Is Cameron serious about trade union reform?

An interesting point about representation in terms of the legitimacy of an election without a sufficient turnout - as pointed out we wouldn't have a functioning government were the same rules applied to government.

The real crunch is with services that are crucial to the general public as it becomes a conflict between validating the right of expression for the percentage of workers who want to strike (what is a sufficient percentage to warrant strike action, and how is that justified?), and limiting the damage caused by an oppressive minority.

Though I'd be interested what the reaction would be in France were Sarkozy to make such a comment

On the cuts to public services Cameron has gone further than Mrs. Thatcher so why should he hold back on making it even more difficult for unions to strike. The obvious double standards on the rules on political voting are ignored especially when government action is far more disruptive and long lasting than the occasional strike. Never mind when in local government elections most councillors are returned with much less than twenty percent of the electorate voting for them. At least union bashing wont be a coalition 'fault line'

One wonders how many Home Office spies are embeddeed in the unions to make them sound more extreme and uncompromising than they actually are? I ask this because historically,the posture of the trade union movement has been of accomodation within the existing capitalist system rather than attempts to change it.

One can also ask whether Mr.Cameron and Genial Mr.Johnson are acting as provocateurs in advance of the royal wedding so there is time to draw the sting of union militancy before it embarrasses Mayor and P.M? More restrictive union laws,like outlawing strikes by public employees mooted by Mr.Johnson,or raising the bar for strike ballots as Mr.Cameron`s favourite will be perceived as hostile.

Public sector unions have been making militant noises as public spending cuts affect employment.Whether unified action in the spring advocated by Unite`s Len Mcluskey is bluff or for real is too early to say.The same can be said for Mr.Cameron`s threats.

All of this poses a challenge for the Labour Party who will oppose changes to union law in the Commons while keeping a distance from action on the streets.This is appropriate,changes in the law are the province of the commons,manning the barricades belongs to students and the unions.

To be honest, I do not believe David Cameron has to do anything at all about Trade Union Law, I think the public will do it for him should strikes occur. People these days lead very busy lives any inconvenience to their ability to carry on as normal will annoy them greatly. It is not like the old days when the Unions could strike at will and the public just sit on the sidelines suffering. Not having public support will cause more damage to the Union cause than anything Cameron could do. Why then should the Coalition cause themselves problems that are unnecessary by taking on the Unions when it is not needed.

Union membership has declined over the years and even some of its own members are not in full support of what they do. As we move further into the new Global age, it will be seen increasing that Unions are out of step with the modern World.

Basically, many people these days have no time for Unions because they hold back modernization which would move Britain forward. Britains past problems prove this. Furthermore, there is something quite wrong about leaders of Unions earning high salaries and yet claiming they are fighting for their members who earn much less money. I really have difficulty, considering all the regulations in place on employers these days, in understanding what purpose they serve at all, apart from supporting the Labour Party.

"Back to my initial question, though - is David Cameron serious about any of this? There's no doubt that his statement yesterday and his joint article with Boris Johnson in The Sun were seen as an ideal way to distract from the bankers - who may prove to be the coalition's Achilles heel - and focus instead on the unions, which they hope will be Labour's. It was also intended as a direct message to union members who they hope will restrain their leaders."

So, why do you bother asking then? Or are you just trying to lead us to your conclusion/the spin the BBC wants to put on it, rather than for us to make our own minds up?

"The problem with these new ballot thresholds is that unions will ask "why should they apply to us and not to politicians?" Boris Johnson would not be mayor, there would be no London Assembly members and the Labour MP John McDonnell has calculated that just 38 MPs would have been able to take up their seats."

Interesting. Interesting in that it only occurred to the Honourable Member to get off his backside long enough to make that calculation once his party had been chucked out of office. Funny how he didnt think to do it in 2001 or 2005. Cant possibly imagine why. Only do it when you're not in power and the hated baby eaters are in charge. Funny that....

"Boris Johnson has proposed that any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote bother to do so should be ruled invalid. He has London's tube drivers in his sights. They have gone on strike more under his mayorship than under Ken Livingstone."

Well, they would do, wouldnt they? Ken wasnt a tory. Nothing Big Bad Bob hates more than a baby eater. Not in his interests to try and unseat Ken and buck the democratic process, was it?

"He fears that in the lead up to the Boris v Ken re-match next April the unions may be inclined to strike even more. Many - but not all - of the strikes on the Underground have had a lower than 50% participation rate. So, Boris wants a new law to help him and to help London avoid the only other alternatives - buying off the unions or outright confrontation with them."

God knows what they've got to strike over apart from Bob's own political ambitions. Tube drivers are on damn good money for what they do, about 44 grand a year. There are tens of thousands in my own trade and others, who earn significantly less than that for working a damn sight harder and longer. Its nothing to do with pay and conditions for his membership, its all about flexing perceived political muscle and w*lly-waving.

Did Cameron mean any of it? Probably not. I dont think he'd get the necessary backing from the yellow side to push it through. And he hasnt got the backbone himself to see it enacted and go alone.

Just another 24 hour news cycle soundbite. Move along.

Yes, we should have this debate now. I am an ex-trade unionist, I left when I retired but I was heading for the door long before. Union leadership is very much a top down affair, once they've got the bit between their teeth there seems to be no stopping them, until they've backed into a losing corner then it's the memberships' fault. Time for some sort of change, the activist minority tail should not be wagging the membership majority dog. I've been involved in some disputes in my time, mostly justified it has to be said, but the leadership was pretty patchy varying from the barely visible to the grossly inept, and only rarely good. A bit like ordinary politics really.
Regards, etc.

"Is David Cameron serious about trade union reform"? is the title of Nick Robinson's blog.

There are several and varied issues on this question. In other words, a trade union is an overall term that covers numerous occupations? These occupations may be professional or vocational, and everything in between.

All unions have a duty of care to their members. Unions also didn't happen by accident - they were formed to protect the exploited.

Unfortunately, some unions and their leaders, have lost touch with their more moderate members?

Moreover, there are certain union leaders who have great salaries and pensions paid by their members. Plus, many unions are only led by men - is there sexism among ALL unions?

Is there misogyny rife in all unions - professional and vocational?

If David Cameron wants to pick a fight with unions, perhaps he should back off and take time to research those unions and put them to shame in front of the public and union subscribers first?

3. At 2:20pm on 13 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:

One wonders how many Home Office spies are embeddeed in the unions to make them sound more extreme and uncompromising than they actually are? I ask this because historically,the posture of the trade union movement has been of accomodation within the existing capitalist system rather than attempts to change it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Bob Crow, Len McCluskey, Arthur Scargill and Tony Woodley have always seemed very accomodating.... {facepalm}

...After a six year dispute over shift patterns the Tory run authority is threatening to sack over 5,000 firefighters and to offer to re-hire them on new terms and conditions...Were the authority to go ahead it might provide the Tories with a model of how to handle other disputes - such as those on the Underground.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Eddie Shah and Rupert Murdoch showed the way to handle unions in the 1980s. Sack those that don't want to work and replace them with people who do.

Why has it taken the public sector so long to learn?

7#

Good points.

My only problem with the change, is the point you bring up Nick?

The Conservative party have spent the last 50 years making the most out of low voter turnouts. You could argue they favour them.

If you said MPs were not allowed to take office, unless their was a 50% turnout, the conservatives would lose out the most.

Cameron can't preach about the unfairness of strikes being decided on less than 50% of votes, and also be a vocal opponent of AV?!

The truth is, there's no way MPS themselves would create laws where the winner of a by-election HAD to have a 50% turnout, so they can't preach to Unions

Susan-Croft

Don't let newspaper coverage sway your view of the world.

More people than not are either in a union themselves, or have someone they know in a union.

Poll after poll have suggested that Union action gets a fair bit of public sympathy. Epsecially during recessions.

