little Middle Englanders than me. Most I know are
sycophants and appear to like being ripped off.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:45:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:




John Cartmell was highlighting a strata of people who basically rip us off
big time. There are there and if you didn't know that now you do. I saw no
whinge only an acute observation. BTW, you are one this is being ripped off
too.


The only ripping off going on here is of you by yourself.......


--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The reality is that it is the combination of the investment and risk
by the employer and the input of labour by the employees.

And the labour want a piece of the action of which they created, which they
should be entitled to.

The "action" is created, by definition by the employer. He has set
up the business and employs people to work in it.

The employee does a piece of work and is paid. That his his piece of
the action.

Where is your difficulty with that?

Otherwise they act as one to get the message across.
You are so naive you think the world is perfect.

On the contrary. I know that it is not. I also know that it is
foolhardy to attempt to achieve things to any significant degree by
the use of a group.

There are some greedy and
callous managers.

There are all kinds of greedy and callous people in all walks of life.



The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

..and they see the yearly profits and say, eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

.... and they get it.

For example, a company mentioned recently in another thread:

In round numbers:

Gross profit: £2.7M
Operating costs: £2M (including £1.1M in wages and salaries)

leaves
Operating profit: £700k

less Corporation tax: £240k

leaves £460k profit after taxation

They paid £100k in shareholder dividends and reinvested the remainder
back into the business.


So..... out of the total profits:

The employees made around £800k (net of tax)

The government made around £800k as well in corporation and income
tax.

The shareholders made £100k of which the government would have made
around £30k.


The reality of all of this is that the employees should be knocking at
the government's door. That is where the other major slice of the
pie is going after the employees piece.....

Sorry, but you are looking in the wrong place....





If you take a look at the accounts of any profitable company you will
see that a substantial chunk goes on wages and salaries so there is a
sharing of the income from the customer.

If you look at the accounts of some companies they could afford to give the
employees £2K each as a bonus, and it would only scratch the profits. But
they don't.

The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the
bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

Oh puhleez......

Matt, you mean they should be ripped off, after creating all the wealth? I
know you are not very bright, but you can't be that dumb.

Look up the companies that work to Quaker ethics: Honeywell, IBM, Cadburys,
Clarke's Shoes, Huntley and Palmer, etc.

--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:42:40 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price. If you consider virtually any other transaction of
services, that which is better usually costs more.


In the short
term at least the employer is exactly where he wants to be - in a
monopolist position.

I didn't say that there wouldn't be competition between employers.


With maybe hundreds of employees doing exactly the
same job it is of absolutely no consequence to terminate the employment
of the occasional one who gets uppity. The more devious employer would
sack the occasional employee for no better reason than to worry the rest
of the workforce.

This is exactly my point. Employees should not be putting themselves
in a position where they have no differentiation. It is asking for
exactly the scenario that you have described to happen.




If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.


The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Of course. You have described one aspect of it, the other is that the
industry had become untenable.

The only ways that that could have been avoided would have been people
being willing to pay more for coal or to erect trade barriers.
Unfortunately the first didn't happen and the second has a habit of
backfiring.




--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The reality is that it is the combination of the investment and risk
by the employer and the input of labour by the employees.

And the labour want a piece of the action of which they created, which
they
should be entitled to.

The "action" is created, by definition by the employer.

It isn't. It is created by the people.

The employee does a piece of work and is paid. That his his piece of
the action.

And when he sees what wealth he creates he has the right to ask for some of
the action, individually and collectively.

Where is your difficulty with that?

You have difficulty with many simple things.

Otherwise they act as one to get the message across.
You are so naive you think the world is perfect.

On the contrary. I know that it is not. I also know that it is
foolhardy to attempt to achieve things to any significant degree by
the use of a group.

You are fully naive.

There are some greedy and
callous managers.

There are all kinds of greedy and
callous people in all walks of life.

You don't say?

The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

..and they see the yearly profits and say,
eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

... and they get it.

For example, a company mentioned recently in another thread:

In round numbers:

Gross profit: £2.7M

What is he on about. All companies have those figures? Wow!

