Roger wrote:



You have more faith in the private sector than I do. Privatization of
services such as hospital cleaning has led to a decline in both wages
and standards. The fiasco that is the government computer services is
private enterprise at its worst.



Ah, excellent. I've been trying for years to find someone who can
explain to me why public sector contracts don't seem to have any legal
force.

I'm quite certain that if I contracted with a private company to supply
me with goods or services and they failed to do so, they wouldn't just
walk away with my money. And I don't have an unlimited supply of money
to pay lawyers.

You have the floor...

[Joe] :
I'm quite certain that if I contracted with a private company to supply
me with goods or services and they failed to do so, they wouldn't just
walk away with my money.

When it comes to things like contract cleaning you know (a) that if you
want to get rid of the current firm for non performance the bidders for
the replacement contract will know that you a distress purchasers and bid
accordingly; and (b) once the new firm has taken over you'll find that
their promises are less than watertight and they've just re-employed all
the old workers who were doing the work before. So it ends up being
better the devil you know.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

The message
from Joe contains these words:

You have more faith in the private sector than I do. Privatization of
services such as hospital cleaning has led to a decline in both wages
and standards. The fiasco that is the government computer services is
private enterprise at its worst.

Ah, excellent. I've been trying for years to find someone who can
explain to me why public sector contracts don't seem to have any legal
force.

I'm quite certain that if I contracted with a private company to supply
me with goods or services and they failed to do so, they wouldn't just
walk away with my money. And I don't have an unlimited supply of money
to pay lawyers.

You have the floor...

Sorry but I am not at all sure what you mean. The 2 items above have
very different circumstances and I have no detailed information on
either.

Hospital cleaning has private employers making money by depressing
already low wages and cutting corners. Having outsourced the work
hospitals no longer have the resources to police it properly.

The private employers who provide computer services to the government
seem a more canny bunch with open ended contracts that ensure they are
never out of pocket however many bugs they design into their systems.

It has been said that the reason the Scottish Parliament building went
so ridiculously over budget was because those supposedly in control kept
on changing their minds on what they wanted. Maybe but there is at least
a hint in this (as in just about every military development project) of
a conspiracy between both sides to underestimate the original cost to
avoid the possibility on cancellation prior to commencement on the
grounds of outrageous cost.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

For at least half the population there is no realistic prospect of them
taking any action that would differentiate themselves from the herd.

I don't buy that argument. It is almost always possible to take some
action. The issue is much more about whether the alternative action
is felt by the individual to be unacceptable or to carry too high a
risk.

I think you missed the point. If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd. And if
you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

Outside of piecework (and the battle of the sexes) I have
never heard of any situation where adult unskilled or semi skilled
workers are rewarded differently to those they work alongside.

So this indicates an oversupply with people competing on price only.
It is hardly surprising that the situation is as you describe. The
solution is to reduce the amount of supply or improve the value as
seen by the purchaser (employer in this case), not to try to negotiate
a better price for a commodity. That's a weak position to take which
will inevitably fail at some point.

I think you are ignoring the point of all this is which is that
belonging to a union alters the balance between the employer and the
employee. The employees position may be weak but it is generally
improved by being a member of a union.

I'm not at all. My point is that it is not a long term effective
strategy for an employee to cast his fate to others on a group basis.
It's much more effective to take more control of one's own destiny.

But it is an effective strategy for the employee who has no unique
selling point.

The wages amounted to about £1m including approx £140k between the
three directors.

I didn't see that thread. (Can't find the time to keep up with all the
traffic).

Nothing unreasonable there at all. £50-60k for a managing director is
hardly excessive.

Probably not. But does £40 thousand go to the wife for doing bugger all?

Nope. Three completely separate directors.

Makes a change. :-)

The point being made was not whether or not there were unions etc. but
that there was not a huge mountain of executive emolument and
dividends being built up at the expense of the employees.
The villain of the piece is the taxman.

Reinvestment is added value to the share holder but I am a bit
puzzled how the taxman got his hands on a third of the gross profit. I
thought Corporation Tax hadn't been as high as 33% for years and that is
charged on taxable profit rather than the usually much higher figure for
gross profit.

The take for the taxman was based on corporation tax, employer and
employee NI and employee income tax. Together, these amount to at
least a third of the top line.

I don't have access to the figures but ISTM that even if you concede the
whole of the wage bill to the taxman and throw in the kitchen sink you
still wouldn't manage to give him a third of the gross profit. BTW it is
the employees who pay their tax and NIC, the company merely collects it
on the governments behalf and if half of what I read about tax credits
is true half the workforce won't really be paying any tax at all.

I was looking at it from the top down perspective - in other words the
employees doing the work and contributing to the gross profits.
I calculated that out of the total, around a third was going in taxes.
Yes, I realise that the employer is operating as an unpaid
administrator for the state, but that money is going from the total
wealth being generated from the work of the employees.
If taxation were lower, the state's slice of the cake would be
smaller, which would be a good thing.

By hook or by crook the government gets its hand on more than 40% of the
GDP but I still think you are over estimating the amount tax in this
particular instance.

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

In no particular order: Armed Services, Police, National Health Service,
Education, Roads, Culture, Welfare, subsidies to parents, MPs (salaries,
expenses and pension fund), etc. etc. - all wasted. :-)

Almost all of those with the possible exception of armed services and
police could be far more effectively operated outside of state
control. I posted a few weeks ago an alternative method of funding
and delivering both health and education with a much smaller role for
government and the government employed.

You have more faith in the private sector than I do. Privatization of
services such as hospital cleaning has led to a decline in both wages
and standards. The fiasco that is the government computer services is
private enterprise at its worst.

I didn't say that it had to be the private for-profit sector. It
could also include trust organisations.

Which may be no better at it than the current setup and would be even
more unaccountable than at present.

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.

