Jump to content

Recommended Posts

T_I_S - If you look at trade union membership and collective bargaining on the performance of national economies, workers who belong to trade unions earn higher wages, work fewer hours, receive more training, and have longer job tenure on average than their counterparts that aren't trade union members - all great news for individuals.


However, the benefits aren't just enjoyed by individuals because countries fare better economically if large numbers of workers belong to trade unions. Specifically, high union density rates are associated with lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity, and speedier adjustments to economic shocks.


Therefore, I'd argue that any changes to the anti-trade union laws in this country would help address the decline in trade union membership and therefore we'd feel the knock-on marco-economic benefits.

Just a load of sweeping generalisations there Chippy that you've failed to offer any valid data to support.


If you want to persuade anyone then let's see the data instead of the typical political cant.


I mean, come on, the proof is in the pudding:



the fact remains that the most effective union in the country, Bob Crow's mob, is controlling a transport infrastructure that is crippled by an entrenched and inert union, rather than a demonstration of high productivity and speedy adjustments.


Most effective union in the US? The motor industry union - that industry is just fecked. They needed change and productivity increases, what they got was militancy, inertia, and uneployment. Well done.


Even if you did somehow manage to demonstrate that there was a correlation between union membership and economic success elsewhere, you'd still need to demonstrate whether this was regardless, in spite, or because of union membership.

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, the benefits aren't just enjoyed by

> individuals because countries fare better

> economically if large numbers of workers belong to

> trade unions. Specifically, high union density

> rates are associated with lower unemployment and

> inflation, higher productivity, and speedier

> adjustments to economic shocks.


That's a big claim, Chippy, especially the "higher productivity and speedier adjustments to economic shocks" bit. Have you got any links to where this info came from?


Not saying you are wrong or right - I just that I can't see why the existence of unions would have such an effect. And, if there is a connection, is it cause or correlation?

If you'd read the summary Chippy, which I just have, you'll see that it doesn't support your case at all.


It's even at pains to point out that it makes no claim between correlation and causation.


Let me summarise the conclusion for you (it's written very clearly):


Co-ordinated and non co-ordinated labour markets fare equally well in terms of productivity growth

Co-ordinated and non co-ordinated labour markets fare equally well in terms of wage flexibility

No difference in inflation and employment rates

Differerences very weak in the long run as countries acccommodate

Union effects on the performance of firms are ambiguous and vary

Unions create differentials in favour of their members


Not only that, but it points out that the findings are both inconsistent and bear no relation on the question of whether an increase in unionisation would improve performance.


So it does nothing to support any of your claims.

A very quick swizz and there's a rather telling comment in the intro/summary 'The FIndings of the Book', and I quote


"The microeconomic consequences of collective bargaining are context?specific, and although unions in both industrial and developing countries are successful in securing a wage markup for their members and other workers covered by collective agreements, no general conclusions about the net costs (or benefits) of unions can be reached. Depending on the economic, institutional, and political environment in which unions and employers interact, collective bargaining as opposed to individual contracting can contribute negatively or positively to the economic performance of firms and to the well-being of workers."


But I've emailed the pdf home for perusal, link to be found here http://doc.politiquessociales.net/serv1/worldunions.pdf

Thanks, Chippy. I've only had a quick skim through the findings of the report, but whilst there are definitely some positives of unions in regards of wage markup and lower wage differentials, the wider macroeconomic picture is a bit more cloudy.


Union density per se has a very weak association, or perhaps no association, with economic performance indicators such as the unemployment rate, inflation, the employment rate, real compensation growth, labor supply, adjustment speed to wage shocks, real wage flexibility, and labor and total factor productivity. There is, however, one significant exception: union density correlates negatively with labor earnings inequality and wage dispersion.


Interestingly, the report concludes that the best wage outcomes occur with two pairings of governments and unions:

- left wing governments and strong unions

- right wing governments and weak unions.


Seems that the opposite combinations just don't give strong wage outcomes.


So, if you union type would like to go away and come back when we have a left-wing government (note I didn't say a Labour government :)) ) then it looks like you'd be doing the economy a real service!

The tribunal process is still underway. Yes LU were offered to reinstate Arwyn into his role as part of the interim judgement, but were perfectly within their rights not to. Especially after he had called another worker on duty a 'scab'. If they had, the abused employee would be within his rights to sue LU. Funny how these details are kept out of the press by the RMT.


Less than 30% of membership voted for strike action. 55% didn't even bother (or decided not to go up against their militant leaders).


Arwyn is also a well known RMT activist, a member of the socialist party and CATP (campaign against tube privatization). His motivation - like Crow and the rest of the RMT leadership - has little to do with customers and everything to do with keeping themselves in power and causing LU grief.


How is it that Crow remains the RMT Union boss after so many years - because he is doing such an excellent job in ensuring his members get a good deal whilst maintaining a productive working relationship with management??? Or the RMTs biased voting system and his cadre of supporters stitch it up? You decide.