The reality of all of this is that the
employees should be knocking at
the government's door.

They don't make the wealth for the government, they make it for their
company. Matt, you are clearly mad.

If you take a look at the accounts of any profitable company you will
see that a substantial chunk goes on wages and salaries so there is a
sharing of the income from the customer.

If you look at the accounts of some companies they could afford to give
the
employees £2K each as a bonus, and it would only scratch the profits. But
they don't.

The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the
bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

Oh puhleez......

Matt, you mean they should be ripped off, after creating all the wealth? I
know you are not very bright, but you can't be that dumb.

Look up the companies that work to Quaker ethics: Honeywell, IBM,
Cadburys,
Clarke's Shoes, Huntley and Palmer, etc.

--

.andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:37:28 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:58:35 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Not every employee is as capable of this as you - or I - might be. And
actually it could suit the employer to have to strike one deal with an
informed union negotiator, than have to negotiate 300 with a bunch of
people with different wants, needs and understanding of the rules.

If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Well I know this is uk.d-i-y, but do you really do *everything* yourself
and never pay someone else to do it for you because they are better at
it than you? If you do, are you inevitably disappointed?

One way to look at a Trade Union is just this: they are a combination(!)
of an employment law insurance policy and a trained negotiator you
employ to work on your behalf. Because a lot of you all pay the union,
it doesn't cost you that much to employ someone a lot better than you
are to negotiate your pay.

Of course, a lot are more than that, and a lot (including my own) get
far too political for my taste sometimes, but it is possible to believe
that an effective Trade Union can work well, and be to the benefit of
not just the individual employees, but of the employer as well -
particularly in cases where there are not many unions involved, and the
issues affecting one company don't leak out and affect others.

I'll cheerfully declare an interest he I've been a member of a union
for 16 years now, an active representative for about 14 of those, and am
currently occupied full time on union business (although paid by my
employer - who obviously think it worth it). And at least some of the
individual cases I've taken forward have lead to people feeling
something far from your "inevitable disappointment".
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:45:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

John Cartmell was highlighting a strata of
people who basically rip us off
big time. They are there and if you didn't
know that now you do. I saw no
whinge only an acute observation. BTW,
you are one this is being ripped off too.

The only ripping off going on here is of you by yourself.......

You are being ripped off and are so naive you can't see it. They have
convinced you, you are not being ripped off you are so gullible.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:42:40 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's
the one sustainable approach to economics.

Yep. Open up land to the capitalist open market. I'm all for it.

** snip Mattness and Rogerness **

Belonging to a union makes the conflict
tween employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict.

Boy!!! Are you naive to life!!!

** snip Mattness and Rogerness **

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:43:02 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:45:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

John Cartmell was highlighting a strata of
people who basically rip us off
big time. They are there and if you didn't
know that now you do. I saw no
whinge only an acute observation. BTW,
you are one this is being ripped off too.

The only ripping off going on here is of you by yourself.......

You are being ripped off and are so naive you can't see it. They have
convinced you, you are not being ripped off you are so gullible.

Oh dear.... What a lot of nonsense.

Have you bought a lottery ticket recently?



--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:39:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message


The "action" is created, by definition by the employer.

It isn't. It is created by the people.

Which people? Do you mean the employees? Did they make the initial
investments and take the risks?


The employee does a piece of work and is paid. That his his piece of
the action.

And when he sees what wealth he creates he has the right to ask for some of
the action, individually and collectively.

Just individually, and he does, each month when he sees the credit
transfer into his bank account.



The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

..and they see the yearly profits and say,
eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

... and they get it.

For example, a company mentioned recently in another thread:

In round numbers:

Gross profit: £2.7M

What is he on about. All companies have those figures? Wow!

I said that it was a typical example....



The reality of all of this is that the
employees should be knocking at
the government's door.

They don't make the wealth for the government, they make it for their
company.

OK, so you don't understand the basics of simple accounting. Fair
enough.