I doubt whether the employees concerned would agree with you.

They may well not. However, if one sits and thinks for a few minutes
and compares the commecial aspect of an employer/employee relationship
with any other transaction, it is pretty obvious that businesses which
sell commodities purely on price are highly exposed to market
conditions. Can you imagine all the shops getting together and
refusing to sell apples because the price is too low? Yet this is, in
effect what union negotiation seeks to achieve.
The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.

I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish. Both employer
and workforce would prefer the business to succeed. All that is at issue
is the relative rewards of owner and worker and there is no doubt that a
union improves the situation from the workers point of view.

That's my point. I don't think that it does in a sustainable way.

In which case unions will indeed fade away, but don't hold your breath.

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.

But the individual has no weight at all if he is indistinguishable from
the next man or woman. Consequently the employer can see off each
employee one at a time.

Exactly, which is why the employee should not allow himself to get
into that position.

Some employees really have no choice. They have little to sell other
than their presence.

I think that is sadly defeatist.

Not everyone is a born businessman and for everyone with above average
intelligence, drive, etc. there is another below.

The union redresses the imbalance but the
employer ultimately remains in control. (The employees hang separately
if they don't hang together).

All that it really achieves is to bolster up a fundamentally weak
position and focusses on the wrong areas.

Not from the workers POV.

Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.

That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation. The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake. What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee. A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

As an investor or an employer you might
find the power of the union a bit of an inconvenience but that is a
minor matter compared to how the individual shop floor worker finds the
employer if he doesn't have a union for support.

The problem is that the focus always seems to be one of how to get a
bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake larger.

If the typical shop floor worker was clever enough to come up with ways
of improving productivity they wouldn't be in such dead end jobs in the
first place. Innovation has to come from further up the pecking order,
perhaps even from those intermediate levels that you would seek to get
rid of completely.

I didn't seek to get rid of anybody. In fact I made the point several
times that individual achievement should be encouraged. Collective
negotiation has the opposite effect.

You would sack half the civil service given half a chance. Bloat isn't
the sole preserve of bureaucracy. It is inherent in any large
organisation.

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....

You hope.

Yes I do, but it will happen anyway as the nature of industry and
services change.

Unions will be around as long as their members see an advantage in
belonging to them.

Probably, but I very much doubt whether that will be in anything like
their historic or present form a generation from now.

Now would that be the shirking classes generation (new generation every
15 years or so) or the thinking classes (new generation every 30 years
or so). :-)

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:11:07 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
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.,....

Bringing two threads together:

My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to determine
how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.



My idea of reasonable people are workers and employers combining to get work
done to the advantage of both on equal footing. You want employers to be able
to dictate conditions to workers, demand work done under dangerous conditions,
and discard workers at a whim.

I haven't said or implied any of those things.

You can't compare the role of an employer and an employee in a work
environment - each contributes a different set of things to the
success of the activity. Therefore the notion of "equality" is
meaningless.


You're a dangerous plonker.

This is silly emotional accusation based on a knee jerk reaction. It
has no basis in what I have said, or indeed in reality.


--

..andy

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:00:20 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The wealth is created by a combination of risk taking and investment
by the employer added to by the work done by the employees (whatever
that might be). The employer pays what he feels is appropriate for
the work delivered, which in turn is what his customers are willing to
pay him.

Drivel has suggested that you are naive. That's possibly naive of him. In this
matter those that are not part of the solution - which is employers and
employees getting industry working safely and economically on even footing -
then you are part of the problem.

You really haven't taken the trouble to read what I have said, have
you? Were you actually looking at this thread or something else
entirely.

The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

In reality, despite large amounts of employment legislation, the
employee's position in many areas is quite limited.
To suggest that a union, on a block negotiation basis can ultimately
make a significant difference where a situation is economically not
viable, is cloud cuckoo land.

My point was that the significant and sustainable difference to an
employee's position should and can be in his own hands by being able
to offer what the customer (employer) wants to buy. This should not
equate to doing so on price but on value and differentiation - in
other words to be in a situation where demand exceeds supply.

It is that that is a position of strength. All the time that there
is discussion about "doing things on an even footing" as you have
suggested, the point is being missed and the employee remains in a
precarious position. It is far too easy for an employer to work
around the legislation or the union.

I have not said or implied that any of this implies, nor does it need
to imply dangerous or unsafe working practices, neither have I
suggested anything that can sensibly be construed to be to the
advantage of employers and detriment of employees.

The reality is that rather than thinking laterally and looking at the
bigger picture, you would sooner fall into the comfortable old
territory of assuming that anything that suggests displacement and
replacement of unions is automatically bad for employees.

Demonstrably it's nonsense.

You (and others of your view) have caused
untold damage to industry and misery (and injury & death) to workers. You are
parasites on society that no decent society would tolerate.

Where you get this garbage from amazes me.


--

..andy

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:23:28 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

For at least half the population there is no realistic prospect of them
taking any action that would differentiate themselves from the herd.

I don't buy that argument. It is almost always possible to take some
action. The issue is much more about whether the alternative action
is felt by the individual to be unacceptable or to carry too high a
risk.

I think you missed the point.

Not at all

If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd.

Obviously they should look at what others are doing and not copy.


And if
you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

It isn't a luxury. Ultimately it's a necessity from the perspective
of the employee.




I'm not at all. My point is that it is not a long term effective
strategy for an employee to cast his fate to others on a group basis.
It's much more effective to take more control of one's own destiny.

But it is an effective strategy for the employee who has no unique
selling point.

My point is that everybody should make sure, in whatever way they can
that they have USPs (or at least sufficient SPs).

Relying on others on the assumption of no SPs is doomed to inevitable
failure at some point and limits the scope of what an individual could
achieve if he looked for himself.


The wages amounted to about £1m including approx £140k between the
three directors.

