OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[mistaram]

Was there a call for one?

We had had 2 in the seventies.
The great con job was uncovered then either.

Well he she thought it was that bad and all those things were going to happen . It was her duty to call a referendum and let the electorate decide surely

[Geoff Parkstone]

As we have seen, the calling of referenda is disastrous and produces results determined by the thick and gullible. We should never have one again, nor before. So Thatcher, who shares so much in common with Swale in terms of k owing best, would not countenance one.

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Geoff Parkstone;39389205]As we have seen, the calling of referenda is disastrous and produces results determined by the thick and gullible.[QUOTE]

Careful GP, if Swale had said that the lynch mob would be waiting...challenging the wisdom of the electorate is not ‘allowed’ anymore.

[mistaram]

As we have seen, the calling of referenda is disastrous and produces results determined by the thick and gullible. We should never have one again, nor before. So Thatcher, who shares so much in common with Swale in terms of k owing best, would not countenance one.

Hope your not referring to Tricky and MoP when you say thick and gullible Thatcher wouldn't have time for a referendum anyway much to busy rewriting what unions are not allowed to do

[Trickytreesreds]

Hope your not referring to Tricky and MoP when you say thick and gullible Thatcher wouldn't have time for a referendum anyway much to busy rewriting what unions are not allowed to do

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Unions, they are a good thing, until they decide that they are the ruling political force in the country.
We've had all that in the 70's. A fine job they did as well ruining the car industry among others. Of course Corbyn hoped to reintroduce these fine days, but alas no.
Workers rights/pay and conditions are fine. But no way will folks let the Unions bully the country again.

I always enjoyed this guys work.

Professor Peter Ackers
Professor Peter Ackers (PA) of Loughborough University delivered a paper on 'Trade Union productivity and partnership, and the failure of workplace reforms'.

Professor Ackers' theme arose from the third element of the IR problems which emerged into public consciousness from the late 1950s - Inflation, Strikes and Productivity. The then dominant Oxford school (Donovan Commission - Hugh Clegg, Alan Flanders etc), persuaded government to stick with their 'Voluntarist Pluralist Solution', which saw the problem as mainly a management one in a situation where the formal national collective bargaining system had been overtaken by an informal one, dominated by local workplace shop-stewards. This had led to wages drift, leapfrogging and generally chaotic, fragmented local bargaining. However, unions and managers simply exploited the productivity bargaining solution advanced by the Oxford school, to get round incomes policies. These were modelled on such agreements as that at Fawley in 1964. So, a tougher Statist Pluralist Solution came into favour with Labour and Conservative governments, though they still accepted strong collective bargaining and 'responsible' unions, from 1968-72. But these too were rejected by the unions, whose industrial militants and many leaders were heavily influenced by a Marxist outlook which saw no IR solutions under capitalism. Professor Ackers stressed that historians need to take seriously the influence of those ideas. This led to the Neo-Liberal Solution of the 'Thatcherite' (with some 'New Labour' modifications) governments which abandoned any attempt to work through unions and instead favoured direct reform of the workplace IR and of union practices/structures, with flexible labour markets and reliance on market disciplines generally. This was about individualisation, casualisation and sub-contracting. The conclusion Professor Ackers drew from this turbulent past was that partnership policies between management and independent unions linking high performance unionised workplaces to status and security in a broadly social democratic society, were the only alternative to a government-driven neoliberal approach still favoured by the present New Labour and Conservative parties.

But of course that makes us all thick and gullible by not wanting a return to those golden years.

[MadAmster]

Having listened to what BoJo intends to do in the coming weeks and months I fear for the land of my birth and its citizens, espcially the poorest 80% of them.

Reform the man says. What and why?

Workers rights. Actually he will take a lot of them away to strengthen the hand of his paymasters.

Consumer rights. Away with those, they cost shareholders far too much in lower dividends.

Bugger the environment. Frack away me hearties and to hell with clean drinking water.

Constituency boundaries. Let's change them to aid the Tories and screw over Labour and the SNP.

Human rights. Introduce a new Bill of British rights which outlaw anything they who must be obeyed don't like. No criticism of the elite or their friends both domestic and foreign. Critiicism of Israel will be deemed anti-semitic. Pro Palestinian outpourings will be anti-semitic despite Palestinians actually being a semitic people.