I was simply pointing out that the government is typically taking as
much as the employees from a business.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:43:02 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:45:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

John Cartmell was highlighting a strata of
people who basically rip us off
big time. They are there and if you didn't
know that now you do. I saw no
whinge only an acute observation. BTW,
you are one this is being ripped off too.

The only ripping off going on here is of you by yourself.......

You are being ripped off and are so naive you can't see it. They have
convinced you, you are not being ripped off you are so gullible.

Oh dear.... What a lot of nonsense.

Matt, your gullibility is all too clear to see. I bet you think the Royal
family are wonderful as well. Some mothers....

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:59:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



BTW, Tone has eliminated the north-south divide, just announced by the FT.

Oh, so it must be right.


--

..andy

Aidan wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state, own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.


I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure & I'm
not getting into a row about it.

The Crown lands belong to 'the Crown', this is not the same as the
person who happens to be monarch at the time. Thus it is in effect state
property rather than personal property.


--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:41:50 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:37:28 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:58:35 +0000, Nick Atty
wrote:

Don't forget that there is a lot more to what trade unions offer their
members than just collective bargaining on pay (and conditions of
service equivalent to pay - things like holidays). In many cases they
provide an individual with a counter-balance to the size, weight,
expertise and legal budgets of the employer.

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Not every employee is as capable of this as you - or I - might be. And
actually it could suit the employer to have to strike one deal with an
informed union negotiator, than have to negotiate 300 with a bunch of
people with different wants, needs and understanding of the rules.

It could do. However, it still doesn't need an external
organisation.



If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Well I know this is uk.d-i-y, but do you really do *everything* yourself
and never pay someone else to do it for you because they are better at
it than you?

Certainly not. I "outsource" all kinds of things. These are based
on whether I have the skills/knowledge (if not, whether I want to
invest the time to learn) and cost vs. time available.

There are a few things that I would *never* outsource. Anything to do
with personal career marketability, acquiring and maintaining
appropriate skills, agreeing pay and conditions are high on the list.
I simply don't trust anyone else to do it.


If you do, are you inevitably disappointed?

When I do buy services, (and goods for that matter), I look very
carefully at what I am buying and make it clear what I am looking for.
If that is agreed to, then I do expect to get it.
If there's a shortfall for whatever reason, there is a discussion
about fixing it or a price reduction.

I have a very simple principle in business. If I promise somebody
something, I will do it or not promise it in the first place. If I am
uncertain, I will point out the risks. This avoids confusion and
disappointment.

I don't look for more than that when I am buying something, but it is
surprising how many people are genuinely shocked when asked to do what
they said that they would do and haven't.




One way to look at a Trade Union is just this: they are a combination(!)
of an employment law insurance policy and a trained negotiator you
employ to work on your behalf. Because a lot of you all pay the union,
it doesn't cost you that much to employ someone a lot better than you
are to negotiate your pay.

I think that that is a crazy idea. Why would I want to employ someone
to negotiate my pay? Why would I want those to be the same as
everyone else's?

This goes back to my original point. If I have something that the
employer wants to buy (e.g. skillset etc.) then I should have no
difficulty in negotiating my own pay and conditions. If I need to
resort to asking someone else to do it for me, then I am basically
admitting that what I am offering is not sufficiently compelling to
the employer that he is willing to pay what I want.
This is a very tenuous position to be in.
In effect, it is letting the employer buy on headline price and to
perceive what I am supplying as a commodity. Not a good position at
all.




Of course, a lot are more than that, and a lot (including my own) get
far too political for my taste sometimes, but it is possible to believe
that an effective Trade Union can work well, and be to the benefit of
not just the individual employees, but of the employer as well -
particularly in cases where there are not many unions involved, and the
issues affecting one company don't leak out and affect others.

This is my other issue with them. Certainly politics has no place
whatsoever in this, and neither should there be any crosspollination
between companies.




I'll cheerfully declare an interest he I've been a member of a union
for 16 years now, an active representative for about 14 of those, and am
currently occupied full time on union business (although paid by my
employer - who obviously think it worth it). And at least some of the
individual cases I've taken forward have lead to people feeling
something far from your "inevitable disappointment".