I didn't see that thread. (Can't find the time to keep up with all the
traffic).

Nothing unreasonable there at all. £50-60k for a managing director is
hardly excessive.

Probably not. But does £40 thousand go to the wife for doing bugger all?

Nope. Three completely separate directors.

Makes a change. :-)

Small closed companies, possibly, but it becomes impracticable beyond
a certain size of company.




By hook or by crook the government gets its hand on more than 40% of the
GDP but I still think you are over estimating the amount tax in this
particular instance.

Even if it were 25%, the point would still stand. It's a huge slice
of the pie for very little return.




I didn't say that it had to be the private for-profit sector. It
could also include trust organisations.

Which may be no better at it than the current setup and would be even
more unaccountable than at present.

Crown immunity?

Do people get fired from the civil service for incompetence?





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.

I doubt whether the employees concerned would agree with you.

They may well not. However, if one sits and thinks for a few minutes
and compares the commecial aspect of an employer/employee relationship
with any other transaction, it is pretty obvious that businesses which
sell commodities purely on price are highly exposed to market
conditions. Can you imagine all the shops getting together and
refusing to sell apples because the price is too low? Yet this is, in
effect what union negotiation seeks to achieve.
The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.


Ignoring political ambitions of unions for a moment; even with the
best of intentions, my point is that a union which is operating on the
basis of simply trying to secure better conditions for its members
based on status quo is doing them a huge disservice.

It is far better for people to be encouraged to make what they are
offering genuinely more valuable to the employer such that he is
willing to pay more for it; or to seek opportunities with a better
outcome.




Some employees really have no choice. They have little to sell other
than their presence.

I think that is sadly defeatist.

Not everyone is a born businessman and for everyone with above average
intelligence, drive, etc. there is another below.

Of course that's true. The harsh reality is that not all animals
are equal. Therefore why should almost all, who are able to achieve
more than they thought they could be limited?




Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.

That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation.

There is no justification for fighting a "class war" because it is a
relic of a previous era.

The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake.

Not true. At a certain point, the shareholders, whoever they may be
(probably a pension scheme or other widely held investment) will
decide that the return on investment is not good enough and withdraw
their money.


What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee.

Only if one's mind is limited to an adversarial situation between the
two. The real and sustainable point should be about growing the size
of the cake in comparison with the external competition.

A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

It's the wrong focus for both parties.





I didn't seek to get rid of anybody. In fact I made the point several
times that individual achievement should be encouraged. Collective
negotiation has the opposite effect.

You would sack half the civil service given half a chance.

Actually I would sack most of it and encourage a much broader
perspective.

Bloat isn't
the sole preserve of bureaucracy. It is inherent in any large
organisation.

Of course.



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....

You hope.

Yes I do, but it will happen anyway as the nature of industry and
services change.

Unions will be around as long as their members see an advantage in
belonging to them.

Probably, but I very much doubt whether that will be in anything like
their historic or present form a generation from now.

Now would that be the shirking classes generation (new generation every
15 years or so) or the thinking classes (new generation every 30 years
or so). :-)

Ah well.....

--

..andy

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:30:24 +0000, Matt
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:14:23 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Can you imagine all the shops getting together and
refusing to sell apples because the price is too low? Yet this is, in
effect what union negotiation seeks to achieve.
The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Turning this around slightly, can you imagine a number of supermarkets
driving the purchase price of an apple so low that UK producers are
ripping up established orchards leaving the market open to cheap
imports of subsidised pap from France?

No need to imagine. The supermarkets are doing this over and over
again with hundreds of products both in this country and all over the
world.

Absolutely.

Ask yourself why. The situation is a direct result of sellers of
goods and services allowing themselves to be price driven and not
educating their customers to buy on value.


--

..andy

Roger wrote:

I think you missed the point. If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd. And if

I guess there in is the rub. Everyone in the herd can take the action -
however human nature being as it is, most won't.

you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

It is a short term stratergy. You may not get eaten quite as fast, but
ultimately you will get eaten.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.

In theory yes. In reality there are plenty of cases where the membership
is simply the tool used to further the political aims of the union
leadership.

Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.


That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation. The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake. What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee. A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

But frequently alas the end of the business. That is a result that
benefits no one.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:


For at least half the population there is no realistic prospect of them
taking any action that would differentiate themselves from the herd.

I don't buy that argument. It is almost always possible to take some
action. The issue is much more about whether the alternative action
is felt by the individual to be unacceptable or to carry too high a
risk.

I think you missed the point.

Not at all

If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd.

Obviously they should look at what others are doing and not copy.

Statistically they are all the same so why expect such individuals to
behave substantially differently?


And if
you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

It isn't a luxury. Ultimately it's a necessity from the perspective
of the employee.

We will just have to agree to differ on that Andy. The ability of an
employer to dispose of uppity workers as and when he likes is severely
constrained by union membership as is his ability to grind the wages
down to the lowest possible level.


I'm not at all. My point is that it is not a long term effective
strategy for an employee to cast his fate to others on a group basis.
It's much more effective to take more control of one's own destiny.

But it is an effective strategy for the employee who has no unique
selling point.

My point is that everybody should make sure, in whatever way they can
that they have USPs (or at least sufficient SPs).

Joe Average has no unique selling points. Even honesty is not in
particularly short supply.

Relying on others on the assumption of no SPs is doomed to inevitable
failure at some point and limits the scope of what an individual could
achieve if he looked for himself.

For Joe Average withdrawing labour is not a realistic option unless he
can do so in conjunction with his fellow workers.

snip

By hook or by crook the government gets its hand on more than 40% of the
GDP but I still think you are over estimating the amount tax in this
particular instance.

Even if it were 25%, the point would still stand. It's a huge slice
of the pie for very little return.

That depends on whether you are a parent, shirker, or whatever. Most
interest groups complain they don't get enough support but they detest
paying their share.