Brexit. No deal is back on the table. That would spell disaster for UK farmers with 48% tariffs on lamb exports and 84% on beef. They also plan to sell off the remaining (most of at any rate) fishing quota licences to foreigners.

Scotland. He says he is going to refuse Indyref2 despite the SNPs mandate from the Scottish people being greater than what he considers to be his mandate ............... plus BoJo considers Scotland a colony rather than an equal partner in a Union.

IMO he will set the UK (probably minus Scotland and possibly without Northern Ireland) back 100s of years.

Game set and match to the 1%.

[ramAnag]

Sounds about right MA...and you know what? Thanks to that election there’s sweet fa we can do about it.

Think GP said on Election Day that he’d never felt so disenfranchised. That’s absolutely how I feel now. Five more years or ten more years? Can’t help thinking we’re *****d!

[AdiSalisbury]

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Unions, they are a good thing, until they decide that they are the ruling political force in the country.
We've had all that in the 70's. A fine job they did as well ruining the car industry among others. Of course Corbyn hoped to reintroduce these fine days, but alas no.
Workers rights/pay and conditions are fine. But no way will folks let the Unions bully the country again.

I always enjoyed this guys work.

Professor Peter Ackers
Professor Peter Ackers (PA) of Loughborough University delivered a paper on 'Trade Union productivity and partnership, and the failure of workplace reforms'.

Professor Ackers' theme arose from the third element of the IR problems which emerged into public consciousness from the late 1950s - Inflation, Strikes and Productivity. The then dominant Oxford school (Donovan Commission - Hugh Clegg, Alan Flanders etc), persuaded government to stick with their 'Voluntarist Pluralist Solution', which saw the problem as mainly a management one in a situation where the formal national collective bargaining system had been overtaken by an informal one, dominated by local workplace shop-stewards. This had led to wages drift, leapfrogging and generally chaotic, fragmented local bargaining. However, unions and managers simply exploited the productivity bargaining solution advanced by the Oxford school, to get round incomes policies. These were modelled on such agreements as that at Fawley in 1964. So, a tougher Statist Pluralist Solution came into favour with Labour and Conservative governments, though they still accepted strong collective bargaining and 'responsible' unions, from 1968-72. But these too were rejected by the unions, whose industrial militants and many leaders were heavily influenced by a Marxist outlook which saw no IR solutions under capitalism. Professor Ackers stressed that historians need to take seriously the influence of those ideas. This led to the Neo-Liberal Solution of the 'Thatcherite' (with some 'New Labour' modifications) governments which abandoned any attempt to work through unions and instead favoured direct reform of the workplace IR and of union practices/structures, with flexible labour markets and reliance on market disciplines generally. This was about individualisation, casualisation and sub-contracting. The conclusion Professor Ackers drew from this turbulent past was that partnership policies between management and independent unions linking high performance unionised workplaces to status and security in a broadly social democratic society, were the only alternative to a government-driven neoliberal approach still favoured by the present New Labour and Conservative parties.

But of course that makes us all thick and gullible by not wanting a return to those golden years.

Union reps are fantastic, people who truly care trying to make the workplace better for everyone, and there in your hour of need. Corporately however, unions are self serving, have no interest in the working man, and will do anything to drive funding.

[swaledale]

It seems that all humans when gathered together are self serving, power as they say corrupts! Which is why political systems require checks and balances so that when one lot get carried away with the election of power, they can be dragged back into line.

I did have chuckle when Tricky says the Unions wrecked the UK car industry, nothing to do with **** management and **** products then???

[MadAmster]

Union reps are fantastic, people who truly care trying to make the workplace better for everyone, and there in your hour of need.

That was what I was about when I was one. Not all one sided though. When something was necessary for the benefit of both company and workers but many workers didn't like it, we did on the odd occasion back the company. It's all about balance.

[AdiSalisbury]

That was what I was about when I was one. Not all one sided though. When something was necessary for the benefit of both company and workers but many workers didn't like it, we did on the odd occasion back the company. It's all about balance.

Absolutely, I have all the time in the world for reps, its the union bosses that I'm not fond of. Agree with Swale's point too, except chuckling at Tricky of course!