My basic point is that the individuals should be encouraged to become
far more self reliant. If that were the case, they would not be
leaning on the crutch of a union.

If it works effectively in your environment for the moment then fine.
However, ultimately it is likely to be a hiding to nothing because
individuals are not being encouraged to stand up for themselves and
mass negotiation is not a long term effective way of developing good
employer/employee relationships. There needs to be something more
attractive to an employer than the threat of withdrawal of labour and
other business destroying tactics.




--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:


BTW, Tone has eliminated the north-south divide, just announced by the
FT.

I suggest you go back and re read it. In terms of income the gap is
still there and in wealth creation, the North unhappily is still way
down the tables. I see that the Scots are now being chastised for lack
of enterprise and achievement, caused in part by decades of Socialist
handouts. Sad, for such a traditionally hard working group.

Regards
Capitol

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one. The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Scargill was looking after the jobs of his members. That was the terms of
his employment; he was honours his employment contract. He was doing his
job. He said the coal industry would disappear. The right wing media said
phewy. Scargill was right. It has been said here, the Home Counties beat
the Filthy North. That was about right.

Scagill was a disgrace as a union leader. The first thing he did after
taking control of the NUM was to close the unproductive London pit
(sorry office) and sack all the workers. He took a successful union and
in a few short years lost most of his members either to another union or
the dole. ISTR seeing a report that the NUM was down to 5000 members but
the president for life was still being paid as if he were in control of
a large successful union instead of presiding over the rump of a once
proud union.

BTW, Tone has eliminated the north-south divide, just announced by the FT.
The other pricks would never have done that, just pandering to parasite
middle class Little Middle Englanders.

What on earth are you on about. I live within Leeds commuter belt and
there are still houses in the locality that are cheap. A quick look
through the local paper reveals several at around £65,000 and one
building plot at the same price. You won't match that anywhere down
South.

That building plot gives the lie to your ridiculous claim that two
thirds the cost of a house is the land. No way can you build a modern
house for £22000. The house that will eventually be built on that site
will probably fetch about £200,000.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price. If you consider virtually any other transaction of
services, that which is better usually costs more.

The effective employee can only command a higher wage if he has
something unique to offer. If all the employees are equally effective it
doesn't matter how good they are, the employer can always afford to
dispose of the one who who wants the most. There will be plenty more
willing to work for less when they see what happened to the one that
asked for more.


In the short
term at least the employer is exactly where he wants to be - in a
monopolist position.

I didn't say that there wouldn't be competition between employers.

In the short term that doesn't matter. As far as the employer/employee
relationship is concerned the employer is in a monopolist position. A
position more over which he is quite capable of abusing. What chance
does a worker sacked with malice stand of getting a good reference and
without a good reference what chance has the sacked worker of getting
another job.

With maybe hundreds of employees doing exactly the
same job it is of absolutely no consequence to terminate the employment
of the occasional one who gets uppity. The more devious employer would
sack the occasional employee for no better reason than to worry the rest
of the workforce.

This is exactly my point. Employees should not be putting themselves
in a position where they have no differentiation. It is asking for
exactly the scenario that you have described to happen.

For employees with no special talents there is no choice. The do a job
that literally millions of others could do equally well. The doctrine
that senior managers should be motivated by money and workers by fear of
the sack is a pernicious one but one that is widely followed by those
who are very well rewarded whether they are a success or failure. Senior
managers in the major British companies may no longer own much of the
equity but they still control the levers of power and will reward
themselves handsomely whatever the outcome.

If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Of course. You have described one aspect of it, the other is that the
industry had become untenable.

In the long term the industry was always going to fail. Scagill managed
to expedite its demise.

The only ways that that could have been avoided would have been people
being willing to pay more for coal or to erect trade barriers.
Unfortunately the first didn't happen and the second has a habit of
backfiring.

There was a third way. The government could have prevented the dash of
gas. That would have slowed the decline of the industry. It was
shortsighted in the extreme to let that resource be wasted in the way it
has been leaving the country at the mercy of foreign suppliers who may
well hold us to ransom in the future.