I didn't say that it had to be the private for-profit sector. It
could also include trust organisations.

Which may be no better at it than the current setup and would be even
more unaccountable than at present.

Crown immunity?

I think you will find that is something else. The doctrine that the
crown cannot sue itself in its own courts. Civil servants are ultimately
accountable to their Ministers. Quangos don't appear to be accountable
to anyone.

Do people get fired from the civil service for incompetence?

Probably. The certainly get fired for blowing the whistle.

snip

The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.


Ignoring political ambitions of unions for a moment; even with the
best of intentions, my point is that a union which is operating on the
basis of simply trying to secure better conditions for its members
based on status quo is doing them a huge disservice.

Unions are not perfect. The often try and stand in the way of progress
but there really isn't any way they could focus on innovation. That is
the function of management which in all too many cases even more luddite
than the unions.

It is far better for people to be encouraged to make what they are
offering genuinely more valuable to the employer such that he is
willing to pay more for it; or to seek opportunities with a better
outcome.

See what I wrote previously below.

Some employees really have no choice. They have little to sell other
than their presence.

I think that is sadly defeatist.

Not everyone is a born businessman and for everyone with above average
intelligence, drive, etc. there is another below.

Of course that's true. The harsh reality is that not all animals
are equal. Therefore why should almost all, who are able to achieve
more than they thought they could be limited?

They can achieve more by unionizing than they ever could as a lone individual.

Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.

That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation.

There is no justification for fighting a "class war" because it is a
relic of a previous era.

Red Robbo and Scagill have a great deal of previous but neither is of
any consequence today.

The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake.

Not true. At a certain point, the shareholders, whoever they may be
(probably a pension scheme or other widely held investment) will
decide that the return on investment is not good enough and withdraw
their money.

Except that they probably can't. Winding up a viable business is rarely
cost effective. All they could do is sell their shares. But the going
rate for the shares would reflect the status quo and prospects so any
sale would only be viable if a better prospect was on the cards.


What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee.

Only if one's mind is limited to an adversarial situation between the
two. The real and sustainable point should be about growing the size
of the cake in comparison with the external competition.

Expansion and innovation are really outwith the scope of the typical
shop floor worker and while it is not outside the scope of some
unionised workers it really isn't a matter for unions. Being a union
member says nothing about the ability of the member, it just signals a
desire not to be screwed by the employer.

A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

It's the wrong focus for both parties.

If employers were more generous unions would be unnecessary but holding
down wages is a major preoccupation for most employers. It is part and
parcel of maximising profits.


I didn't seek to get rid of anybody. In fact I made the point several
times that individual achievement should be encouraged. Collective
negotiation has the opposite effect.

You would sack half the civil service given half a chance.

Actually I would sack most of it and encourage a much broader
perspective.

Sack the tax gathers, good call that. No money to pay even for MPs. Sack
all those civilians in the Ministry of Defence. They are there because
they are much cheaper than having military personnel doing the work.

snip

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:04:12 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:


For at least half the population there is no realistic prospect of them
taking any action that would differentiate themselves from the herd.

I don't buy that argument. It is almost always possible to take some
action. The issue is much more about whether the alternative action
is felt by the individual to be unacceptable or to carry too high a
risk.

I think you missed the point.

Not at all

If everyone in the herd can take the same
action to improve themselves then they remain part of the herd.

Obviously they should look at what others are doing and not copy.

Statistically they are all the same so why expect such individuals to
behave substantially differently?


That's a mindset issue, and I suppose is one of my main points. It
suits those who would seek to influence and control, be they unions,
employers, politicians, bureaucrats and a list of others, to have
people believing that they can't influence their lot by their own
actions, and that they need to be looked after by a group or a
benevolent (in reality not so benevolent) leader or leaders.

Fundamentally, I don't accept that premise. Of course, different
people have different abilities in different areas, and the extent to
which they can or want to change their situation does as well.

However, since we are all different, I think that encouragement of the
individual to make a difference himself for himself rather than
sitting back and letting others do it for him, will have a better
outcome for the individual.



And if
you are part of the herd it is best to organise as a herd and not let
the employer have the luxury of dealing with identical workers one at a
time.

It isn't a luxury. Ultimately it's a necessity from the perspective
of the employee.

We will just have to agree to differ on that Andy. The ability of an
employer to dispose of uppity workers as and when he likes is severely
constrained by union membership as is his ability to grind the wages
down to the lowest possible level.

One way or another, if the employer *wants* to do that, he will find a
way to do it. This is why the goals, objectives and activities are
focussed in the wrong area. The useful and sustainable foci should
be in the areas of influencing the employer such that he wants to buy
what the employee has to sell and for the employee to be selling his
value to the employer. In effect, the union does little more than to
try to influence the price (i.e. pay and conditions), generally by
threatening to take the product (i.e. work of the employees) away.

This is a poor negotiating position to be taking on behalf of the
employees and does them a disservice, because ultimately it will fail.
Reducing everything to a price discussion, leaves the employer with
the easy option to shop elsewhere.




I'm not at all. My point is that it is not a long term effective
strategy for an employee to cast his fate to others on a group basis.
It's much more effective to take more control of one's own destiny.

But it is an effective strategy for the employee who has no unique
selling point.

My point is that everybody should make sure, in whatever way they can
that they have USPs (or at least sufficient SPs).

Joe Average has no unique selling points. Even honesty is not in
particularly short supply.

Everybody has USPs. It's all about whether he can find them and be
encouraged to exploit them, as opposed to being told that he has none
and should rely on others to organise his life for him.




Relying on others on the assumption of no SPs is doomed to inevitable
failure at some point and limits the scope of what an individual could
achieve if he looked for himself.

For Joe Average withdrawing labour is not a realistic option unless he
can do so in conjunction with his fellow workers.