They aren't striking for fun. They're striking as they have a £200'000 mortgage, £2'000 on a credit card, and their employers want to rip up their legally binding contract, so they can pay them £5'000 a year less

Fubar Saunders

You're only input on this blog, appears to be, shouting down any negative comments on the Conservative party. The actual subject, doesn't seem to matter.

You know, if you get so annoyed by debate, maybe try sticking to your Conservative party blogs

What people need to remember, is nobody actually wants to go on strike.

Union members are normal employees, with mortgages, and children, and debt liabilities.

I assure you, if you went into my (private) company, and told people you were ripping up their contracts, paying them less money, and making them work more hours, with no notice period, you'd get sued by someone.

Public Sector workers can't sue the government. So they stop working

One wonders how many Home Office spies are embeddeed in the unions to make them sound more extreme and uncompromising than they actually are? I ask this because historically,the posture of the trade union movement has been of accomodation within the existing capitalist system rather than attempts to change it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Bob Crow, Len McCluskey, Arthur Scargill and Tony Woodley have always seemed very accomodating.... {facepalm}

========================================================================

You seem to get ever so offended by debate

Are you sure you're not a spy?

Unfortunately, some unions and their leaders, have lost touch with their more moderate members?

Moreover, there are certain union leaders who have great salaries and pensions paid by their members. Plus, many unions are only led by men - is there sexism among ALL unions?

Is there misogyny rife in all unions - professional and vocational?

If David Cameron wants to pick a fight with unions, perhaps he should back off and take time to research those unions and put them to shame in front of the public and union subscribers first?

========================================================================

Unions are actually pretty simple things.

Members complain to them about something. They put out a vote to the general membership, and then act on what the majority of members want to do.

You know. Can you tell me what's not true in that statement?

If members don't want to strike, they don't. If members want to accept an offer, they do.

Eddie Shah and Rupert Murdoch showed the way to handle unions in the 1980s. Sack those that don't want to work and replace them with people who do.

Why has it taken the public sector so long to learn?

=========================================================================

They didn't do that. They closed the industries down.

As much as they'd probably like to, I don't think the tories are in a position where they can close down every indsutry in the country, with unions, as the peasents are revolting.

Who would fund their tax breaks?

5 Fubar_Saunders

Did Cameron mean any of it? Probably not. I dont think he'd get the necessary backing from the yellow side to push it through. And he hasnt got the backbone himself to see it enacted and go alone.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very true.

A lot of LibDems will start wetting the bed at the first sign of taking on the unions.

Cameron seems to lack the stomach for a fight although there are plenty in his party who would be up for it.

Miliband would be placed in an awkward position. He owes his position to the unions and supporting them would allow the Tories to portray him as being in their pocket. If he didn't support them, then he would be unable to oppose the government effectively.

It would make more sense to pass a law which obliged the head of every one of the trades unions to appear on the television every night to explain what on earth they were talking about.

Most of them seem to have little to say other than to play the badly done by card.

Each television interview could start with the publication of their salary and expenses for the previous and forthcoming years.

They are dinosaurs who belong to the beginning of the last century... and naturally they are far more disproportionately prevalent in the obstreperous public than the private sector. Unions in the twenty first century have no purpose; employment law has been established to protect the rights of individuals. Anything that can't be protected by employment law you have no right to anyway.

Still, can I argue that it isn't amusing to listen to the bellowing and blustering of these poltroons? No, I can't.

It's grim up north London...

13#

Ah, the return of Mr Naylor. I did wonder where you'd got to after all these months.

If my input is indeed limited to what you say it is, then I dare say your return is going to give me no shortage of subject material to work on, is it not?

11. At 3:05pm on 13 Jan 2011, Mike wrote:

If you said MPs were not allowed to take office, unless their was a 50% turnout, the conservatives would lose out the most.

Cameron can't preach about the unfairness of strikes being decided on less than 50% of votes, and also be a vocal opponent of AV?!

The truth is, there's no way MPS themselves would create laws where the winner of a by-election HAD to have a 50% turnout, so they can't preach to Unions
----

IMHO the two cannot be compared.

You choose to part of a union by paying membership fees, you have no choice over registering to vote, you’re an adult, you pay council tax therefore you’re on the voting registrar.

The only way it could be compared between political elections and unions (in the instance of the tube strikes) would be if every employee (or contractor) of the tube network had a vote in union strike actions whether they were a member or not and the union had to get a 50% yes vote from everyone.
Or only allowing votes in parliamentary elections from people who have paid to be a member of a political party and the MP needing a 50% turnout for it to stand.

Seems a good idea in theory but with the heavy, clumsy hand of the Tories behind it there's sure to be something going wrong with it along the way.

And how exactly is Cameron supposed to follow public opinion when he's all but stopped all market research? And no, his PM Direct events don't count: speaking with a couple of thousand people a year is pure spin and no substance. His decisions are made behind closed doors far away from the opinions of the general public.

14 Mike

I assure you, if you went into my (private) company, and told people you were ripping up their contracts, paying them less money, and making them work more hours, with no notice period, you'd get sued by someone.

Public Sector workers can't sue the government. So they stop working

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am not an employment lawyer, but I do not think that it is illegal to change terms and conditions of work, providing it is done in the correct way.

Public sector workers can sue their employer where they act unlawfully - look at what has happened on equal pay where predominantly female roles were paid far less than predominantly male roles which required a similar level of skill. Councils all over the UK are having to compensate female employees for indirect sexual discrimination.

He is intending to deliberately make one million people unemployed whilst transferring massive wealth to his rich backers.

We can already see this happening as Manchester council announces thousands of redundancies and workers take pay freezes whilst bankers announce multi-million pound pay offs and bosses take 55% pay rises.

It is pretty obvious that people are not going to sit quietly as this happens. Even lord snooty and co. must be able to predict the pending disorder.

Clearly he is preparing Mugabe style powers to suppress the oiks.

All totally predictable.

My view would be that if victims are not allowed peaceful protest such as strikes then that legitimises non-peaceful resistance as the only alternative.

17 Mike

They didn't do that. They closed the industries down.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you suggesting that no newspapers are printed in the UK any more?

13. At 3:09pm on 13 Jan 2011, Mike wrote:
Fubar Saunders

You're only input on this blog, appears to be, shouting down any negative comments on the Conservative party. The actual subject, doesn't seem to matter.
================================

No real change there then.

The big laugh was how long it took him to realise the blog had started up again after Christmas.

I think this is a tactic that would be hard to justify at this time due to the parliment not voted for under similar rules . He will wait and see how popular the strikes are with the public before doing or saying much . Unions have a role to play also in the way the conduct any protest or strike , most people do not want to see anyone loose their jobs but relalise cuts are being made . However It would appear that labour controled authorities are the ones cutting the most.

#11 seems like a mike only blog.

I do not no anybody in a unions at all.

I'm member of the PCG more democratic than any union I know about

24 jon112dk

The public sector would not be having to shed so many staff if trade unions were more accepting of the need to organise working practices to produce efficiency gains rather than to make the lives of their members as easy as possible.

The result of the resistance to change is long periods of inertia, with low / no efficiency gains followed by a step change, rather than a steady progression.

Mike 12

I don't read newpapers Mike, I have never found one worthy of reading. I like to make up my own mind about issues without being subject to other peoples bias.

"Its "Inevitable demise" exists in your head not mine.This is vulgar marxism at,well its most vulgar.The apocalyptic views you ascribe to me are a projection of your lack of ease with modern ideas.It may comfort you to think the ideas of your political apponents are unsophisticated bilge,what it actually reveals is your inability to engage with the language of contemporary economic and social thought."

bryhers - You are the Delphic Oracle in disguise and I claim my £5 reward.

Vague pronouncements about impending....well, not doom, just that nobody really knows what's happening (except you) and that what will happen at some point in the future is that all will be revealed.