[Trickytreesreds]

It seems that all humans when gathered together are self serving, power as they say corrupts! Which is why political systems require checks and balances so that when one lot get carried away with the election of power, they can be dragged back into line.

I did have chuckle when Tricky says the Unions wrecked the UK car industry, nothing to do with **** management and **** products then???

Actually great sage. Unions and management in equal measure. Both parties too concerned about each other and forgot about the most important relationship - the customer.

The other perspective is that in the UK we have good designers and engineers but piss poor short term-ist finance so we never invested in technology and innovation the way that the Germans and Japanese did, and the way the Koreans have recently done well at.
What the unions did, was destroy the British trust of manufacturing. Strikes/work to rules/one man, one job. The Japanese seized the moment and the car industry crumbled. Reliabilty, rushed models, resulted in **** cars that piled up in the car parks unsold. The Unions answer? More pay and concessions please.
One way ticket to oblivion.
I had it all explained to me, by an ex HR director, who had to deal with it at BL.
Tragic really, when you consider it has taken Japanese plants here, to restore the British workers credibility.

Unions are fine, until they they get their claws into politics.

[mistaram]

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



As for Unions, they are a good thing, until they decide that they are the ruling political force in the country.
We've had all that in the 70's. A fine job they did as well ruining the car industry among others. Of course Corbyn hoped to reintroduce these fine days, but alas no.
Workers rights/pay and conditions are fine. But no way will folks let the Unions bully the country again.

I always enjoyed this guys work.

Professor Peter Ackers
Professor Peter Ackers (PA) of Loughborough University delivered a paper on 'Trade Union productivity and partnership, and the failure of workplace reforms'.

Professor Ackers' theme arose from the third element of the IR problems which emerged into public consciousness from the late 1950s - Inflation, Strikes and Productivity. The then dominant Oxford school (Donovan Commission - Hugh Clegg, Alan Flanders etc), persuaded government to stick with their 'Voluntarist Pluralist Solution', which saw the problem as mainly a management one in a situation where the formal national collective bargaining system had been overtaken by an informal one, dominated by local workplace shop-stewards. This had led to wages drift, leapfrogging and generally chaotic, fragmented local bargaining. However, unions and managers simply exploited the productivity bargaining solution advanced by the Oxford school, to get round incomes policies. These were modelled on such agreements as that at Fawley in 1964. So, a tougher Statist Pluralist Solution came into favour with Labour and Conservative governments, though they still accepted strong collective bargaining and 'responsible' unions, from 1968-72. But these too were rejected by the unions, whose industrial militants and many leaders were heavily influenced by a Marxist outlook which saw no IR solutions under capitalism. Professor Ackers stressed that historians need to take seriously the influence of those ideas. This led to the Neo-Liberal Solution of the 'Thatcherite' (with some 'New Labour' modifications) governments which abandoned any attempt to work through unions and instead favoured direct reform of the workplace IR and of union practices/structures, with flexible labour markets and reliance on market disciplines generally. This was about individualisation, casualisation and sub-contracting. The conclusion Professor Ackers drew from this turbulent past was that partnership policies between management and independent unions linking high performance unionised workplaces to status and security in a broadly social democratic society, were the only alternative to a government-driven neoliberal approach still favoured by the present New Labour and Conservative parties.

But of course that makes us all thick and gullible by not wanting a return to those golden years.

Boris Johnson plans to legislate to allow power to overturn European Court of rulings sparked fears that worked rights will b undermind
Downing St confirmed yesterday it will include a clause to hand courts be sweeping powers to overturn the ECJ rulings His new Withdrawal Bill will mean British Courts can rule on the issues such as holiday entitlement, sick leave, maximum working hours and VAT

you continue to be gullible I won't be joining you

[ramAnag]

Unions are fine, until they they get their claws into politics.

How the hell are Unions meant to stay out of politics?

I fully accept that we can all come up with examples of Union - and management - intransigence, but wages, working conditions, workers’/pension right etc will always be ‘political’ issues.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Why should workers have any rights? Obviously they should have a secure and safe environment to carry out their job, but beyond that?

There is my merry thought for you to wrangle over during Christmas?