Who said anything about withdrawing labour? I am talking much more
about seeking and creating alternative opportunities and changing the
basis of engagement away from one based on price.





snip

By hook or by crook the government gets its hand on more than 40% of the
GDP but I still think you are over estimating the amount tax in this
particular instance.

Even if it were 25%, the point would still stand. It's a huge slice
of the pie for very little return.

That depends on whether you are a parent, shirker, or whatever. Most
interest groups complain they don't get enough support but they detest
paying their share.

Again this comes back to the mindset of doing things for yourself as
opposed to expecting others to do it for you.




I didn't say that it had to be the private for-profit sector. It
could also include trust organisations.

Which may be no better at it than the current setup and would be even
more unaccountable than at present.

Crown immunity?

I think you will find that is something else. The doctrine that the
crown cannot sue itself in its own courts. Civil servants are ultimately
accountable to their Ministers.

But do they get fired for incompetence?

Quangos don't appear to be accountable
to anyone.

Certainly true






Do people get fired from the civil service for incompetence?

Probably. The certainly get fired for blowing the whistle.

More likely the latter, I think. A very unhealthy situation that
amounts to an abuse of power.



snip

The right approach would be to offer a better product or to sell a
different product or sell it elsewhere.

Cart and horse comes to mind. Unions usually seek to improve the lot of
their members, not sell them short.


Ignoring political ambitions of unions for a moment; even with the
best of intentions, my point is that a union which is operating on the
basis of simply trying to secure better conditions for its members
based on status quo is doing them a huge disservice.

Unions are not perfect. The often try and stand in the way of progress
but there really isn't any way they could focus on innovation. That is
the function of management which in all too many cases even more luddite
than the unions.

I disagree. Of course they could focus on innovation. They could
certainly encourage individuals to become better trained or to explore
new opportunities. The problem is that this doesn't happen because
the mindset and indeed the gravy train of the leaders and officials
depends on having a membership to fund them. In other words to keep
people where they are with enough small incremental change to keep
them quiet. I don't think that that is in the best interest of the
members at all. Basically it's a control game.




Of course that's true. The harsh reality is that not all animals
are equal. Therefore why should almost all, who are able to achieve
more than they thought they could be limited?

They can achieve more by unionizing than they ever could as a lone individual.

I disagree. Organising as a group means that aspirations are
limited to the lowest common denominator. An individual has much more
flexibility.



Even if the result is to price them out of employment rather than
encouraging individual development? Fundamentally, the problem with
a group negotiating arrangement is that it tends to create a least
common denominator.

That would depend on whether the union was intent on fighting a class
war or improving its members situation.

There is no justification for fighting a "class war" because it is a
relic of a previous era.

Red Robbo and Scagill have a great deal of previous but neither is of
any consequence today.

In reality, they never were.




The business will continue to
prosper as long as the workers don't get the whole cake.

Not true. At a certain point, the shareholders, whoever they may be
(probably a pension scheme or other widely held investment) will
decide that the return on investment is not good enough and withdraw
their money.

Except that they probably can't. Winding up a viable business is rarely
cost effective. All they could do is sell their shares. But the going
rate for the shares would reflect the status quo and prospects so any
sale would only be viable if a better prospect was on the cards.


That's true. However, the business would also have declined since
there would have been less retained profit for reinvestment.

It becomes an issue of switching investment to other places and
further decline.





What is at
stake is how the cake is cut between employer and employee.

Only if one's mind is limited to an adversarial situation between the
two. The real and sustainable point should be about growing the size
of the cake in comparison with the external competition.

Expansion and innovation are really outwith the scope of the typical
shop floor worker and while it is not outside the scope of some
unionised workers it really isn't a matter for unions.

I disagree. That is simply telling people that their abilities and
scope are limited because it suits the collectivist view of the union.
Of course a union is not going to encourage people to think for
themselves or look at a broader range of possibilities because that
does not suit the power game and source of funding for the leaders and
officials. That is why unions are really not in the interest of the
individual employee or indeed business as a whole.

Being a union
member says nothing about the ability of the member, it just signals a
desire not to be screwed by the employer.

It signals a willingness to only be interested in selling on price (or
more accurately letting others do it for you).



A union
undoubtedly helps to increase its members share of that cake. That might
be unpalatable to the employer or investor but it is not the end of the
world as we know it.

It's the wrong focus for both parties.

If employers were more generous unions would be unnecessary but holding
down wages is a major preoccupation for most employers. It is part and
parcel of maximising profits.


Again it's focus on the wrong thing - price. The business should be
focussed also on how it can generate a better value to its customers
and not sell what it has purely on price. In that way, the size of
the cake becomes larger.



I didn't seek to get rid of anybody. In fact I made the point several
times that individual achievement should be encouraged. Collective
negotiation has the opposite effect.

You would sack half the civil service given half a chance.

Actually I would sack most of it and encourage a much broader
perspective.

Sack the tax gathers, good call that. No money to pay even for MPs. Sack
all those civilians in the Ministry of Defence. They are there because
they are much cheaper than having military personnel doing the work.



--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to
determine how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.

Except that I described a system that was determined another way and you
rejected that as bad in favour of 'the market'.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in industry
from right-wing tabloids. You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.
I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions. Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer, happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:09:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to
determine how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.

Except that I described a system that was determined another way and you
rejected that as bad in favour of 'the market'.


I'm not rejecting anything. I'm simply observing that ultimately the
market determines what happens.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:09:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to
determine how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.

Except that I described a system that was determined another way and you
rejected that as bad in favour of 'the market'.


I'm not rejecting anything. I'm simply observing that ultimately the
market determines what happens.

You are not.

In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in industry
from right-wing tabloids. You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.
I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions. Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer, happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

What a load of ********
--
David

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:09:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to
determine how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.

