h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Coming in late...and picking up on one thing...

pedro:
<>
SWL:
>>Been there, done that, never going back. That leads to the dead going unburied, rubbish mountains in the street, lower productivity and soaring inflation.

The tired old story about what was possibly the most justifiable industrial dispute in British labour history. Some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector had a pay cut imposed upon them in a time of high inflation. What was COHSE supposed to do? What would *you* have done?

I doubt that we're going to go back to the days of strong Trade Unions...but it seems difficult to argue that these are inherently A Bad Thing. If you want examples of countries with strong unions yet reasonably high productivity...look to Germany and (as always) Scandiwegia.

Now the difference in those countries is that they have built partnerships between unions, business and government (eg in Sweden - until recently the Trade Unions administered their health insurance system). This was attempted in Britain in the 1970's, with Barbara Castle's Social Contract. Arguably the unions were fools to themselves not to sign up to this...but the terms offered were heavily watered down by short termism - principally the political need to pay back quickly a perfectly sensible IMF loan that had the potential to become electoral dynamite.

Sure, they say that 'Journalism is the first draft of history.' But it's a mistake to believe the venomous anti-union headlines of the 1970's as the truth and accept the Received Wisdom that the 1970's Trade Unions were a problem that needed to be solved. The reality is that they were quite legitimately fighting for jobs and wages in economically harsh times. Eventually Thatcher declared an end to class war...and the working class lost. History is written by the victors.

<> What I've always done when an employer tries to get met to do stuff I don't want to - I'd get another job. Some people seem to think having a job is a right. It's not. Being treated fairly is a right but employees always have the ultimate sanction to hand - they can leave.

It's notable that AFAIK none of the anti-Union legislation has been repealed under 12 years of Labour. Unions are no more than pretty ineffectual special interest pressure groups these days. It's actually pretty easy to argue that strong unions are a bad thing in a British context. Whilst I know you like to compare Britain with Scandinavia (ad infinatum), a lot of people might have noticed that the cultures are quite different. Assuming that what works in one country would work in another whilst avoiding the cultural differences and contexts is a tad simplistic. In Finland, for example, the penalty for drunk driving I'm told is three month's wages. Can you imagine that being accepted in the UK?

What is needed is effective legislation governing workers rights, most of which we have and the way to get more is to vote for politicians willing to enact them. The time and place for unions has been & went.

<> That's the problem with socialism. Eventually, you always run out of other people's money.

It's probably interesting to note that in countries where the unions and businesses work well together (Eds examples are good) the pay differentials between the head of the company and their lowest paid workers is not as great in countries (like UK/USA) where it's everyone for themselves.

I know where I prefer to live.

And yet the UK & USA are cited as the two most popular destinations for economic migrants. Why do the most energised people from poor countries voluntarily go to great lengths trying to reach such unequal societies?

Depends if it's true or not, eh? Do they come to the UK in higher ratios etc than Germany, Holland etc.?

And how many look at Gini coefficients and union laws before they leave home?

<>

Oh, forgot. That would *never* with capitalism, eh?

never *happen*.



sorry for going on, all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2778589/Britain-is-second-most-popular-destination-for-migrants-OECD-says.html

Reading this back, I'm being a bit harsh on socialists and socialism. Many are involved because they want to make things better and that's to be applauded. I'm just a bit jaundiced after a morning's meeting trying to secure funding for a group of special needs kids being taken over by two trade unionists lobbying (succesfully) for the money to be spent on a "Welcome Centre" for immigrants instead.

Maybe for the UK it's cos of the empire we had? And America's still the land of the free in everyone's imagination, no matter what the reality is. And given that so many folk speak English, it's probably a natural choice for many of them?

I suppose you have a file somewhere with a breakdown of the figures?

Is that the Empire we had in Eastern Europe?

>><> What I've always done when an employer tries to get met to do stuff I don't want to - I'd get another job. Some people seem to think having a job is a right. It's not. Being treated fairly is a right but employees always have the ultimate sanction to hand - they can leave.



Utterly disgraceful, of course. And damned stupid besides.

Sure...maybe you personally might get a better job. (Difficult in times of high unemployment). And then some other poor sucker might come along and take your job with lower Ts&Cs than had been achieved on your behalf. But him! He could alsways leave and get a better job.

Except...if everyone did that, Ts&Cs would be depressed across the board. Your sod-you-jack new job might well end up being on even worse Ts&Cs than the original.

Alternately...workers can stand together and seek improvements in conditions for their comrades. And - as a side effect - themselves.

>>It's notable that AFAIK none of the anti-Union legislation has been repealed under 12 years of Labour.

Notable? Shameful! The left should sue for copyright infringement over the use of the name 'Labour'.

You don't imagine I'm a Labour Party supporter, do you?

>>I'm just a bit jaundiced after a morning's meeting trying to secure funding for a group of special needs kids being taken over by two trade unionists lobbying (succesfully) for the money to be spent on a "Welcome Centre" for immigrants instead.

Obviously I don't know the details of this - but as a general observation...For shame! Why on earth do you have to present what I'm guessing was a difficult decision over which of many competing deserving causes to allocate pot of money to as one of immigrants gaining at the expense of special needs kids?

Of course, I don't know the details of the (your quotes) 'welcome centre' - eg whether it might be helping immigrant children in a desparate condition. Nor do I know about your project for special needs children. I assume that both, given funding, would have helped someone. But maybe there was only sufficient funding for one? Sorry, dude, but life's harsh. Not nearly enough money, public or private, is available for all the deserving causes. I'm afraid that you just have to take it on the chin. But I sincerely wish you better luck next time.

But to criticise someone else for having a different good cause? Well...as you know, my good causes are the Children's Panel and Unicef. I should be criticised for giving my time up for them when it's also needed by...sick kiddies...old folks...the blind...you name it? Gimme a break!

Matthew 6:3.

We shouldn't need unions, but we do, because the shareholder is king.

The jobs are moved to the places where labour is cheapest, Poland, India, Malaysia, Brazil - probably slaves in Darfur next. and this is seen as a good thing because it gives benefits to the shareholders in the global market - but it isn't a global market, unless you have global salaries, global legislation, and a global currency.

>>We shouldn't need unions, but we do, because the shareholder is king.

Sounds like Marxism to me!

Actually, jobs moving abroad isn't necessarily a bad thing per se; there are new jobs created all the time (just think IT in the last 20 years and so on) and older industries, especially in manufacturing, tend to need fewer people over time due to increased automation etc.

I think one problem for the West is that due to workers' rights being so weak is that many jobs have been lost at a rate that's too high to be replaced 'naturally'. There's always a battle between bosses and workers, and it's swung too far in favour of bosses just now imo*.




*next week's Marxist topic, Ed, is the labour theory of value.

Dialectic, innit?

Yeah, it's a shame Marx never realised the dialectic between workers 'n' bosses would stop the revolution too...