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

[ramAnag]

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?

You’ve answered your own question. They need a ‘safe and secure environment’, reasonable working conditions and hours that aren’t hazardous to health. They also need to be fairly rewarded in terms of wages and pensions.

Don’t assume that these are a ‘given’ in this day and age. Plenty of unscrupulous bosses/employers around and as long as that’s the case there will be a need for Unions to protect those ‘rights’ I’m surprised you’re challenging.

[mistaram]

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?

Started your drinking early Geoff !

[Trickytreesreds]

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.

easy, the mine workers strikes are a classic example.
They weren't about workers rights in effect it was about destabilising office.
The very fact of who they tie themselves to and push agendas tells you that.

Corbyn is a classic example of a man who wanted the top job, working to a tune played by unions.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Yes, my "challenge" was more focussed on such rights as board representation, involvement in management decision making and those other "more political" elements that do not relate to reward or H&S. The sort of rights relating to being a "stakeholder" and how far does that go? Are employees really stakeholders in a business (particularly a small business), or just a resource in the way plant and machinery or IT equipment is?

The right to withdraw labour, in other words, to strike, is also an interesting one. I would put this on a par with the employer's right to jettison an employee: so if the unions want the protected right to strike, the employers should have an equal right to sack and recruit a work force that will not withdraw its labour. This is where "union power" was over the top and ultimately was broken by the estimable Mrs T and it will almost certainly remain the biggest battlefield either way around. The ridiculous rules in the docks and print industries of the 50's and 60's are thankfully now history, but I sense the spectre of a return to regular strikes in the next 5 years under BoJo. This is fine if a genuine abuse of H&S and reward exists: I'm not one to support sub living wage payments by the likes of Starbucks, McDonalds etc, but where it is used as a political tool, as may well happen, my sympathy is out of the window.

To my mind, the strike is an outdated clumsy tool in the arena of industrial relations, but equally so is an employer lock out. The victims are almost always the consumer, who can do little to resolve the issue, eg trainbound commuters to cite a particular bugbear of mine - having seen regular strikes on my train line for 4 or 5 years now. So do employees have an inalienable right to inconvenience all those other workers trying to get to work themselves? Or is it an abuse of power?

[ramAnag]

Yes, my "challenge" was more focussed on such rights as board representation, involvement in management decision making and those other "more political" elements that do not relate to reward or H&S. The sort of rights relating to being a "stakeholder" and how far does that go? Are employees really stakeholders in a business (particularly a small business), or just a resource in the way plant and machinery or IT equipment is?

The right to withdraw labour, in other words, to strike, is also an interesting one. I would put this on a par with the employer's right to jettison an employee: so if the unions want the protected right to strike, the employers should have an equal right to sack and recruit a work force that will not withdraw its labour. This is where "union power" was over the top and ultimately was broken by the estimable Mrs T and it will almost certainly remain the biggest battlefield either way around. The ridiculous rules in the docks and print industries of the 50's and 60's are thankfully now history, but I sense the spectre of a return to regular strikes in the next 5 years under BoJo. This is fine if a genuine abuse of H&S and reward exists: I'm not one to support sub living wage payments by the likes of Starbucks, McDonalds etc, but where it is used as a political tool, as may well happen, my sympathy is out of the window.

To my mind, the strike is an outdated clumsy tool in the arena of industrial relations, but equally so is an employer lock out. The victims are almost always the consumer, who can do little to resolve the issue, eg trainbound commuters to cite a particular bugbear of mine - having seen regular strikes on my train line for 4 or 5 years now. So do employees have an inalienable right to inconvenience all those other workers trying to get to work themselves? Or is it an abuse of power?

I anticipated a Scrooge like and mischief making homily from you Geoff but I think your points are largely well made.

I can agree with much of what you say but ultimately as long as workers need protection there will be a need for Unions.

Is striking an ‘abuse of power’? Clearly it depends on how justified the strike is, but it will inevitably be the customer who seems to suffer because the customer is the source of profit which the employees enable the employer to access.
Inalienable right? Probably not and I thought there was already legislation in place as regards that particular aspect.

[mistaram]

easy, the mine workers strikes are a classic example.
They weren't about workers rights in effect it was about destabilising office.
The very fact of who they tie themselves to and push agendas tells you that.

Corbyn is a classic example of a man who wanted the top job, working to a tune played by unions.

Tricky you are quoting the miners strikes . But they are only one extreme example There are companies and unions working in harmony with each other all the time. For the good of both sides As for the miners strikes the 1972 one against the Heath government was purely about money which they eventually won The 1984 one started out about pit closures but foolishly went ahead without a national ballot You could hardly class it as destabilising office I see your not saying anything about Thatchers use of the police to try and break a strike Despite four different chief constables calling for a public enquiry into Orgreave 35years on were still waiting Theresa May even rejected it again in 2016 As for Corbyn having to work to the tune of the union's of course he has to a certain extent they are the largest donaters to his party That's no different to Johnson doing what big business donaters tell him . Hence he makes himself look a prat on a JCB wonder why

[Geoff Parkstone]

I anticipated a Scrooge like and mischief making homily from you Geoff but I think your points are largely well made.

I can agree with much of what you say but ultimately as long as workers need protection there will be a need for Unions.

Is striking an ‘abuse of power’? Clearly it depends on how justified the strike is, but it will inevitably be the customer who seems to suffer because the customer is the source of profit which the employees enable the employer to access.
Inalienable right? Probably not and I thought there was already legislation in place as regards that particular aspect.

Its christmas, so its time for scrooge like mischief making!