Except that I described a system that was determined another way and you
rejected that as bad in favour of 'the market'.


I'm not rejecting anything. I'm simply observing that ultimately the
market determines what happens.

That has to be true. Just look at London docks (my youth:-), car
production, coal mining and probably others I can't remember.

An expanding operation probably benefits from a strong union
organisation. Management is simplified. In an environment where
employment is shrinking, job protection ends in destroying the protected
jobs.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall aka
Matt writes
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:09:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall akak
Matt wrote:
My idea of reasonable people are those that won't allow parasites to
determine how much they pay for basic necessities.

That's cloud cuckoo land. The market determines the prices - being
people's willingness to pay. Always has and always will.

Except that I described a system that was determined another way and you
rejected that as bad in favour of 'the market'.


I'm not rejecting anything. I'm simply observing that ultimately the
market determines what happens.

That has to be true.

It is? The point is that in some areas the market is rigged not free. Yet
some fools still babble on it being totally free.

Just look at London docks (my youth:-),

Too small for large ships and always were too small. The Large Victoria
docks were white elephants designed to employ people in the depression when
under construction. Massive docks that large ships could not reach. Very
silly. London was bound to fail. Liverpool has access to far larger ships
yet some the docks there could not cope with increased size. In 1963
Felixstowe was a fishing village yet governments promoted the place to kill
establish seaports, and now it is the larges port in the UK, in tonnage
anyhow. It is fast moving containers only so this gives a warped view of
size, while established ports handle mixed, different more labour intensive
cargos. The largest ports complex is the Mersey from Seaforth to
Manchester: Liverpool, Birkenhead, Garston, Eastham and the Manchester ship
canal, which is a 35 mile long linear port with docks and lay-by off it.

Felixstowe was promoted by the Tories as a way of killing unions and their
hatred of the north of England. Felixstowe is a scab port. They invested
billions in a port nowhere near industry, when existing port capacity near
industry was more than enough. The Homes Counties yet again beat the dirty
North. Market forces had nothing to do with the decline of the existying
large ports, except maybe in London

car production, coal mining and probably others I can't remember.

Coal Mining? Thatcher killed that off in a Home Counties v North of
England.

An expanding operation probably benefits from a strong union organisation.

Unions actually help them especially in H&S.

Management is simplified. In an environment where employment is shrinking,
job protection ends in destroying the protected jobs.

"David" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in
industry
from right-wing tabloids. You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't
got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.
I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a
real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions. Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and
everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to
everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer,
happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that
people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers
that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading
for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before
someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal
experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing
chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the
future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

What a load of ********

Bertie, I totally agree with Mr Cartmell. And I don't agree with you.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:



Too small for large ships and always were too small. The Large Victoria
docks were white elephants designed to employ people in the depression
when under construction. Massive docks that large ships could not reach.
Very silly. London was bound to fail. Liverpool has access to far
larger ships yet some the docks there could not cope with increased size.
In 1963 Felixstowe was a fishing village yet governments promoted the
place to kill establish seaports, and now it is the larges port in the
UK, in tonnage anyhow. It is fast moving containers only so this gives a
warped view of size, while established ports handle mixed, different more
labour intensive cargos. The largest ports complex is the Mersey from
Seaforth to Manchester: Liverpool, Birkenhead, Garston, Eastham and the
Manchester ship canal, which is a 35 mile long linear port with docks and
lay-by off it.

Felixstowe was promoted by the Tories as a way of killing unions and
their hatred of the north of England. Felixstowe is a scab port. They
invested billions in a port nowhere near industry, when existing port
capacity near industry was more than enough. The Homes Counties yet again
beat the dirty North. Market forces had nothing to do with the decline
of the existying large ports, except maybe in London


The London docks went when the unions said they would never handle
containers.

They were, of course, absolutely correct.

No. 1 large container ships could not get up the Thames. No.2 they never
said that at all. At the time there was disputes about stripping and
stuffing containers. In the USA they allowed the dock labourers to do that
in special terminals. In the UK they wanted to get rid of the established
Dockers (hatred of unions) and employ scab labour. Eventually the went the
way of the USA. So, all for nothing.

Unions actually help them especially in H&S.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:



Too small for large ships and always were too small. The Large Victoria
docks were white elephants designed to employ people in the depression
when under construction. Massive docks that large ships could not
reach. Very silly. London was bound to fail. Liverpool has access to
far larger ships yet some the docks there could not cope with increased
size. In 1963 Felixstowe was a fishing village yet governments promoted
the place to kill establish seaports, and now it is the larges port in
the UK, in tonnage anyhow. It is fast moving containers only so this
gives a warped view of size, while established ports handle mixed,
different more labour intensive cargos. The largest ports complex is
the Mersey from Seaforth to Manchester: Liverpool, Birkenhead, Garston,
Eastham and the Manchester ship canal, which is a 35 mile long linear
port with docks and lay-by off it.

Felixstowe was promoted by the Tories as a way of killing unions and
their hatred of the north of England. Felixstowe is a scab port. They
invested billions in a port nowhere near industry, when existing port
capacity near industry was more than enough. The Homes Counties yet
again beat the dirty North. Market forces had nothing to do with the
decline of the existying large ports, except maybe in London


The London docks went when the unions said they would never handle
containers.

They were, of course, absolutely correct.

No. 1 large container ships could not get up the Thames. No.2 they never
said that at all. At the time there was disputes about stripping and
stuffing containers. In the USA they allowed the dock labourers to do
that in special terminals. In the UK they wanted to get rid of the
established Dockers (hatred of unions) and employ scab labour. Eventually
the went the way of the USA. So, all for nothing.

"The death of the docks was unavoidable, according to the union militant
Jack Dash. 'Being realistic, that had to happen, and the battle was to
ensure workers got a share of progress and change'.