It's what the delphic Oracle used to do. Predictions so wooly and vague that whatever happened, the Oracle could say "see, told you so".

"It makes you an easy target,but are you a worthy one:"

I doubt anyone is worthy of you, so I suppose we should be grateful that you're deigning to join in the debate.

"24. At 3:30pm on 13 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:
He is intending to deliberately make one million people unemployed whilst transferring massive wealth to his rich backers."

Still, that's better than Brown & Blair who accidently bankrupted the country whilst transferring massive wealth to their rich backers.

It doesn't sound as if Cameron has any appetite for changing the law on strike action, judging by the words quoted in Nick's piece. Saying "the laws put in place ... are working well" is about as strong a hint as you'll get that he plans to do nothing. Most members of the public do not feel our country is plagued by irresponsible unions, and tend to side with or against strike action on a case by case basis. They are just as concerned about worker exploitation as they are about union militancy. Boris and Dave may never have mixed with people who have cause to gripe about their working conditions but most other people do and, for that reason, won't automatically side with management and employers whatever the dispute.

When I was in the Inland Revenue I was in the First Division Association, the union for the upper reaches of the Civil Service. I remember that when one of the rank & file unions went on strike, we at the FDA were told by our union leaders to cross the picket line.

That didn't feel right to me. So I entered the building through the back door.

Just thought I'd share my militant union days with you.

Post 10 @ 3:04pm on 13 Jan 2011 - 'Fubar_Saunders'.

Thank you.

In one way it would help Cameron considerably if the Unions did strike. The private sector has suffered very badly during this recession with wages cuts, hours reduced etc. and very few of them are in Unions. Should the Unions, which mainly represent the public sector strike and alienate the public by doing so, this would put Ed Miliband and thus Labour, in a very difficult situation. Ed can either support the strikers and by doing so upset potentially moderate Labour voters. Or not support them and upset those who gave him his job and split the Labour party.

Personally if I were Cameron, I would use the strategy of doing nothing about Union Law and wait. It is a win, win situation for him if he does this and avoids also picking a fight at the moment for no reason.

23. AS71
I am not an employment lawyer, but I do not think that it is illegal to change terms and conditions of work, providing it is done in the correct way.
-----------------------------------
Hi AS71.
Perhaps we could change the terms and conditions of your pay in the correct way? Make you work longer hours for less pay. Then you can absolutely and with integrity tell us how you are happy to cancel your holiday, default on your mortgage, or sell the merc and buy a horse and cart. Im sure also you would add the point that you are even more happy and have no issues with your boss and his boss continuing on the same renumeration package if not more, and they have shown great gratitude to you for your generosity.

26#

Are you referring to me or Naylor?

I'm sure that you've found plenty of other places on the web for indulging in a spot of mutually acceptable tory hating frottage during the close season jon (after all there's plenty out there), but the only one missing from the blog here was the man who owns it. Cant control what holidays he has.

'he is intending to make one million people unemployed whilst transferring massive wealth to his rich backers'

Better that than the activities of the previous popinjays who 'ran' the country handing out flattery and pay rises like confetti.

It's grim up north London...

Response to all comments from 'Mike' on this blog.

Apart from sigh - it's difficult to find the right and polite words to respond to your 'ignorance' and misrepresentation of other posters on this debate?

Oh well. That time of day again. Mikes attack of blogging dysentery seems to have subsided, Lefty's opened up the window to see what the smell is and figures its safe to come out... and the rest of us... have got homes to go to.


TTFN.

At 3:54pm on 13 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"24. At 3:30pm on 13 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:
He is intending to deliberately make one million people unemployed whilst transferring massive wealth to his rich backers."

Still, that's better than Brown & Blair who accidently bankrupted the country whilst transferring massive wealth to their rich backers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sighs
A clear case of overexposure to the tory story I think. Andy seems to think that at some point in the recent past the UK was declared bankrupt. Evidence please. Even Dave and George only claim that we were nearly bankrupt.
Still it was nice to get all the way to post 32 without someone trotting out the tory story version of the last 13 years when the topic is should changes be made to trades union legislation re. strike ballots.
As someone might say
YAWN

lefty 37

No lefty, sell the merc for a second-hand Ka, that works much better than a horse and cart for goodness sake.

After all you can still make a very good living with a horse and cart in these days of recession, so Im told.

Just joking BTW

32.AndyC555
Andy, I just want to ask you a question. It seems whenever there is any criticism of Cameron or Osborne, you immediately refer back to the mistakes of Blair and Brown. Now just for the sake of argument lets just say Blair and Brown did everything wrong. Is the basis on which you have decided that Cameron and Osborne shouldn’t be criticised or that any mistakes they make shouldn’t be questioned or any policy they introduce should be scrutinised. If this is the case then I can assume your life view is that anything bad that happens shouldn’t be addressed as equally bad things have happened before. I ask this as this seems to be the ever recurring mainstay of your posts.

The unions still haven't learned that they no longer run the country. Since they had their bums kicked by Thatcher, they have hidden in the undergrowth,apart from the period when Labour was in power and they dictated policy. As far as the cuts in Manchester go, I suspect that any local authority that can dispense with 2000 employees could probably get rid of the same number again without the city and it's services grinding to a halt.No doubt the employees about to get the chop, will not be from the PC non job division, but from the lower paid service deliverers, carers ,binmen street cleaners etc., meanwhile the desk jockeys will carry happily on spending the taxpayers cash on diversity training, recycling councelling etc.

37 lefty11

Hi AS71.
Perhaps we could change the terms and conditions of your pay in the correct way? Make you work longer hours for less pay. Then you can absolutely and with integrity tell us how you are happy to cancel your holiday, default on your mortgage, or sell the merc and buy a horse and cart. Im sure also you would add the point that you are even more happy and have no issues with your boss and his boss continuing on the same renumeration package if not more, and they have shown great gratitude to you for your generosity.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lefty,

This is a false dichotomy, the only alternatives you are offering are the status quo or personal ruin.

I would work longer hours for less pay if the alternative was no job - thousands of people in the private sector did this during the recession.

I have also had the terms and conditions of my employment changed before - sick pay reduced, pension scheme closed etc. This kind of flexibility is sometimes required to keep a company in business.

I would be interested to see whether fire crew are being asked to work longer hours for less money or whether they are being asked to adopt a more flexible approach to working hours.

Although some workers don't have the right to strike (e.g. Police) they have enhanced rights.

For example, a full pension after 25 years and no compulsory redundancies (aka job for life).

I wonder if Cameron will offer those kinds of carrots to tube workers to accept the stick of a no strike deal?

Cameron should be serious. The union leaders are hypocrites, with six figure salaries. Oh yes comrade you go out on strike, do as I say not as I do.
How much pay does a union leader lose when the comrades are on strike? How is Bob Crowe's bank balance comrade?

At 4:05pm on 13 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
In one way it would help Cameron considerably if the Unions did strike. The private sector has suffered very badly during this recession with wages cuts, hours reduced etc. and very few of them are in Unions. Should the Unions, which mainly represent the public sector strike and alienate the public by doing so, this would put Ed Miliband and thus Labour, in a very difficult situation. Ed can either support the strikers and by doing so upset potentially moderate Labour voters. Or not support them and upset those who gave him his job and split the Labour party.

Personally if I were Cameron, I would use the strategy of doing nothing about Union Law and wait. It is a win, win situation for him if he does this and avoids also picking a fight at the moment for no reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of good points here. If strikes are so univerally disliked, as some would have us believe, then it would make sense to make changes after they have taken place rather than before, which could become a recruiting sergeant for the unions and further decrease the Coalitions popularity. You are right I think about Ed M too. If action is taken prematurely he will be able to avoid taking up, or being pestered to take up, a position on specific cases.
I think he (Cameron) probably will follow your advice. Can't see him taking the Maggie route of direct confrontation. But who knows, sometimes the mouse can be encouraged to roar. (I'm pretty sure that Cameron is well aware that those encouraging him to roar will be nowhere to be seen if it should all go wrong.)