--
Roger Chapman

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:39:54 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The "action" is created, by definition by the employer.

It isn't. It is created by the people.

Which people? Do you mean the employees?

Matt, yes.

The employee does a piece of work
and is paid. That his his piece of
the action.

And when he sees what wealth he
creates he has the right to ask for some of
the action, individually and collectively.

Just individually,

No. Collectively, as they all work together.

The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

..and they see the yearly profits and say,
eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

... and they get it.

For example, a company mentioned recently in another thread:

In round numbers:

Gross profit: £2.7M

What is he on about. All companies have those figures? Wow!

I said that it was a typical example....

It is not.

The reality of all of this is that the
employees should be knocking at
the government's door.

They don't make the wealth for the
government, they make it for their
company.

OK, so you don't understand the
basics of simple accounting.

I do.

I was simply pointing out that the government is typically taking as
much as the employees from a business.

There only take it after the whacking out.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:59:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

BTW, Tone has eliminated the
north-south divide, just announced by the FT.

Oh, so it must be right.

Hurts you doesn't it. Little Middle England can't grab more of the cake.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:17:58 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price. If you consider virtually any other transaction of
services, that which is better usually costs more.

The effective employee can only command a higher wage if he has
something unique to offer.

Of course. My point is that he should make sure that he can and does.
If he can't for whatever reason, then the inevitable choices are
between moving to a different career or geographical area or doing
nothing and effectively losing control either to a third party such as
a union to do his negotiating or to accept what comes.

My point is that of all of these (above doing nothing), the union
involvement is the weakest proposition because it hasn't addressed the
fundamental issues of marketability.

If all the employees are equally effective it
doesn't matter how good they are, the employer can always afford to
dispose of the one who who wants the most. There will be plenty more
willing to work for less when they see what happened to the one that
asked for more.

Again the same point. The employee should be negotiating on the
basis of genuine value to the business and not just on price.




In the short
term at least the employer is exactly where he wants to be - in a
monopolist position.

I didn't say that there wouldn't be competition between employers.

In the short term that doesn't matter. As far as the employer/employee
relationship is concerned the employer is in a monopolist position.

Of course. The employer is the "customer". In the final analysis,
he can buy where he chooses. The point is that the "supplier" should
make sure that he sees value and not just price.


A
position more over which he is quite capable of abusing.

Just like any other customer.

What chance
does a worker sacked with malice stand of getting a good reference and
without a good reference what chance has the sacked worker of getting
another job.

That depends on whether the employee was sacked for justifiable cause
or not.




With maybe hundreds of employees doing exactly the
same job it is of absolutely no consequence to terminate the employment
of the occasional one who gets uppity. The more devious employer would
sack the occasional employee for no better reason than to worry the rest
of the workforce.

This is exactly my point. Employees should not be putting themselves
in a position where they have no differentiation. It is asking for
exactly the scenario that you have described to happen.

For employees with no special talents there is no choice. The do a job
that literally millions of others could do equally well.

There is always a choice..... The issue is that the alternatives may
not be what the individual wants.

The doctrine
that senior managers should be motivated by money and workers by fear of
the sack is a pernicious one but one that is widely followed by those
who are very well rewarded whether they are a success or failure. Senior
managers in the major British companies may no longer own much of the
equity but they still control the levers of power and will reward
themselves handsomely whatever the outcome.


Hmmm.....



If he is sitting back and relying on others to do it for him, then
there will inevitably be a disappointing outcome.

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

That simply isn't true.

It isn't an issue of weight of numbers. All that that achieves is to
temporarily provide some marginally improved situation for the
workforce. Beyond a certain point that becomes untenable because the
employer can no longer make money, either because margins are squeezed
too far or because he will price himself out of the market.

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.

The focus is on the wrong issues.


The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Of course. You have described one aspect of it, the other is that the
industry had become untenable.

In the long term the industry was always going to fail. Scagill managed
to expedite its demise.

The only ways that that could have been avoided would have been people
being willing to pay more for coal or to erect trade barriers.
Unfortunately the first didn't happen and the second has a habit of
backfiring.

