"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed
to retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Have fun listing any that did with the industry that Scotland lost.

Thanks for proving you know less about Scotland than most things.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

The fact that you couldn’t list even a single example noted.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend. Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was
closure.

believe it or not, shareholders are also concerned about getting their
investment back. So cloing down is unlikely to be in their interests.

Depends on how much they've had in the way of dividends.

They don’t get any dividends when the operation is clapped out.

No ****, Sherlock.

Wouldn't expect you to understand short term gain versus long term.

--
*Beware - animal lover - brakes for pussy*

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed
to retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Have fun listing any that did with the industry that Scotland lost.

Thanks for proving you know less about Scotland than most things.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

The fact that you couldn’t list even a single example noted.

They are so obvious I'm not going to bother. Or explain to you how to use
a search engine.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

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

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:39:00 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to retain
heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Hmm. Let me think. Could Red Robbo and his mates have an answer to that?

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:39:00 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to
retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Hmm. Let me think. Could Red Robbo and his mates have an answer to that?

Thought you said you were going to think. Not let the Mail do it for you.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

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

On 12/06/2015 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Most of the trouble was poor productivity.. and that was down to there
being no point in investing in manufacturing while the unions are going
to demand more to operate it.

No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend. Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was closure.


Closing down does nothing good for the shareholders. They want
continuing returns. In fact shareholders have invested their money to
get good productivity and to protect jobs unlike the unions who are all
take, take, take.

On 12/06/2015 10:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

Most of the trouble was poor productivity.. and that was
down to there being no point in investing in manufacturing
while the unions are going to demand more to operate it.

No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend.

That isn't going to happen without any investment.

You've missed the point as usual.

Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was closure.

Didn’t happen with the oil and gas industry.

A new industry. Can't be started without investment. Unlike an existing
one which can be starved of it.


There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

On 12/06/2015 10:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:18:00 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend. Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was
closure.

And - if that happened - it was the Gov't that did it, was it?

It didn't help.

You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to retain
heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.


Because you can automate a high wage industry and still produce cost
effective output using less people. You can't do what the unions in the
car industry wanted and keep all the staff even though there is no work
for them.

On 12/06/2015 13:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend. Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was
closure.

believe it or not, shareholders are also concerned about getting their
investment back. So cloing down is unlikely to be in their interests.

Depends on how much they've had in the way of dividends.

They don’t get any dividends when the operation is clapped out.

No ****, Sherlock.

Wouldn't expect you to understand short term gain versus long term.


Where is the short term gain from shutting a bankrupt company down?
If its not bankrupt then you can keep getting dividends so why close it?

On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

On 12/06/15 18:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

Oh, I was not suggesting they did it on purpose.

I was suggesting they did it out of incompetent ****wittery.

On 12/06/2015 19:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However
nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

Oh, I was not suggesting they did it on purpose.

I was suggesting they did it out of incompetent ****wittery.

Well they shouldn't be able to get another job.

On 12/06/15 20:07, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 19:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However
nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

Oh, I was not suggesting they did it on purpose.

I was suggesting they did it out of incompetent ****wittery.

Well they shouldn't be able to get another job.


You'd be surprised...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
No need to invest at all. Just make sure the shareholders got a good
dividend. Until everything was so clapped out the only answer was
closure.

believe it or not, shareholders are also concerned about getting their
investment back. So cloing down is unlikely to be in their interests.

Depends on how much they've had in the way of dividends.

They don't get any dividends when the operation is clapped out.

No ****, Sherlock.

So all you have done is flaunted your complete pig ignorance, as always.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed
to retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Have fun listing any that did with the industry that Scotland lost.

Thanks for proving you know less about Scotland than most things.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

The fact that you couldn't list even a single example noted.

They are so obvious I'm not going to bother.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

Blame Thatcher and get fools like the Plowman buying that lie.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal

No its not.

as the management is required to act in the shareholders interests

But they are legally free to get that wrong and to no invest in that
operation.

which usually apply to the workers too as a dead business is no use to
anyone.