The trades unions have certainly done well for their members over the years without resorting to strike action,

It's only when they organised strikes that hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost and industries closed down because wages were pushed too high so they became uncompetitive and business moved elsewhere. That was in the seventies and the eighties but it still sounds all too familier today.

The public sector workers are being asked to volunteer to retire at 55 with full pension. Will they go on strike about that then when others don't know when or if they will ever be able to retire.

Bankers politicians or union bosses it doesn't really matter but they should stop this phoney war for the rest of us in the middle just want to see this country back on its feet ASAP and not become an insignificant offshore dump off the European mainland.

There is a plan and it must work but the real pressures are coming from outside this country. Being in denial and hoping it will all melt away are no longer the qualifications needed for the top jobs when time is so short.

8. At 2:58pm on 13 Jan 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
3. At 2:20pm on 13 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:

One wonders how many Home Office spies are embeddeed in the unions to make them sound more extreme and uncompromising than they actually are? I ask this because historically,the posture of the trade union movement has been of accomodation within the existing capitalist system rather than attempts to change it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yeah, Bob Crow, Len McCluskey, Arthur Scargill and Tony Woodley have always seemed very accomodating.... {facepalm}"

As ever,the problem with your comment is its lack of historical perspective.In the second half of the 19th century,trades were unionized and operated to help members when they were sick or unemployed.These "New Model" unions rarely struck.

The unskilled were weakly unionized,it was only with the strike over "The docker`s tanner" in 1889,(supported by cardinal Newman),that
unskilled unions began in a serious way.

With the growing concentration of capital, and a more cohesive capitalist elite,the state struck at the funding of skilled unions in a series of legal judgements.To have a political voice the LRC was formed which became the Labour Party who took on the accomodative nature of the unions,seeking to ameliorate the effects of industrialization rather than change society.This remains its posture today,the radicals and revolutionaries are the exception.

But both war and economic crisis shake capitalism,polarize classes and introduce instability.These are the circumstances in which you get radicalism of both left and right.1926,1981-85,1945,2009....

War and economic crisis has had a far bigger influence on capitalism than either the unions or the Labour Party.Until the right can talk seriously about capitalism it can`t talk seriously about anything else.

How can anyone compare voting for someone to run the country or the capital city to driving or not driving a tube train? A ridiculous comparison.

44 - "I just want to ask you a question. It seems whenever there is any criticism of Cameron or Osborne, you immediately refer back to the mistakes of Blair and Brown. Now just for the sake of argument lets just say Blair and Brown did everything wrong. Is the basis on which you have decided that Cameron and Osborne shouldn’t be criticised or that any mistakes they make shouldn’t be questioned or any policy they introduce should be scrutinised."

Nope, if & when Cameron & Osborne make mistakes, I will take them to task for it. Was just responding in a fatuous manner to an equally fatuous comment about Cameron planning to make a million unemployed and make his rich backers wealthy, as if he went around making people unemployed for the fun of it.

See, answered your question. Shame you never answered mine about the level of tax evasion you are comfortable with. So far, you started with window cleaners putting a bit of cash in their pocket, then you said you've sympathy with MPs trousering tens of thousands of pounds tax free on top of a salary over twice the national average. Just seems at odds with your strident deman that all my clients pay every single penny they possibly can in tax.

. At 3:00pm on 13 Jan 2011, AS71 wrote:
...After a six year dispute over shift patterns the Tory run authority is threatening to sack over 5,000 firefighters and to offer to re-hire them on new terms and conditions...Were the authority to go ahead it might provide the Tories with a model of how to handle other disputes - such as those on the Underground.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Eddie Shah and Rupert Murdoch showed the way to handle unions in the 1980s. Sack those that don't want to work and replace them with people who do.

Why has it taken the public sector so long to learn?"

What you fail to recognize is what a stabilizing and cohesive influence the trade unions were.They socialized young men and women into work,stimulated apprenticeship by making it a condition of employment in a number of skilled trades,helped members when they were sick or unemployed and provided a social network which gave fellowaship and meaning to their lives.

The alternative was the dismantling of heavy industry in the eighties and the shift into services,mass unemployment,community degradation and the anomie of men and women without employment.Your intemperate comments simply encourage a repeat of that blindness.

I do not think Cameron is serious. Having strikes occasionally called by a vote in which there was low participation, gives his pals in the media a great opportunity to bash the unions.

As times get harder the unions should not find it difficult to increase membership participation to meet any new threshold requirements. Poor turnout is the result of apathy. When the shoe pinches, apathy wanes.

As Cameron pursues his plans to move the UK's economic system even further toward the neocon model, he will need all the anti-union ammunition he can lay his hands on.

He has already caused a lot of sore feet among young people, particularly students. They are the next generation of voters, and will not forget as they struggle to repay their debts.

46. AS71
You seem to have missed the crucial part of the point. And that is that your boss and his boss are still on the same remuneration packages if not receiving a tidy rise, while you are being flexible, having your pay reduced and generally being very company friendly. And of course as you know this is the crux of the whole issue at the moment. The one where its one rule for the workers and another for the bosses. Im sure for example one of the thousands of lower ranking Lloyds staff who were made redundant while Mr Daniels 2 million pound bonus was being formulated could express this view more rigorously.

Well done Dave!

Got a sticky little problem? Bankers sticking two fingers up to you?

I know, have a go at the unions - everyone will have a good old rant and the fact that the bankers are back to their old tricks, and you haven't got the guts to take them on, will be forgotten.

But - if you are so keen on electoral reform of unrepresentative unions, how come you're so strongly against electoral reform for the House of Commons?

Looks like a case of double standards to me!

Boris

Happy 2011 Nick, Marvellous to see you on Daily Politics and hearing your views on the first PMQs of the year!

I do believe the strike laws are out-of-date and Boris Johnson's suggestion sound great. Which is, Strikes can only occur when more than 50% of union members vote to go out on strike.

David Cameron is going to be the greatest Prime Minister in British History! Marvellous!

Well there you have it. The spite-inspired 'non-Dom' levy has had pretty much the impact I predicted and is estimated to have cost the UK £800m. 16,000 non-Doms have left the UK. Of course there are no figures for those who didn't bother coming TO the UK.

Lefty, you're good with these sorts of calcs, how many nurses would £800m have paid for?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/8256127/Non-dom-levy-is-a-costly-mistake-for-Britains-economy-and-its-society.html

9. At 3:00pm on 13 Jan 2011, AS71 wrote:
...After a six year dispute over shift patterns the Tory run authority is threatening to sack over 5,000 firefighters and to offer to re-hire them on new terms and conditions...Were the authority to go ahead it might provide the Tories with a model of how to handle other disputes - such as those on the Underground.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Eddie Shah and Rupert Murdoch showed the way to handle unions in the 1980s. Sack those that don't want to work and replace them with people who do.

Why has it taken the public sector so long to learn?

So why is it ok to tear up the contracts of public sector employees, but not bankers and their bonuses? Yet again a rule for the rich and a different rule for the lower classes!

I suppose you could just sum things up: Arbeit macht frei!

51 - For sure, an interesting glimpse back into the distant past of Trade Union history. I'm sure Bob Crow has the 'docker's tanner' in mind every time he calls for triple time & a day off in lieu for working on a bank holiday.

Care to take us through the 120+ million days lost to strikes in the 1970s and how that accomodative period of trade union activity helped us?

"What you fail to recognize is what a stabilizing and cohesive influence the trade unions were." bryhers

"were". That's a word that means the past doesn't it?