There was a third way. The government could have prevented the dash of
gas. That would have slowed the decline of the industry. It was
shortsighted in the extreme to let that resource be wasted in the way it
has been leaving the country at the mercy of foreign suppliers who may
well hold us to ransom in the future.

True. However, the outcome would have been the same


--

..andy

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:


BTW, Tone has eliminated the north-south divide, just announced by the
FT.

I suggest you go back and re read it.
In terms of income the gap is still there and in wealth creation, the
North unhappily is still way down the tables.

Nope. Half of the 100 places where standard of living was high where in the
north of England.

I see that the Scots are now being chastised for lack of enterprise and
achievement,

I'm not surprised. Some nutters come from up there.

caused in part by decades of Socialist handouts. Sad, for such a
traditionally hard working group.

You a fool and an idiot! In fact the Jocks are much brighter than you.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Belonging to a union makes the conflict between employer and workforce
much more equal - One to one. The problems with unions arise where the
welfare of the workers is only of secondary consideration to those in
control of the union. For instance Scagill saw his members as a private
army at his beck and call in his fight with capitalism. Ordering his
members out to further his political ambitions without giving the
members a chance to vote on the matter split the NUM and hastened the
demise of the coal industry.

Scargill was looking after the jobs of his members. That was the terms
of
his employment; he was honours his employment contract. He was doing his
job. He said the coal industry would disappear. The right wing media
said
phewy. Scargill was right. It has been said here, the Home Counties
beat
the Filthy North. That was about right.

Scagill was a disgrace as a union leader.

More perverted Rogerness. The man saw what they were doing and did the
right thing. Policemen of working class origin beat their men down for a
bit of overtime. Lower than whale **** the lot of them.

The first thing he did after
taking control of the NUM was to close
the unproductive London pit
(sorry office) and sack all the workers.

There was no mines in London.

He took a successful union and
in a few short years lost most of
his members either to another union or

History proved the man right.

BTW, Tone has eliminated the north-south
divide, just announced by the FT.
The other pricks would never have done
that, just pandering to parasite
middle class Little Middle Englanders.

What on earth are you on about.

Rogerness again. Read above.

I live within Leeds commuter belt

Poor sod.

and there are still houses in the locality
that are cheap. A quick look through the
local paper reveals several at around
£65,000 and one building plot at the same
price. You won't match that anywhere down
South.

Some places in London are unsellable.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Andy Hall aka Matt contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price.

Matt, do you mean a creep of an employee? Yes you do. You think creeps are
a good thing. I can't stand creeps.

The effective employee can only
command a higher wage if he has
something unique to offer.

Or is a creep.

If all the employees are equally effective it
doesn't matter how good they are, the
employer can always afford to dispose
of the one who who wants the most.
There will be plenty more willing to work
for less when they see what happened to the one that
asked for more.

For employees with no special talents there is no choice. The do a job
that literally millions of others could do equally well. The doctrine
that senior managers should be motivated by money and workers by fear of
the sack is a pernicious one but one that is widely followed by those
who are very well rewarded whether they are a success or failure. Senior
managers in the major British companies may no longer own much of the
equity but they still control the levers of power and will reward
themselves handsomely whatever the outcome.

Roger that was very good.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

Roger that was very good.

There was a third way. The government could have prevented the dash of
gas. That would have slowed the decline of the industry. It was
shortsighted in the extreme to let that resource be wasted in the way it
has been leaving the country at the mercy of foreign suppliers who may
well hold us to ransom in the future.

Roger that was very good. Riger you laced Matt.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:24:18 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:59:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

BTW, Tone has eliminated the
north-south divide, just announced by the FT.

Oh, so it must be right.

Hurts you doesn't it. Little Middle England can't grab more of the cake.


I wouldn't really know.

However, I suspect that it would focus on making the cake larger
rather than grabbing a bigger slice.

Did you buy the lottery tickets?


--

..andy

"David" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Aidan writes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the state,
own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.

I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure & I'm
not getting into a row about it.