Nothing illegal about pulling the plug on an operation
where the unions have driven it into the ground.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 12/06/2015 19:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However
nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

Oh, I was not suggesting they did it on purpose.

I was suggesting they did it out of incompetent ****wittery.

Well they shouldn't be able to get another job.

They invariably do anyway.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 12/06/2015 19:58, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2015 18:50, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/15 18:31, dennis@home wrote:

There is no reason to not invest in a viable industry. However
nobody is
going to invest in an industry where the employees and/or union are
trying their best to destroy it.

What do you do if the management try their best to destroy it?

That would be illegal as the management is required to act in the
shareholders interests which usually apply to the workers too as a dead
business is no use to anyone.

Oh, I was not suggesting they did it on purpose.

I was suggesting they did it out of incompetent ****wittery.

Well they shouldn't be able to get another job.

They invariably do anyway.

Look at what has happened with the worst of the incompetent
****wits who drove the banks into the ground.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to retain
heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.


Because you can automate a high wage industry and still produce cost
effective output using less people. You can't do what the unions in the
car industry wanted and keep all the staff even though there is no work
for them.

And automation requires investment...

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed
to retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Because you can automate a high wage industry and still produce cost
effective output using less people. You can't do what the unions in the
car industry wanted and keep all the staff even though there is no work
for them.

And automation requires investment...

And the industrys where that made sense like the oil and gas industrys got
that.

The industrys that were WAY past their useby date like shipbuilding, didn’t
in Scotland but did in other northern european countrys, for a reason.

On 13/06/2015 00:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to retain
heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.


Because you can automate a high wage industry and still produce cost
effective output using less people. You can't do what the unions in the
car industry wanted and keep all the staff even though there is no work
for them.

And automation requires investment...


So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do. That means no efficiency increase for extra
money and only brain dead unionists think that that will work.
Its what happened to the car industry, the owners want to invest, the
result will be less people needed, the unions jump up and down and the
investment gets cancelled, leading to closure.
In the main the companies that did invest and cut their workforces are
still here.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And automation requires investment...

And the industrys where that made sense like the oil and gas industrys
got that.

FFS. That was a new industry in Scotland.

Thought even you could see the difference between that and existing ones.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And automation requires investment...


So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:37:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Where is the short term gain from shutting a bankrupt company down?

Well, apart from it being illegal to trade whilst insolvent, it's the
best way to draw a line under the losses.

If its not bankrupt then you can keep getting dividends so why close it?

If it's not profitable, there's no profits to distribute.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:45:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have to ask yourself why other high wage economies managed to
retain heavy industry that was deemed not viable in the UK.

Hmm. Let me think. Could Red Robbo and his mates have an answer to
that?

Thought you said you were going to think. Not let the Mail do it for
you.

Kneejerk, much?

I remember the '70s and early '80s quite clearly. I remember having to
constantly have candles around because the power went off. I remember
bread being hard to get and bins not being emptied. I remember some
newspapers being unavailable for months on end. I remember the "quality"
of the British motor industry.

I remember a lot of people in denial that entire industries couldn't
continue as they'd been for decades, and doing their best to petulantly
sabotage them rather than accept that the world was leaving them behind.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past -
and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

What's needed is an agreement negotiated by both sides. As happens in the
likes of Germany. Not the macho posturing that was so common in the UK -
and heavily encouraged by both the press and some governments.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

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

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Thought you said you were going to think. Not let the Mail do it for
you.

Kneejerk, much?

I remember the '70s and early '80s quite clearly. I remember having to
constantly have candles around because the power went off. I remember
bread being hard to get and bins not being emptied. I remember some
newspapers being unavailable for months on end. I remember the "quality"
of the British motor industry.

And do you remember the various prices and incomes policies where wages
were controlled but prices not? At a time of high inflation. Not
surprising there were strikes.