'used to be'

'once was'

'in the olden days'

'long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away'

56. At 5:26pm on 13 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:
"46. AS71
You seem to have missed the crucial part of the point. And that is that your boss and his boss are still on the same remuneration packages if not receiving a tidy rise, while you are being flexible, having your pay reduced and generally being very company friendly. And of course as you know this is the crux of the whole issue at the moment. The one where its one rule for the workers and another for the bosses. Im sure for example one of the thousands of lower ranking Lloyds staff who were made redundant while Mr Daniels 2 million pound bonus was being formulated could express this view more rigorously."

lefty, can I ask you a question? Whenever you talk of bosses, you always bring in the bankers, as if they were the only bosses around or as if every boss was in the same position as a banker.

Thing is, you claim to be a boss yourself. Is that how YOU behave?

Do you base you view on bosses that it's a one way ticket? That the moment you own your own business then regardless of the state of the economy money comnes rolling in to you and your only decision is how many workers to sack to make the money roll in even faster?
The firm I work for is an LLP. They file a return every year at Companies House so I know that while my pay was frozen, the profits of the LLP have fallen.

Businesses go bust every year. It's happened to some of my clients. Do you think these are somehow 'bossless' businesses? Do you not consider that many bank loans to small businesses are cross charged on personal assets and that often everything a boss owns is at risk?

Be interested in ananswer (along with your fiscal "it's OK to cheat the taxman" limit).

48. telecasterdave
Its a fair point, although for balance, heres the other side to it.
Bob Crows salary is agreed by union members. The majority of union members are more than happy with him.
“Bob Crow is one of the most successful trade union leaders of his generation with one of the fastest growing trade unions” comments a union member.
RMT membership is up from 50,000 to more than 80,000 and has increased almost as fast as workers' salaries while he's been in charge. He even managed to get Network Rail to reintroduce a final-salary pension scheme.
Ps. If you travel on the underground, please find out what the health and safety procedures/infrastructures are for the public and its correlation to the funding it receives and cuts that are wanted by management. Ask for example about the radios the tube drivers use to communicate and if they are fit for purpose during a disaster. On these issues alone, a detailed study might make you reassess which side you are on.

bryers 54

You had my interest at 51, because I thought that a true revolutionary heart was going to be revealed. When you said until the right could discuss capitalism. I thought that you were about to tell us, you see the Unions as a mere tool which has smoothed the way for Capitalism for years, instead of actually challenging it.

Of course at 54 I realised this was not the case, therefore what is there to discuss about capitalism by right or in your case left.

In fact at 54 you decidely back the system of capitalism by saying the Unions moulded people to fit into the system.

Interesting.

62. At 5:42pm on 13 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"What you fail to recognize is what a stabilizing and cohesive influence the trade unions were." bryhers

"were". That's a word that means the past doesn't it?"

Largely,but not completely.Prvate industry is now weakly unionized.I believe the figure is 15% of members.Public sector unions are stronger,they provide valuable services to members and are a brake on employer`s power.

The situation is similar in the USA for similar reasons.From smokestack to computer stack.

Further to this is that fresh minted Union man Ed Miliband. Now that he has emerged from the closet as a fully fledged Brownite deficit denier (no - 'presentation' won't wash) even more reason to place some checks and balances on industrial action, particularly politically inspired industrial action.
Regards, etc.

Personally I feel we must support the unions and simply deal with the disruption that any strikes may cause. Im sure its a pain for those people who are left without train services or are delayed from time to time but its not like the underground and fire services HAVENT given us advance notice of any strike.

Anyway who travels to London on the day of an underground strike has to expect an inconvenience. They announce the strikes weeks before they happen.

But the real issue is this. When the people you work for announce that they are putting you on notice and you have to re-apply for your job under new terms and conditions, its bordering on dictatorship and constructive dismisal.

The law needs to be addressed as to why so many companies during a recession take it upon themselves to jump on the band wagon and change the terms and conditions of a job role so as to benefit themselves. Its totally wrong and disgraceful that they can do this, and if an employee doesnt like, then they are shown the door.

Its not about the disruption strikes cause, its about the unfairness of companies demanding more of their staff for less money and having the power to sack them under the terms of "restructure" if those staff dont like it.

This country has fought long and heard for flexible working conditions for mums, but if you are a mum who looks after their child on a flexible contract, then that could be changed any time a company wants under the term re-structure. If you dont like it, then tuff!

Cameron is simply waiting or the travelling public to turn on the unions, and then he'll step in and deal with it like some big super hero. Support these people in their strikes...after all, you wouldnt call Cameron and he's Goverment should you have a house fire, or need a nurse, or someone to drive your train, or police the streets at night.

All this bleating from the tories about a few people going on strike.

I thought the message was localism and everyone doing things for themselves? No more dependence on big government.

Surely you can empty your own bins, grit your own roads or make your own way to the office if the trains don't run.

Lord snooty kept telling you there had to be pain - suck it up and start looking after your selves.

63. Andy c555
Andy, Thank you for that post and its an excellent post regarding the smaller businesses, say sole traders 50k turnover and below. Im well aware of the businesses going bust. A study by Equifax indicate that small business bankruptcy filings were down in 3rd quarter 2010 11% compared to 3rd quarter 2009. Small business bankruptcies were at their height, during the recession, during 2nd quarter 2009. They are down 19% from that time. Although the drop in bankruptcies is not yet large. In fact it would be fair to say that the situation in still incredibly messy and the future looks decidedly uncertain.
Anyway back to your point. You are trying to justify some of the most appalling greed and exploitation from big business and bosses by describing examples of low income bosses and businesses. This is inane. You no very well the bosses I mean and the ones I don’t. Just like if I said those criminals should be sent to prison for life you could ascertain that im not talking about shoplifters, who are also criminals.
And in regard to your fiscal limit to cheat the taxman, I have already explained this clearly. Its all wrong. Although some maybe about necessity, ie putting food on the table, and the other is about buying the 15th lambo. If you cant see the difference then I cant help you any further. Oh and by the way cash in hand to pay for a widescreen tv is wrong as-well although nowhere near as greedy as the 15th lambo scenario. And if wages were higher at the bottom the desire for cash in hand would be reduced anyway. Now you may say, all this little cash in hand adds up. Yes it does, you are right. Although its hard to compare one individuals greed and unethical behaviour and the enormity of the tax avoidance and its individual effect when your comparison to be equivalent would need thousands of low paid individuals tax avoidance to be combined........ Scale.
Anyway back to your small business bosses you care about. Im sure you are aware about the proposed funding to tackle tax avoidance (not vodafone, boots or the ilk, as we have seen,) has set aside a very specific target as part of their directives. Yes the small business. They are coming after you. Im sure you are aware of the penalties. Perhaps some of your more less righteous colleagues you mention might have been better to go bust after all.
https://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?CID=&NID=7097&Title=HMRC+to+Target+150%2C000+Firms+to+Penalise+Incorrect+Book+Keeping
You see andy. The small business, the sole trader, the low paid worker ,and the poor in general. Kicked from pillar to post and propping up a system which allows so few to accumulate and amass the vast majority of wealth.

Ps. please answer the question I asked you in my original post x

Perhaps the reason for the 'Old Etonian Clown' not being to keen on the idea is because he and his party only obtained 20% of those entitled to vote at the last general election, and that was against the charismatic G Brown. It is time that the word strike is abandoned by worker's organisations. The workers, not unions, should declare a number of 'national holiday's' on day's of their choosing, making it plain that their labour is only for sale when it suits themselves. RockingRobin, Andy Pandy and the Grizly Mamma will keep the trains running.

70. At 7:41pm on 13 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

"You see andy. The small business, the sole trader, the low paid worker ,and the poor in general. Kicked from pillar to post and propping up a system which allows so few to accumulate and amass the vast majority of wealth".
-----

Well fought, lefty11!