Jack denies any suggestion that the militancy of the dockers during the
1960s brought about the closure of the docks. 'Yes, I've been accused of
shutting the docks, but in fact none of the docks closed until after I had
left the industry. It was changes in trade that made them close'. "
- Newham Docklands Recorder, 18 August 1988.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...


The London docks went when the unions said they would never handle
containers.

They were, of course, absolutely correct.


No. 1 large container ships could not get up the Thames. No.2 they
never said that at all. At the time there was disputes about stripping
and stuffing containers. In the USA they allowed the dock labourers to
do that in special terminals. In the UK they wanted to get rid of the
established Dockers (hatred of unions) and employ scab labour.

As I recall, the dockers wanted a monopoly on goods handling within
ten miles of the port.

Eventually the went the way of the USA. So, all for nothing.

The issue was largely one of 'shrinkage'. It was a rare place of
business (long before car boot sales) that didn't have someone
married to, or related to, someone 'in the docks' who could supply
low-cost goods.

"Joe" wrote in message
...

No. 1 large container ships could not get up the Thames. No.2 they never
said that at all. At the time there was disputes about stripping and
stuffing containers. In the USA they allowed the dock labourers to do
that in special terminals. In the UK they wanted to get rid of the
established Dockers (hatred of unions) and employ scab labour.

As I recall, the dockers wanted a monopoly on goods handling within
ten miles of the port.

As was the case in the USA. The employers wanted terminals near the docks
using scab labour. The Dockers saw this and insisted on the what was going
on in the USA. That bastion of the free world.

Eventually the went the way of the USA. So, all for nothing.

The issue was largely one of 'shrinkage'. It was a rare place of business
(long before car boot sales) that didn't have someone
married to, or related to, someone 'in the docks' who could supply
low-cost goods.

A whole dock complex closed because a few Dockers were pilfering cargo? Are
you serious?

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel writes
Bertie, I totally agree with Mr Cartmell. And I don't agree with you.

That is comforting John, at least I know I'm doing something right
--
David

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

In 1963 Felixstowe was a fishing village

Was it? A population of 17440 is hardly a village and on the few
occasions I visited in the 50s the only boats I can recall seeing in the
dinky little harbour was a clutch of RAF launches. The RAF station would
probably have closed by 1963 but it was still open in the late 50s. I
can remember a helicopter that crashed just offshore being recovered by
road around that time.

If there were any fishing boats sailing out of Felixstowe it would only
have been the odd one or two. The vast majority of the workers who lived
in Felixstowe would have been gainfully employed doing something other
than fishing.

--
Roger Chapman

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

In 1963 Felixstowe was a fishing village

Was it? A population of 17440 is
hardly a village

It is to the one million in Liverpool at the time, a few million in the east
end of London and the people in Preston (whose ports has actually closed
down).

The vast majority of the workers who lived
in Felixstowe

Which wasn't many at all. A horrid scab port.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:25:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in industry
from right-wing tabloids.

I don't read right wing tabloids so that isn't correct.

You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.



I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions.

Firstly, I don't have preconceptions at all.

Secondly, as soon as somebody suggests that they are going to give me
an "appreciation of the truth" or words of that effect, I am
immediately suspicious.

Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer, happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

None of which require involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.



--

..andy

In article ,
David wrote:
What a load of ********

Clearly the truth doesn't fit into your Thatcherite perspective.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In message , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
What a load of ********

Clearly the truth doesn't fit into your Thatcherite perspective.

I was evicted from my comfortable *proper job* in 1983 but blaming
Thatcher or even a right wing govt. would be ridiculous. The bearing
industry was contracting due to targeted Japanese competition and
internal productivity improvements.

Product value with roughly 1/3rd. staff was about the same due to
automated manufacturing lines.

To retain redundant labour would have crippled the company.

Expansion of 2+%/ annum is heading us to a point where we will become
forced consumers or get ****ed off doing one anothers washing.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:25:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The thread was essentially about the value of union involvement in the
employer/employee scene. My contention is that the value is very
limited, especially from the employee perspective because the idea of
allowing a third party to negotiate on one's behalf leads at best to a
sense of false security.

You seem to have developed an understanding of Unions' involvement in
industry
from right-wing tabloids.

I don't read right wing tabloids so that isn't correct.

Don't let the policeman hear you.

You're wrong. You're up the creek. You haven't got
the slightest idea what you're on about. &many, many &c.



I really don't have time to take you from yoyr current understanding to a
real
appreciation of the truth - best done by simply reversing all your
preconceptions.

Firstly, I don't have preconceptions at all.

Stop making things up.

Secondly, as soon as somebody suggests that they are going to give me
an "appreciation of the truth" or words of that effect, I am
immediately suspicious.

Most union work is done quietly, in the background, and is
about the minor stuff that means nothing to the outside world and
everything
to the individuals involved. It's the sort of stuff that adds up to
everyone
getting on with their job far, far better - not to mention, safer,
happier,
and healthier. Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that
people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers
that
there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be heading
for
a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S problems before
someone
is killed. Left to their own devices managers will (in my personal
experience)
insist on an employee with asthma working in a closed section with
half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes because they misrepresent
company policy, tell staff they have failed to get their (much needed)
promotion whilst they are dealing with the public, insist on storing
chemicals
in an unsafe condition that could get the premises closed and the company
heavily fined (at best). All examples put right (or changed for the
future) by
union involvement at little cost. Little things.

None of which require involvement of unions or any other group
constituted organisation.



--

.andy

In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
What a load of ********

Clearly the truth doesn't fit into your Thatcherite perspective.


Being able to label everyone doesn't necessarily make it so, it just
suits your mindset
--
David

"David" wrote in message
...
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
What a load of ********

Clearly the truth doesn't fit into your Thatcherite perspective.