I remember a lot of people in denial that entire industries couldn't
continue as they'd been for decades, and doing their best to petulantly
sabotage them rather than accept that the world was leaving them behind.

As I said earlier, many of those industries were profitable in similar
high wage countries. Where suitable investment had taken place. Not
something you can do when an industry is failing - it has to be ongoing.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

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

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:01:51 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past
- and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

What's needed is an agreement negotiated by both sides. As happens in
the likes of Germany. Not the macho posturing that was so common in the
UK - and heavily encouraged by both the press and some governments.

Glad we're in agreement on all of that.

On 13/06/2015 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And automation requires investment...


So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.


The unions idea of negotiation appears to be we want all we asked for
and any less is a refusal to negotiate. You hear it all the time, "the
management have made an offer and are refusing to negotiate".

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.


The unions idea of negotiation appears to be we want all we asked for
and any less is a refusal to negotiate. You hear it all the time, "the
management have made an offer and are refusing to negotiate".

That sounds about right. Doubt you meant it to, though.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past -
and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

That's not what Wiki says about the ITV strike in 1970.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:56:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

The unions idea of negotiation appears to be we want all we asked for
and any less is a refusal to negotiate. You hear it all the time, "the
management have made an offer and are refusing to negotiate".

That sounds about right. Doubt you meant it to, though.

That whooshing sound, Dave - it wasn't the Trooping flypast off-course.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past -
and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

Point of ignorance.. did *new technology* in the broadcast industry
displace labour?

I turned down a job offer at Vinten, Bury St. Edmunds where they were
proposing to remote control TV cameras. ( 1968?) Thinking back, I doubt
that would displace anyone.

The car industry automation; body welding etc. displaced lots of skilled
men.

What's needed is an agreement negotiated by both sides. As happens in the
likes of Germany. Not the macho posturing that was so common in the UK -
and heavily encouraged by both the press and some governments.

Post war industry was over bloated and needed serious rationalisation.
Aircraft manufacturing an obvious example.


--
Tim Lamb

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And automation requires investment...


So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Not even possible with either of the car industry or coal miners.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And automation requires investment...

And the industrys where that made sense like the oil and gas industrys
got that.

FFS. That was a new industry in Scotland.

The only industry Scotland had that was worth investing in, stupid.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And automation requires investment...

So now we get back to the fact the unions prevent that investment
because they insisted on keeping the same number of jobs even though
there was no work to do.

All it required was sensible negotiations between the workforce and
employer.

Something you union haters wouldn't approve of.

There's sensible negotiations, and there's pointless negotiations.

If the unions approached the negotiations with a red line through
reducing the number of staff, then the latter is fairly inevitable.

See also: Wapping.

The main print unions were just plain stupid. But management having
allowed them to get away with all sorts of dodgy practices in the past -
and having plenty themselves - can't escape a share of the blame.

But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

Point of ignorance.. did *new technology* in the broadcast industry
displace labour?

I turned down a job offer at Vinten, Bury St. Edmunds where they were
proposing to remote control TV cameras. ( 1968?) Thinking back, I doubt
that would displace anyone.

It did in BBC News. 3 cameras would have used 3 cameramen, with Vinten
remotes one person looked after 3 cameras.

In message , Charles Hope
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
But I'd point you at the union I belonged to where new equipment and
working practices came thick and fast. In broadcast.
Grab any new technology and make it work so it becomes essential. Then
negotiate a settlement - if needed - afterwards.

Point of ignorance.. did *new technology* in the broadcast industry
displace labour?

I turned down a job offer at Vinten, Bury St. Edmunds where they were
proposing to remote control TV cameras. ( 1968?) Thinking back, I doubt
that would displace anyone.

It did in BBC News. 3 cameras would have used 3 cameramen, with Vinten
remotes one person looked after 3 cameras.

Oh!


--
Tim Lamb