I don't think we need to worry about the unions. I've never been in one but at 63 and on a very low income, I intend to march for anything that goes against this cruel, vindictive Coalition which is obsessively targetting the disadvantaged instead of their fat cat friends in the banks and "big" business. I'm sure I am not alone.

Companies saying that should hear both sides of the argument before voting in a strike ballot and so both employers and unions should be allowed to send short statements with the ballot papers is a red herring. As any worker whose union has been involved in an industrial action ballot knows they are usually inundated with the company's side of the argument and bombarded with letters home, videos, team meetings and use of any internal e-mail system (usually denied to the Union).

And as has been said over and the government does not have to reach any threshold of a minimum number of the electorate taking part. All members have the right to vote it can't be assumed that if they don't exercise that right they can automatically be against the proposed action.

Union's also have to be very clear of their reasons for striking in both ballot papers and associated material and if they are seen to be misleading likely to face - and lose - legal challenges. Bit rich being lectured about that from politicians (student fees pledge anyone??).

Union's in GB face the tougheset legislation in Western democracy. If there are a wave of legitimate strikes perhaps the government should address the reasons why rather than trying to deny workers the few rights they have left.

Don't we trust Dave? "We're all in it together." That's what he says.
Now I am sure there are lots of very decent bosses - I suspect mainly of SMEs who genuinely do care about their work force and will share their hardship (in a relative sort of way). But in larger organisations the top management seem to get bonuses for riding roughshod over their workforce. In many businesses and in the public sector people have invested their lives and hopes in an enterprise. Unions are the way that they protect their interests.

BUT Union members have let their precious organistions out of their control. They have let control pass to a bunch of politically naive bully boys who are stuck in the rhetoric of the 1920s and 30s. It was dated in the 50s, 60s and 70s and was almost dead by the end of the century. Unions had learned to negotiate and in fact were working well for their members and building good relationships with employers (for the most part). But now some hot heads have appeared again.

Sensible leaders will say that there is no way they can stop all the cuts and all the job losses, but want to work with those who want to cut their work forces. The short time working of industry is not possible as the numbers in employment in the public sector will not go up. But they can negotiate the numbers down a bit and they can seek things like retraining to help people into new jobs. There are lots of other ways they could help their members. The 'all out strike brigade' will lose because their membership will realise the futility. Why lose pay when you know in a few weeks time you will lose your job anyway?

There is nothing wrong with good Unions, but a lot wrong with some leading the Unions.

I've never really understood how the validity of a strike is based on the proportion of the people who voted for it out of the number of people who voted, rather than the proportion of the workforce/union-members that voted for it.

If only 10% of the members bother to vote, and out of that 10% only 50% voted yes, then that means that you get a strike where 95% of the members never voted for it.

By definition, most people who want the strike will make up the majority of the people who bother to vote (most people who don't want it or aren't bothered wouldn't bother to vote either way; they'd fear reprisals from other union members/bosses if they specifically voted against a strike, and they'd fear reprisals from the employer if they votes for the strike), so in most cases you'll get a yes vote whenever it's proposed.

It's the same logic to how phone "polls" work, where you know full well that the only people who are likely to phone in will be ones who'd vote yes, and that the remaining 99.99% of the population who don't agree with your question wouldn't bother to call.

You'll also get situations where union members don't make up the majority of the workforce, which makes matters even worse, as 5% of the workforce can force a strike on the company/employer when 95% of the workforce weren't even eligible to vote as they're not union members. Although the non-union members wouldn't be on strike, the fact that the union members are striking will often stop the company from being able to function properly and will ruin the lives of the non-union members during the strike.

The current law on strikes is awful, and is way too heavily weighted in favour of union bosses trying to get as many strikes as they can by getting the fewest number of people voting as possible. They use the "phone poll" logic. That's what so many strikes have been deemed illegal recently; they didn't send out the forms to people who they knew would vote no.

I hope they do change the law, because at the moment union bosses are intent on causing as much economic destruction as they can purely in order to justify their own bloated salaries.

No74 Boilerbill,
You seem to be more than a little confused. Trade Union leaders do not 'control' their members. The members elect them, and of course can remove them, if and when the need arises.Do you think it is possible that those leaders that are the subject of the most disgusting attacks from the likes of 'The Dirty Digger'the porn kings, and ex KGB agents that own the British press, is because of the success they have in defending their members wages and conditions?

It's just a Conservative Government wanting to ban strikes. We have the most restrictive trade union laws in the democratic world so it's not surprising that Conservatives want to just simply abolish the right to strike, All it means is that someone who does not vote is assumed to be against the proposed action.

If the Conservatives genuinely believe it is a democratic advance they should apply the same rules to local government and Parliamentary elections.They should also apply the same rule to public companies - unless 50% of the total number of shareholders vote in favour of bankers bonuses then they dont get a bean.

Actually this sounds like a great reform to produce complete and utter standstill.

No75 Bankrupt,
I bet the 'spam hoarder' from Grantham will be delighted to learn that her Trade Union Laws are "heavily weighted in favour of union bosses"
Don't be so ridiculous.

The idea apparently comes from dozy Boris. In view of the fact that 77% of the funds for his campaign to become Mayor came from bankers, is it payback time?

re 12. At 3:07pm on 13 Jan 2011, Mike wrote:

"They aren't striking for fun. They're striking as they have a £200'000 mortgage, £2'000 on a credit card, and their employers want to rip up their legally binding contract, so they can pay them £5'000 a year less"

If someone gets fired, with a view to being rehired at a lower wage (or being replaced by someone else who does the same job), then they can take their employer to court for unfair dismissal. If this happens with thousands of employees then the union can start a court action for all their fired members as a single batch.

There is no need for strikes. If the employer is doing something illegal then you can have them in court and stop them. If they're not doing anything illegal and are only trying to protect their company/organisation from bankrupcty then that's just life and there's nothing you can do about it.

The only reason unions originally came about was because individual workers had virtually no rights 100's of years ago, so the unions could instead hold the boss to ransom by threatening a mass walk-out.

But, all individual workers now have proper rights enshrined in law, so the striking function of unions is no longer relevant. Unions should only be there to file court-actions against bad employers where appropriate, to offer advice to their members, and to act as a single-voice to the employer so that the employer can get a feel for how their workforce feels about certain issues.

Strikes are a hang-over from victorian times when people had no rights as individuals. Holding a gun to your boss's head and demanding money is no longer a valid way to carry out your affairs these days; instead you take them to court for breaking the law, or if you don't like the people you work for then you quit and get another job, just like everyone in the private sector does.

65. At 6:10pm on 13 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
bryers 54
You had my interest at 51, because I thought that a true revolutionary heart was going to be revealed. When you said until the right could discuss capitalism. I thought that you were about to tell us, you see the Unions as a mere tool which has smoothed the way for Capitalism for years, instead of actually challenging it.
Of course at 54 I realised this was not the case, therefore what is there to discuss about capitalism by right or in your case left.
In fact at 54 you decidely back the system of capitalism by saying the Unions moulded people to fit into the system.

Interesting."

51 and 54 are two sides of the same coin.The cohesive and conservative nature of unions which I discussed in 54,and the accomodative nature of both trade unions and the Labour party which is the theme of 51 are two aspects of the same process:-the way that democracy enables conflict to be institutionalized within a framework of law and pubic opinion.

The process works both ways,capitalists don`t lock up trade unionists or socialists,the latter don`t hang capitalist`s from the lampost.All very civilized.

What I went on to say however was that the major influence changing capitalism was economic crisis and war,both of which are destabilizing.
Political parties of either left or right may be the agents of change in this situation, but they do not initiate it.

Labour formed the outline of the welfare state in 1945 after a bloody war,the Nazis came to power in 1933 after economic collapse.The US New Deal resulted from the great depression.These events permanently changed the role of the state in the capitalist economies of Europe and America and become central to their stability and growth.