Being able to label everyone doesn't necessarily make it so, it just
suits your mindset

Bertie, but he was spot on. He is attempting to educate you, saving you from
your misguided and wicked ways leading you into redemption.

Doctor Drivel wrote:



"The death of the docks was unavoidable, according to the union militant
Jack Dash. 'Being realistic, that had to happen, and the battle was to
ensure workers got a share of progress and change'.

Jack denies any suggestion that the militancy of the dockers during the
1960s brought about the closure of the docks. 'Yes, I've been accused of
shutting the docks, but in fact none of the docks closed until after I
had left the industry. It was changes in trade that made them close'. "
- Newham Docklands Recorder, 18 August 1988.


That isn't what he was saying at the time. I lived in Newham until 1985.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


The issue was largely one of 'shrinkage'. It was a rare place of
business (long before car boot sales) that didn't have someone
married to, or related to, someone 'in the docks' who could supply
low-cost goods.


A whole dock complex closed because a few Dockers were pilfering cargo?
Are you serious?


That isn't what I said. It wasn't a few. It was one of the major factors
in wanting to move to containers, and the reason for opposing the move
was not because the dockers didn't think they were competent to handle
containers.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The death of the docks was unavoidable, according to the union militant
Jack Dash. 'Being realistic, that had to happen, and the battle was to
ensure workers got a share of progress and change'.

Jack denies any suggestion that the militancy of the dockers during the
1960s brought about the closure of the docks. 'Yes, I've been accused of
shutting the docks, but in fact none of the docks closed until after I
had left the industry. It was changes in trade that made them close'. "
- Newham Docklands Recorder, 18 August 1988.

That isn't what he was saying at the time. I lived in Newham until 1985.

London docks being abandoned was style and type of trade. Nothing else.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


The issue was largely one of 'shrinkage'. It was a rare place of
business (long before car boot sales) that didn't have someone
married to, or related to, someone 'in the docks' who could supply
low-cost goods.


A whole dock complex closed because a few Dockers were pilfering cargo?
Are you serious?


That isn't what I said. It wasn't a few.
It was one of the major factors
in wanting to move to containers, and the reason for opposing the move
was not because the dockers didn't think they were competent to handle
containers.

Which was proven bunkum of course, as they were capable as proven in other
ports.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers
that there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be
heading for a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S
problems before someone is killed. Left to their own devices managers will
(in my personal experience) insist on an employee with asthma working in a
closed section with half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes
because they misrepresent company policy, tell staff they have failed to
get their (much needed) promotion whilst they are dealing with the public,
insist on storing chemicals in an unsafe condition that could get the
premises closed and the company heavily fined (at best). All examples put
right (or changed for the future) by union involvement at little cost.
Little things.

None of which require involvement of unions or any other group constituted
organisation.

I'd be interested to here just how you think such problems might have been put
right otherwise. They had already fallen throught the 'usual' management
checks and in no case did individually members of staff think they were
capable/ dared risk involvement as an individual. If, as you say, your views
are obtained without reference to deliberately skewed political voices then I
can only assume that you have very limited appreciation of the situation.
Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single conclusion -
you're a liar.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
David wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
What a load of ********

Clearly the truth doesn't fit into your Thatcherite perspective.

Being able to label everyone doesn't necessarily make it so, it just
suits your mindset

Did you read what I wrote? Did you find a word that you could show was wrong?
That's why the only response was to dismiss it without any discussion -
because my comments were simple truth.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single conclusion -
you're a liar.

A little uncalled for John. I realise that we are all on different sides of
the fence, but a discussion needn't turn into a slanging match. I still have
respect for the views of yourself and others, even though they are so
misguided. :-)

--
AJL

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:50:36 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Every hour of every day union reps will be ensuring that people
who may be good at their job, but not good at defending or promoting
themselves, are properly represented. They will be telling busy managers
that there is already an agreement to cover what otherwise seems to be
heading for a dispute. And they will be highlighting potential H&S
problems before someone is killed. Left to their own devices managers will
(in my personal experience) insist on an employee with asthma working in a
closed section with half-a-dozen chain smokers, precipitate strikes
because they misrepresent company policy, tell staff they have failed to
get their (much needed) promotion whilst they are dealing with the public,
insist on storing chemicals in an unsafe condition that could get the
premises closed and the company heavily fined (at best). All examples put
right (or changed for the future) by union involvement at little cost.
Little things.

None of which require involvement of unions or any other group constituted
organisation.

I'd be interested to here just how you think such problems might have been put
right otherwise.

There are numerous government organisations including the HSE who have
responsibility for that.

If an individual employee has a workplace health/safety issue, then he
can make appropriate representations - it doesn't require some
intermediary to do it for him.


They had already fallen throught the 'usual' management
checks and in no case did individually members of staff think they were
capable/ dared risk involvement as an individual.

This, of course, is nonsense and is simply rhetoric promoted by the
union movement in attempt to justify their existence.
In reality it is a colossal put-down of the very people that unions
would claim to represent and simply exposes the true colours of such
organisations.

?If, as you say, your views
are obtained without reference to deliberately skewed political voices then I
can only assume that you have very limited appreciation of the situation.

Which situation? I am looking in the broadest terms. The reality
is that there are plenty of successful non-union businesses and
enterprises where all of the stakeholders look at the common objective
of expanding the business for the benefit of all rather than wasting
their time bickering over who gets the larger slice of the pie.

Business and commerce are moving on and fortunately this nonsense is
being seen for what it is - a rather tired power struggle by
idealogues of a bygone era.


Indeed your description of your objectivity leads one to a single conclusion -
you're a liar.

It may be your conclusion, and fairly obviously uses the same
intellectual processes that you have in the other points that you have
made on this subject.

Clearly it demonstrates the weakness of your position when you have to
stoop to personally directed comments like that. I am not going to
even bother to respond.



--

..andy