General
16 Mar 04
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
17 Mar 04
1 edit
In an efficient industry there is no need for unions. The theoy behind Thatcher was sound, trouble is theory does not always make popular policy.
I have little time for unions, maybe a product of growing up in the Thatcher years. They always just seem to be yet another selfish organisation with its own political agenda. Then again, maybe it is because we only hear about the militant "old school" unions in the media (i.e. Andy "I'll bring this government down" Gilchrist).
On the poll tax thing, when I was at Uni, one of my Lecturers was the major therotical academic behind the tax, he had done all the research and analysis. He hated Thatcher for completely miss selling and poorly implementing him "perfect" tax as he saw it to the British people.
Andrew
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeThere is such a thing as unions having too much power. A country run by the unions would disenfranchise those without jobs; even if you set up a housewives' union etc, it would still exacerbate a segregation of society according to which job people did. Also, where would children fit into all this?
Yes, it was a bad thing. There's no such thing as over-unionised - or do you think some people shouldn't be allowed to join unions?
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by latex bishopWhy is there no need for unions in an efficient industry? Are unions needed in inefficient industies then?
In an efficient industry there is no need for unions. The theoy behind Thatcher was sound, trouble is theory does not always make popular policy.
I have little time for unions, maybe a product of growing up in the Thatcher years. They always just seem to be yet another selfish organisation with its own political agenda. Then again, maybe it is becaus ...[text shortened]... elling and poorly implementing him "perfect" tax as he saw it to the British people.
Andrew
A statement like that needs a bit of justification.
You're contradicting yourself when you say that unions are selfish and want to bring down the government. They're either only interested in their members interests (which is fair enough) or they're getting involved in wider politics, in which case they're looking beyond they're members interests, so they're not selfish.
Personally, I think they should do both - so long as there's some connection to their members.
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by AcolyteNobody's ever suggested that unions wanted to run any country. Of course this would disenfranchise lots of people.
There is such a thing as unions having too much power. A country run by the unions would disenfranchise those without jobs; even if you set up a housewives' union etc, it would still exacerbate a segregation of society according to which job people did. Also, where would children fit into all this?
Is that what you mean by over-unionised - if so, what country were you referring to?
17 Mar 04
I'm not saying unions are bad per say, but when they have too much power then they become damaging to the society around them.
How about when the farmers unions demand more subsidies? These subsidies are only seen by the large land owners who don't need it because they are filthy rich already and not by the small farmer who might actually need it, but they get them because they are a large group who the government can't afford to lose their support.
Should one group, by banding together into a union, be able to bully government into action that is only in their own interestes (and improtantly usually only in the interests of the upper echelons of the unions not the common man) and not in the interests of the greater society? Is that not the same as mob rule, where the largest groups or the groups best positioned to cause trouble/damage will always get their way?
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakUnions have never had too much power.
I'm not saying unions are bad per say, but when they have too much power then they become damaging to the society around them.
How about when the farmers unions demand more subsidies? These subsidies are only seen by the large land owners who don't need it because they are filthy rich already and not by the small farmer who might actually need it, ...[text shortened]... largest groups or the groups best positioned to cause trouble/damage will always get their way?
It seems to be ok for corporations to be able to lobby and influence governments - why shouldn't working class people?
In the UK at least, the farmers' union isn't a trade union - its really an employers organisation or a corporate lobby. It isn't the people who work in the fields who're wanting more subsidies - its their employers.
There's never been a situation where a group of workers have been able to bully governments, at least not in the UK. The only example I can think of was Solidarity in Poland and the communist government.
Unions are there to improve the lot of their members, and that's what they do. If they're public sector workers and that brings them into conflict with the government, then that's what they have to do. Doesn't mean they're trying to bring down the government.
17 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeUnions can make it nearly impossible to fire someone who is lazy or incompetent. I do think they are necessary to balance out management, but I do beleive they sometimes throw out common sense, blindly supporting their members regardless of their members actions.
Unions have never had too much power.
It seems to be ok for corporations to be able to lobby and influence governments - why shouldn't working class people?
In the UK at least, the farmers' union isn't a trade union - its really an employers organisation or a corporate lobby. It isn't the people who work in the fields who're wanting more subsidies - ...[text shortened]... , then that's what they have to do. Doesn't mean they're trying to bring down the government.
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by knapperjaAnother myth about unions. How do unions do this?
Unions can make it nearly impossible to fire someone who is lazy or incompetent. I do think they are necessary to balance out management, but I do beleive they sometimes throw out common sense, blindly supporting their members regardless of their members actions.
If someone's skiving or just useless, then their colleagues won't be too bothered if they get disciplined.
Sometimes a union will represent someone who's being disciplined or even sacked just to make sure that the proper process is followed, or maybe to salvage a decent reference or whatever for the individual - doesn't mean they support what their member was doing.
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by RedmikeAgain, I am in support of the principle of unions and believe that all people should be able to be members of unions and to have union representation, especially during disiplinary hearings.
Another myth about unions. How do unions do this?
If someone's skiving or just useless, then their colleagues won't be too bothered if they get disciplined.
Sometimes a union will represent someone who's being disciplined or even sacked just to make sure that the proper process is followed, or maybe to salvage a decent reference or whatever for the individual - doesn't mean they support what their member was doing.