Changes in the EU following the recent crisis shows a similar process.The French Prime Minister in London is urging Mr. Cameron to endorse European economic integration with a common budget and fiscal rules.If this happens expect to see a centralized Europe with its member governments like local authorities rather than nation states.

This was the thinking behind my comment in 51:_ "War and economic crisis has had a far bigger influence on capitalism than either the unions or the Labour Party.Until the right can talk seriously about capitalism it can`t talk seriously about anything else.

Mind you, maybe in some instances, strikes are actually a good idea.

A few months ago when the BBC journalist strike was on, the BBC news coverage was the most concise, accurate, and balanced that I've ever seen it. During that strike when all the union-member journalists were off, the people left to hold the fort did infinitely better with just a handful of non-members than the BBC has ever done with thousands of union members.

The BBC was much much better off without them.

Take a lesson I guess; as a company/organisation, if you can function 100 times better without your union members even being at work, then you can simply fire them all.

Strikes can therefore sometimes have the complete opposite effect of what was intended; the employer sees that things go much more smoothly without the members even being there, and so decides to just let those members go. It saves the employer a fortune, they end up with a better run company, and avoid the headaches of having a gun being held to their head by a pushy union leader.

I'm sure the tories were busy watching the BBC when the strike was on, and taking notes about how the BBC seemed to function infinitely better and with no bias at all without those thousands of union member journalists being at work, and that as soon as they all came back to work again the whole thing fell apart.

(no offence, Nick, but when the journalist strike was on, the BBC was a pleasure to listen-to; as soon as all the card-carrying members got back again it was back to business as usual and the usual spin/rubbish across the board).

I really miss how it was during the journalist strike; BBC news was a pleasure to watch/listen-to during that time. In fact it was exactly how it was supposed to be; concise, accurate, and free of bias.

If I was a tory minister, I'd be wondering about this issue with the BBC, because if that's what effect getting rid of a few thousand journalists has over a few days (ie it actually improves things, and saved tons of money as well), then what could we do with the rest of the BBC?

I have always been a strong supporter of unions. They are a very necessary balance to unreasonable employers. I also remember well my school lessons about the GNCTU and the Combination Acts etc. Contrary to popular myth, unions did not however end the practise of sending children up chimneys.

What I do think is wrong is for unions to attempt to overturn legitimate government policies. The ballot box is there for that. It is in any case hard to believe that the EU would permit a British government to behave unreasonably towards our workers.

Any return to the lunacy of the 1970s, when the destabilisation of the country appeared to be the objective of some unions and associated activists, must be prevented. I suspect present legislation is sufficient.

56 lefty11

My point was to compare the type of flexibility demonstrated in the private sector with the polar opposite in the public sector. One of the reasons for this is that the unions always seem to oppose change and the management is too weak to sort the problem out.

Your second false dichotomy in a day is that we can be divided in workers (good) and bosses (bad). Your assumption that it is only the downtrodden poor that have to demonstrate such flexibility is nonsense. The private sector is generally far more ruthless about getting rid of cost, regardless of grade.

Academic for me now as I have my own company. Perhaps if the market rate for my trade goes down then I should go on strike? Then again, maybe I just have to accept it or retrain.

4. Susan-Croft

Good points all round, but please remember why Trade Unions were formed in the first place.

The next few years may see a return to Trade Union membership as more people become worse off, but I think it unlikely.

As a member myself, I understand your points.

Given the low membership, I can’t see any reason for a punch up (unless it’s to please a few bored back benchers who want to see a return to “the good old days”).

Modernisation is a two way street.

"Anyway who travels to London on the day of an underground strike has to expect an inconvenience. They announce the strikes weeks before they happen.

But the real issue is this."

I think the real issue is that you don't seem to realise that on any given week day 90% of underground travellers are commuters. You know. people going to work. I don't think they are "travelling to London" for the fun of it, on a jolly day out to see the sights.

70 "Ps. please answer the question I asked you in my original post x"

Your 'original post'? What, your very first one? Sorry, I'm not trawling back through aeons of nonsense from you. If you care to repeat the question, I'll give it a go.

Oh, and Lefty, no more kisses, please.

"Thank you for that post and its an excellent post regarding the smaller businesses, say sole traders 50k turnover and below."

?

Sorry, lefty, but that just shows how out of touch you are with the UKs economy. To think that to be a smaller business you have to be a sole trader with turnover £50k or less may have been correct 60 years ago but is as woefully out of date today as your political views. I have a friend runs a Deli. £250k turnover and employs 6 staff. So she's a boss. On your criteria you don't think she's running a small business. You probably think she's nearly a multi-national. Her net profit last were was under £20k. EU defined small and micro businesses employ more staff than all the large businesses in the UK. When you talk of bosses and mean those of large companies, they're in the tiny minority, yet it is always them you talk about. The 'worker' is 3 or 4 times more likely to be employed in a small business where the 'boss' is struggling every bit as much as they are. If someone where to single out a few benefits scroungers as being typical or even if it was only them they talked about, you'd acuse them of manipulating the true situation of the average benefits claimant to prove a point. And your accusation would be right. Yet you do just the same with the worker/boss stuff you come out with.

If you were being fair, you'd spend 5 times as long discussing the problems of running a small business as you did talking about the excesses of big business bosses. let's see if you're fair in the future.

51#

Bryhers, my apology, when you indicated a historical perspective, maybe I should have realised you were going to go all the way back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I accept your historical perspective, but would add that it does not necessarily reflect the here and now. The motivations of the leaders of the unions in those days, regardless of what may have seemed the similarity of political colour and for want of a better word, ideology, are not necessarily the same as they are now. I do not believe the likes of Len, Arthur, Bob and Co to be motivated by the same altruism and concern for their membership anywhere near as much as their own political ambitions. Different ages in history have societies where there are differing values and differing approaches.

Legislation undertaken during the Thatcher era went a long way to getting rid of secondary picketing and tightened the rules regarding strikes to the point where it did still allow strikes but following a process where it wasnt the first weapon of choice, for want of a better phrase. It should not be necessary to have any further legislation on the subject, but it calls for calm heads and reasonable behaviour on both sides. Management have to realise that whilst indeed there are times when changes may need to be faced head on that impact the whole workforce, there are ways and means of going about it without comprimising the entire business - hence the difference between how BMW and Nissan coped with the downturn in motor production in 2008-9 compared to how the fire brigades union for instance have approached the proposed changes in shift patterns from 2x9 hour shifts followed by 2x15 hour shifts to the 4x12 hour shift patterns.

I'm not saying unions dont have a place, of course they do. Nobody would be that naive. What I am saying is that the days of unions using what they figured to be their muscle to exert political leverage in an attempt to buck the democratic system are long gone. Their own political ambitions must be secondary to the interests of their members and in cases like Arthur, Tony Woodley, the leadership of BASSA and the FBU, not to mention the ubiquitous Bob Crowe, I dont see them doing that.

74#

Well said Bill.

77#

"If the Conservatives genuinely believe it is a democratic advance they should apply the same rules to local government and Parliamentary elections.They should also apply the same rule to public companies - unless 50% of the total number of shareholders vote in favour of bankers bonuses then they dont get a bean."

Not quite as crazy as you might think. How would you feel about that then? Voting in local and General elections being made compulsory, as (IIRC) it is in Australia?

And the latter part, in fairness, although your example is a bit twisted - a public limited company can hardly control the level of bonuses at say, Goldmans or Barclays Capital for instance - but the principle of remuneration packages and indeed even bonuses being put to a shareholder vote for approval is not only not unheard of in PLC's, but I think there have been a number of occasions where shareholders have expressed vocal opposition to proposed packages. It all depends on the shareholders.