Did someone really just post a world bank report ? really what's the point?


Reading through most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense.


Unions are about people together collectively. Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me.


European law puts the the worker at the centre, it understands the worker as the foundation to employment law. This country does not, the worker is second or even third to profit. Most people in this country benefit from the unions, many do not contribute towards this, thats fact.

I'm simply trying to provide slightly more facts than the RMT leadership likes Joe Public to see. Frankly I'm neutral on privatizing the tube. As are most people. As I'm not wedded to a single doctrine of 'public sector good' v private sector bad'. It's what works best ...


What I am against is a senior Union rep calling another employee a 'scab' and a 'traitor' (this is on the record and admitted) in his place of work and expecting to be let off scott free because he's got powerful allies and the RMT think they can bully LU and it's customers.


Let's also not confuse the important role of Unions - absolutely agree v abuse of power (which this case is all about). What the RMT have cleverly done is switch the abuse of power question to make it look like the poor little union rep is being mistreated. BS.

Absolutely, it should go without saying that being doctrinaire is usually a good way to go about fckuing up. Being analytical and pragmatic is usually the best way forward.


This applies to privatisation v nationalisation. In the case of the rail networks it has been all thought out, badly implemented and continues to be poorly managed with the taxpayer underwriting far too much whilst chronic capital underinvestment continues and maintenance has dropped by a third giving rise to such incidents as Potters Bar.


Where services are of national interest then sometimes we have to look beyond competitiveness for the greater good.

The same surely applies to unionism, which on the whole I think is a good thing, where representation can curb the baser instincts of let's say laissez faire urges of capitalism.


I'm sure Mr Crowe has the best interests of his union members at heart but he sure as hell doesnt give a shit about the greater good, regularly holding london business sectors, employees and inhabitants to ransome, not to mention staining its reputation amongst those who grace us with their spare time and tourist dollar. I do believe he does it in a politically dogmatic fashion.


btw the moment I read 'FACT' alarms bells start ringing, particularly from someone who can juxtapose these with apparently no hint of irony:


"most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense"

"Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me."

sagatelsagouni Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did someone really just post a world bank report ?

> really what's the point?

>

> Reading through most of these comments there

> basically mostly waffle and nonsense.

>

> Unions are about people together collectively.

> Most people who are anti union are a certain type

> of individual, generally selfish and of an

> immaturity that screams me me me.

>

> European law puts the the worker at the centre, it

> understands the worker as the foundation to

> employment law. This country does not, the worker

> is second or even third to profit. Most people in

> this country benefit from the unions, many do not

> contribute towards this, thats fact.


Quite amusing


A post that states "most of these comments there basically mostly waffle and nonsense"


Then follows it up with the preposterous statement: "Most people who are anti union are a certain type of individual, generally selfish and of an immaturity that screams me me me."

"Moreover, we do not need to wait for this Tribunal's decision, because we already have a Tribunal decision! Back in January, the Employment Tribunal awarded Arwyn 'interim relief', ruling that LU had sacked him unfairly, unlawfully and because of his trade union activities." http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2245

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Moreover, we do not need to wait for this

> Tribunal's decision, because we already have a

> Tribunal decision! Back in January, the Employment

> Tribunal awarded Arwyn 'interim relief', ruling

> that LU had sacked him unfairly, unlawfully and

> because of his trade union activities."

> http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2245


But LU have fully complied with that tribunal's orders. And that reading of the judgement is wrong anyway - the tribunal ruled that his appeal was 'likely to succeed', which is why the appeal is going ahead.


Why can't the RMT wait the two weeks for the appeal to be concluded? Because Bib Crow is a spoilt brat used to getting his own way.

But why strike at all?? LU are doing what the tribunal told them to do. The RMT are demanding something they have no right to demand.


Anyway, if the mandate runs out on the 20 June, how come they have called strike dates on:


* Between 2101 BST on 19 June and 0300 BST on 20 June

* Between 2101 BST on 27 June and 1159 BST on 28 June

* Between 1200 BST on 29 June and 1159 BST on 30 June

* Between 1200 BST and 2100 BST on 1 July

Because the RMT have notified them of their strike action the mandate is still valid even after the 20 June.


As long as they are acting within the law they have every right to make their "demands." It is a human right to be a member of a trade union and it is a human right that no restrictions are placed on the exercising the rights of trade unions/trade unionists other than what's prescribed by law.


In this case, the law seemingly recognises that the RMT has a mandate to strike. Of course, whether is actually true and that they are acting within the law is an entirely different matter and both sides will have lawyers considering, interpreting and advising them regarding this.

It is so ridiculous that stroppy, greedy, militant, self-serving bullies like the RMT should attempt to glorify helping a thuggish abusive mate avoid justice as a 'human right'.


It is such an insult to the billions of people around the world who genuinely suffer human rights abuses.


It's a reflection of the extent to which these self-regarding narcissists have lost touch with reality.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...