I'm not going to get into a big fight over the expression "source of profit which the employees enable the employer to access" but simply rest on the observation that those employees are simply part of that profit generation process. But so are finance, investment, capital assets, IT, capital risk, intellectual property and many other factors. But the weak link is always the human element.

Perhaps it is time for that human element to sit back and think about how indispensible they actually are. Driverless vehicles, automation of process, robotics, AI, CAD, blockchain etc can replace most of the functionality of humans in both an industrial setting and a clerical setting. How long is there a continuing need for unskilled labour (is there even any now?)? Or even semi skilled, or yet skilled or professional labour. I think I will outlast the automation of my own functionality, but how long will it be before there are no jobs for anyone because AI has taken over everything? 10 years, 20 years?

[MadAmster]

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?

So you'd be perfectly happy for people in hugely, physically, demanding jobs to work until they are 90 ?? Or even longer?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Hmm, not sure I get that non sequitor

[ramAnag]

Tricky you are quoting the miners strikes . But they are only one extreme example There are companies and unions working in harmony with each other all the time. For the good of both sides As for the miners strikes the 1972 one against the Heath government was purely about money which they eventually won The 1984 one started out about pit closures but foolishly went ahead without a national ballot You could hardly class it as destabilising office I see your not saying anything about Thatchers use of the police to try and break a strike Despite four different chief constables calling for a public enquiry into Orgreave 35years on were still waiting Theresa May even rejected it again in 2016 As for Corbyn having to work to the tune of the union's of course he has to a certain extent they are the largest donaters to his party That's no different to Johnson doing what big business donaters tell him . Hence he makes himself look a prat on a JCB wonder why

Well said, mista.

I’m not looking for a ‘big argument’, Geoff.

The question of how dispensable human labour is is an interesting one. Think we’ve been here before with Swale who has a different ‘take’ on it.
My own...having worked for many years with school leavers who would have been the first to be replaced by AI...is that human beings are sometimes irreplaceable and that society has to be ready for having such large numbers of possibly the less able having infinitely more time on their hands.

To illustrate the benefit of humans over technology I offer you the example of one man buses. When you and I were growing up every bus would have a driver and a conductor. Then (in the seventies?) the conductors were replaced by technology which presumably halved the number of people who needed to be employed but also simultaneously ruined the ‘service’ in so much as it now takes about ten times as long for passengers to board the bus and the passengers now appear at greater risk from poor behaviour because there is no longer any member of staff in any sort of supervisory capacity.

Beyond that I suppose we all like to think of a world free from work but do we really want constant leisure? There were many days during my working life when I may have answered in the affirmative to that but there’s also sense in the notion that ‘the devil makes work for idle hands’...and idle, poorer hands in particular.

Complex problem in rapidly changing times...maybe Corbyn’s three day week wasn’t as daft as was made out.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ive often thought that the 3 day week is a probability for the immediate future, for all those but the self employed, as tech takes over the workplace. The problem that I had was with the additional Corbyn element of "for the same wages as 5 days". In effect an immediate 40% whack of wage led inflation, albeit offset by some economies of scale from the tech - which of course also has to be paid for, and would also pressurise end user prices.

[mistaram]

Well said, mista.

I’m not looking for a ‘big argument’, Geoff.

The question of how dispensable human labour is is an interesting one. Think we’ve been here before with Swale who has a different ‘take’ on it.
My own...having worked for many years with school leavers who would have been the first to be replaced by AI...is that human beings are sometimes irreplaceable and that society has to be ready for having such large numbers of possibly the less able having infinitely more time on their hands.

To illustrate the benefit of humans over technology I offer you the example of one man buses. When you and I were growing up every bus would have a driver and a conductor. Then (in the seventies?) the conductors were replaced by technology which presumably halved the number of people who needed to be employed but also simultaneously ruined the ‘service’ in so much as it now takes about ten times as long for passengers to board the bus and the passengers now appear at greater risk from poor behaviour because there is no longer any member of staff in any sort of supervisory capacity.

Beyond that I suppose we all like to think of a world free from work but do we really want constant leisure? There were many days during my working life when I may have answered in the affirmative to that but there’s also sense in the notion that ‘the devil makes work for idle hands’...and idle, poorer hands in particular.

Complex problem in rapidly changing times...maybe Corbyn’s three day week wasn’t as daft as was made out.

RA Not really sure any of it is correct about humans becoming indispensable Remember we had it all with robots, then the computer was going to takeover .But there are more people in employment than ever before .

[ramAnag]

Not in supermarkets, shops, airports, public transport and certain types of manufacturing there aren’t.
Take your point completely and I’m not sure either, but I do know that, just as the white working class now objects to ‘immigrants’ taking the jobs they didn’t originally want to do, so those with very limited skills are increasingly joining the long term unemployed/‘underclass’ because their roles are being taken by either machines or others with a little more ability.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think the huge growth in employment is in the care sector. But once the machines introduce compulsory euthanasia at 70, most of those jobs will disappear

[MadAmster]

RA Not really sure any of it is correct about humans becoming indispensable Remember we had it all with robots, then the computer was going to takeover .But there are more people in employment than ever before .

There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics. This stat about more folk having a job than ever before is factually correct. However, facts don't always tell the whole story. For instance, here is a fact for you............ American Red Indians walk in single file........... well, the one I saw did.

It's the same with the number of employed stat. There are way more people employed in part time jobs than ever before. There are far more people on those damned zero hour contracts and a proportion of them regularly get called in for 1, 2 or 3 hours a week when they really need far more than that. There are people with multiple part time and/or zero hour contracts. I don't know for sure but if you have 6 PT/ZH jobs, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that you count 6 times in the number of people in employment figure. That is how much I trust these stats.