Problem is, shareholder inertia. In a number of the plc's and organisations that produce the kind of bonuses that get the left steamed up, the large shareholders tend to be long-term holders like pension funds, who'se fund managers do not exactly tend to be the most dynamic of people when it comes to shareholder disquiet. These people are not known for their militancy.

But, there is nothing wrong with the principle of what you're saying, its just the likelihood of ever seeing it happen.

An interesting exception is UKFI where the state is the shareholder in the likes of HBOS & RBS and could and arguably should be considerably more vocal than what they are where bonus levels are concerned. FWIW, IMVVHO, for as long as these organisations are in public ownership and being propped up by the taxpayer, they shouldnt be paying any bonus, full stop, to anybody. If the investment arm of RBS demands it, fine. Then spin it out. Get rid of its state parachute and let it take its own obligations and debts elsewhere, pay back what it owes to the state and it can get on with it.

But, because it is a lot more complicated than being just down to bonuses (even though its a self inflicted wound by the industry, giving the left a free, huge flag to rally around), you dont get to hear the full picture. This one aspect is being used by people with a political agenda as if it was the crux to the entire future of the nation. And it isnt.

Historically there has been a certain hostility between the Conservatives and the unions which has been unhelpful.The Conservatives tend to arrogantly pursue their policies blissfully unaware of the intended and unintended consequences of their actions mainly because they have not thought their policies through properly.Labour were no better.

We know that the country is in a financial crisis and we need to cut public spending.There are several ways this could be achieved at least one of which means the loss of jobs. Given that the job of the unions is to protect their members and tend to do so by striking, is it not a pity that David Cameron, right at the start of the new government term, did not approach Brendan Barber and negotiate a strategy, acceptable to both, for reducing public expenditure with the least impact on the working members of the public?

The Conservatives make a big play of the 5% cut in salary taken by ministers but seem to forget that they made people on considerably lower salaries take a 100% cut when it actually wasn't necessary and it was actually counter-productive.

We seem to forget that those at the top take a disproportionate share of the National pay cake to those lower down the pay scale. Further it is those at the top who make decisions, sometimes incompetently,who decide the fate of those lower down the command chain.

What we need are politicians of Churchillian standards who lead by real example;politicians who would take a 50% cut in salary and pay their own expenses instead of those bleeding the country dry at the expense of the taxpayers.

Reform,if there needs to be any,needs to start at the top.When people see real reform in the highest levels of government, business, education and other fields, we may move a step nearer to a fairer society which narrows the gap between the richest and the poorest and which treats everybody more fairly and with genuine respect.

It's reassuring that at least one section of the British public around Oldham don't buy the Tory Story. Seems they are more worried about the next 4 years than the last thirteen.
Hopefully they won't buy the nonesense about trades unions, being trotted out as a further distraction by the right, to hide the poverty of their plans for our future.

"93. At 08:43am on 14 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
It's reassuring that at least one section of the British public around Oldham don't buy the Tory Story. Seems they are more worried about the next 4 years than the last thirteen."

Yes, that a sitting Government has lost a by-election must be a shock to the whole political system that will no doubt reverbarate around the world.

FS

"I'm not saying unions dont have a place, of course they do. Nobody would be that naive. What I am saying is that the days of unions using what they figured to be their muscle to exert political leverage in an attempt to buck the democratic system are long gone. Their own political ambitions must be secondary to the interests of their members and in cases like Arthur, Tony Woodley, the leadership of BASSA and the FBU, not to mention the ubiquitous Bob Crowe, I dont see them doing that."

Of course unions will use their political muscle to exert political leverage like any other corporate body,business,local authorities,the armed forces and the Girl Guides.

What do you imagine democratic government is about if not the adjudication of competing interests? There are many issues affecting union members directly.You need a loud voice to be heard amid the clamour of anti-union rhetoric that dominates the press.

The Labour party was formed to give Unions a political voice after anti union legislation,(Taff Vale and Osborne judgements),first crippled their funding and then their membership.Why would it be otherwise? The democratic state is a forum where a variety of class and social interests compete for power.

After a six year dispute over shift patterns the Tory run authority is threatening to sack over 5,000 firefighters and to offer to re-hire them on new terms and conditions. Some see this dispute as evidence of over mighty trade unions, others as an example of bullying employers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This 6 year dispute centres on moving a shift pattern from 10 hour days and 14 hour nights to either 12 hour days and nights or 11 hour days and 13 hour nights.

The basic 2 days, 2 nights, 4 off, retirement at 50 remains unchanged.

Allowing this to drift for 6 years is an example of union led inertia and weak management but not a bullying employer.

At 08:52am on 14 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"93. At 08:43am on 14 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
It's reassuring that at least one section of the British public around Oldham don't buy the Tory Story. Seems they are more worried about the next 4 years than the last thirteen."

Yes, that a sitting Government has lost a by-election must be a shock to the whole political system that will no doubt reverbarate around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping to the central Office script as ever. You just don't get it. Wheeling out any number of bogeymen from economic incompetence to evil union barons is not going to work. Your policies (the coalition) have to be attractive and look workable.
Gove gets it, judging by his performance on Question Time. You have to positively advocate and argue for your policies. Not just rubbish the other lot and hope your policies are accepted by default. You can see it again at PMQ's. Dave puts down Ed quite well but the ultimate message is that Dave never actually answers a question he just rubbishes his opponent. Turns out he's great at the Punch and Judy bits which he used to say were devaluing PMQ's.
Coalition performance in the polls (of all sorts) is poor even by new Government standards. I'm just trying to be helpful by suggesting why. By all means continue with the negative stuff, but IMHO it will be, in the end, self-defeating.

No89 Fubar,
I was interested in your reference to those that may wish 'to buck the democratic system' In a week when 50 individuals, unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable were shovelled into the House of Lords at a potential cost to the taxpayer of £5.5 million a year do you not think a little 'bucking' is in order?

"97. At 09:38am on 14 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
At 08:52am on 14 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"93. At 08:43am on 14 Jan 2011, Idont Believeit wrote:
It's reassuring that at least one section of the British public around Oldham don't buy the Tory Story. Seems they are more worried about the next 4 years than the last thirteen."

Yes, that a sitting Government has lost a by-election must be a shock to the whole political system that will no doubt reverbarate around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping to the central Office script as ever. You just don't get it. Wheeling out any number of bogeymen from economic incompetence to evil union barons is not going to work. Your policies (the coalition) have to be attractive and look workable."

You have me confused with someone else. I am nothing to do with central office and the coalition are not putting forward 'my' policies.

You seemed to think that a by-election vote should make the coalition re-evaluate its policies and realise that it is unpopular. The record of sitting governments and by-elections is poor in the extreme. Were you advocating that Labour realise how unpopular it was and change policies every time they lost a by-election?

This by-election is wholly irrelevant to the next 4 years and 5 months of running the country.

Whatever the nature of the government that took over in May 2010 they would have had to make cuts. Everyone knows that. they would have had to raise taxes. everyone knows that. Whatever balance they struck between those, they were going to be unpopular. Everyone knows that. It's where the economy will be in 4 years time that matters, not what happened yesterday.

AS71 wrote.
Your second false dichotomy in a day is that we can be divided in workers (good) and bosses (bad). Your assumption that it is only the downtrodden poor that have to demonstrate such flexibility is nonsense
------------------------------------------------
Yes its a familiar weak argument you use. Of course there are examples of bosses who have demonstrated flexibility. Of course there are many that don’t. Your point is just a weak distraction.
See post to c555.

AS71. 96.
Ultimately the dispute between firefighters and management comes down to who you trust. The management say its just about efficiency etc and the firefighters are worried its about cuts and the start of a slippery slope.
Heres a link to a radio interview with Chairman of London Fire Authority, Brian Coleman.
Click play at the bottom of the page and have a listen. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see whats going on and understand why the firefighters have little trust.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/there-will-be-cuts-to-londons-fire-service-33024

A truly enlightening listen.