Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#85
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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 |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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) |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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 ** |
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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.... |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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" |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#100
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#108
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#109
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#110
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#111
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#112
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
"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. |
#113
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#114
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#115
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#116
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#117
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#118
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#119
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
#120
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
GMB Union
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dielectric union needed on chrome MIP Sillcocks? | Home Repair | |||
WTB: Operational Amplifiers (Teledyne, Union Carbide, Valley People) etc. | Electronics Repair | |||
Union (fitting) required? | Home Repair | |||
OT - Bush & Union Busting | Metalworking |