No, you're wrong the Crown estate is in name only, the Royals receive no
income from the crown estates, the only bit of land that belongs to the
Crown is the foreshore and that is just an administrative thing and does
give it some protection.

Bertie, you are wrong. The Crown Estate does own land, not just the beach.
It rents land out. Then why is the Queen involved? Maybe there is some
part of the original contract that says if the civil list is dropped the
estate returns to them. The state should sell it all off to owner
occupation only, with clauses that forbid absentee land landlords owning the
land.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:24:18 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:59:00 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

BTW, Tone has eliminated the
north-south divide, just announced by the FT.

Oh, so it must be right.

Hurts you doesn't it. Little Middle England
can't grab more of the cake.

I wouldn't really know.

However, I suspect that it would focus
on making the cake larger
rather than grabbing a bigger slice.

Matt, so, giving southern Little Middle Englanders more of the cake makes it
bigger? Madness. Pure madness.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:40:34 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
. uk...
The message
from Andy Hall aka Matt contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price.

Do you mean a creep of an employee?

No.

You think creeps are
a good thing. I can't stand creeps.

You forgot to use the phrase "boss's lacky", or is that out of favour
now?




--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:40:34 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
.uk...
The message
from Andy Hall aka Matt contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently
attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price.

Do you mean a creep of an employee?

No.

You do.

You think creeps are
a good thing. I can't stand creeps.

You forgot to use the phrase
oss's lacky", or is that out of favour
now?

That is a good one too. Sycophant is apt for you Matt.

David wrote:


No, you're wrong the Crown estate is in name only, the Royals receive no
income from the crown estates, the only bit of land that belongs to the
Crown is the foreshore and that is just an administrative thing and does
give it some protection.

I wonder if you can explain something to me...

What is a 'foreshore'?

I ask, cos I work at a school as site supervisor and I was passing a
group of primary children that were having a reading class.

As I passed the group, one of the children asked 'what is a shore'?

The teacher replied that she did not know. I jumped in and said that it
was that part of the beach that is covered between low and high tide and
that it was called a foreshore.

Am I right?

Dave

John Cartmell wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

I do firmly believe that the correct way to make that happen is to show,
encourage and help people to achieve


And letting parasites and idiots bump house prices out of the reach of
reasonable people is your idea of encouragement.

Erm, where did that come from, and what exactly does it have to do with
what he said?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Capitol wrote:

Essex man and woman are laughing themselves
silly at this level of whinge!

Too right... LOL!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Mine, BECTU, includes public liability insurance for each member, which if
bought individually would cost more than the annual subscription.

Not something unique to unions though, most trade organisations offer
similar deals for their members.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The message
from Dave contains these words:

As I passed the group, one of the children asked 'what is a shore'?

The teacher replied that she did not know. I jumped in and said that it
was that part of the beach that is covered between low and high tide and
that it was called a foreshore.

Am I right?

Yes and no. :-)

Foreshore can mean the bit between high and low water mark but it can
also mean he bit immediately inshore of the high watermark.

--
Roger Chapman

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

I live within Leeds commuter belt

Poor sod.

I don't live in Leeds. I live within commuting distance of there should
I wish to work.

And I am quite happy with the situation. Extensive views of not all
together ruined countryside. Surrounded on 3 sides by farmland and with
my nearest neighbour 50 yards away. But rural life wouldn't appeal to
you, would it Dribble? The countryside is there to be built on, not
enjoyed.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

That simply isn't true.

Oh but it is.

It isn't an issue of weight of numbers. All that that achieves is to
temporarily provide some marginally improved situation for the
workforce. Beyond a certain point that becomes untenable because the
employer can no longer make money, either because margins are squeezed
too far or because he will price himself out of the market.

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.

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

--
Roger Chapman

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

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

That simply isn't true.

Oh but it is.

It isn't an issue of weight of numbers. All that that achieves is to
temporarily provide some marginally improved situation for the
workforce. Beyond a certain point that becomes untenable because the
employer can no longer make money, either because margins are squeezed
too far or because he will price himself out of the market.

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.

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.

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



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.

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.


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....




--

..andy