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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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???

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Started your drinking early Geoff !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

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.

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 XD 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 XD 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.