But it's not a myth that unions can (not always of course) defend workers regardless of their lazyness or incompetance - I live with it. I can walk into the control room now & I guarentee 3/4+ people will be reading or talking about the football, not working. Worse, if I walk in there after 9pm 50% will be sleeping! But the bosses can't put their foot down because the union leaders will call a strike.
And who is the worst of the bunch? The union representatives of course! They regularly skive work or leave early because they are untouchable. Some even try to get fired because Belgian law states that if you make a union representative redundant you must pay 7 (!) years wages as settlement. This law, like the principle of unions, was obviously introduced to prevent companies bullying workers and union reps, but instead it breeds an air of lazyness where even guys who want to do more aren't allowed to by the unions because that would mean the others might have to follow suit. Everyone has to work as slowly as the laziest man.
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakI can't speak with any authority in the position of unions in Belgium, but the fact that we're posting here says neither of us are busting a gut at work either....
Again, I am in support of the principle of unions and believe that all people should be able to be members of unions and to have union representation, especially during disiplinary hearings.
But it's not a myth that unions can (not always of course) defend workers regardless of their lazyness or incompetance - I live with it. I can walk into the co ...[text shortened]... ld mean the others might have to follow suit. Everyone has to work as slowly as the laziest man.
In particular, I don't know the details of your workplace.
However, it sounds like the 7-years pay law is the law of the land, rather than a union rule.
If there's a law which makes it expensive to fire a union rep (is that really regardless of what s/he does??), then surely its that law which makes it difficult to sack a skiving/incompetent union rep. Unions are going to defend their people, in particularly their reps, and if that ends up in the sort of position you describe, that's not the union's fault.
It sounds like a dubious law and a weak management.
Why don't the union members elect a new rep?
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by Redmikebelieve me, I'm busting enough gut for the both of us. It's coming around to 7pm and there is no end in sight for my work day yet - I stop in at RHP occasionally to keep me sane.
I can't speak with any authority in the position of unions in Belgium, but the fact that we're posting here says neither of us are busting a gut at work either....
In particular, I don't know the details of your workplace.
However, it sounds like the 7-years pay law is the law of the land, rather than a union rule.
If there's a law which makes it expe ...[text shortened]... ounds like a dubious law and a weak management.
Why don't the union members elect a new rep?
you are right that the 7 years law is a government law not a union one. I was using it and it's effects as an example of what can happen when unions, or any group, have too much power or security. (I'm pretty sure that if they were guilty of gross neglegence such as violence or sexual misconduct they wouldn't get the 7 years pay, but they know how to tread the line and skiving work is easily within it)
you call the management weak, so let me describe the last union negotiations... by Belgian law (forgive me if I'm worong here, I'm not a local) the amount of pay increase workers can get every negotiation is capped. This was put in place because workers were striking every year for more money and shutting down the countries economy. Instead the arguments are always on the secondary issues, such as hours "worked"/week. This year they demanded an extra 7 days holiday/year. The company refused, saying it would cause them to have to employ X more staff to keep the place running. The union went on strike. 1 week later the company was on the verge of losing all it's major customers because it couldn't supply them so it caved in and gave the extra holiday. This brings the workers annual holiday to 67days/year!!!. That's 3 months/year. They don't need them. Many of the owrkers openly say they just sit around the house getting in the way of their wives because they have to use them. Them striking and having so much holiday puts the company in a financial situation where it could collapse and we could all be out of our jobs, the workers included. But the unions don't care - they just squeeze because they can. This is what I mean when I talk about unions being too powerfull and being detremental.
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by Vargokay...not a good example 😛
So she was worse than the mafia because she made grown men cry?
And what do you think the mafia does to grown men?
Thatcher didn't just make men cry..whole communities suffered as a consequence of her actions. I remember strikers coming round where i lived asking for donations of food for there families, she totally made them feel degraded and worthless. I grew up on what used to be Europes biggest council estate where people were united and there was a real community spirit. Thatcher broke that as that were her intentions. Under her regime the rich got a lot richer and the poor, very poor. You only have to look back into local history to see how unions have supported the w/c...She was absolutely terrified of there power.I may not be eloquent and use all the political jargon but As one of 'Thatchers children' growing up in the 80's ( yes she even took my free milk) i think comparing her to the mafia is an understatement. 😀
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreak67 days a year!!!! 😲😲😲😲
believe me, I'm busting enough gut for the both of us. It's coming around to 7pm and there is no end in sight for my work day yet - I stop in at RHP occasionally to keep me sane.
you are right that the 7 years law is a government law not a union one. I was using it and it's effects as an example of what can happen when unions, or any group, have ...[text shortened]... hey can. This is what I mean when I talk about unions being too powerfull and being detremental.
I'm a belgian,what company is this and do they hire??
I work for DHL,I only have 21 days :'(
PS: Think I'll contact my union.STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE 😛
20 Mar 04
Too much power with unions is a bad thing.
No union is just as bad, if not worse.
In Philadelphia, the Carpenters Union costs the city millions a year. In fact, the other unions hate them more than Thatcher hated the miners union because of all the trouble they cause.
But since the Philadelphia is a union city, there's no way to move the work elsewhere.
That being said, unions do keep certain companies in check and help provide a base level of pay for others in the industry. If unions were present in third world countries you wouldn't see the dominance of penny-per-day employees living in slums. Not saying you'll get rid of all the sweat shops, but there does need to be a balance.