Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No that's not accurate DC - not all sectors operate on Bank Holidays, not because of unions but because they are Bank Holidays.

This thread is about Boxing Day strikes (which are a piss-take, 3rd year in a row), it's not contesting the general benefit of unions to the British worker.

I can understand DC's desire to redress the perceived imbalance against unions on here, but a fairer way to put it would be that there needs to be a working balance between productivity and reward.


The favored mantra of union supporters - that everyone would be much better off and have longer holidays if they had a union is a misapprehension.


A business only survives because it can produce goods and services that meet customer expectations at a price they feel is appropriate.


It's ridiculous to assume that crucifying a few 'fat cats' or having a good union negotiation is going to increase salaries or holidays and perks in any meaningful way - it simply lowers productivity or quality and drives up the price for the customer.


When the price exceeds a customer's willingness to pay, they stop buying, and everyone loses their jobs.


This was the reality of Britain in the 70s - a country bankrupted by the greed and avarice of the unions.


The reality is that if the LU was a normal business it would have gone bankrupt years ago


The LU's unions have managed to make extraordinary demands not because their union is clever, but because the LU is so important to the capital's infrastructure the government has had to subsidize it from taxpayers.


The taxpayer currently funds the LU over ?300m a year.


The reality is that the outcome of this round of strikes is just to take more money from taxpayers.


The striking drivers are taking this cash as tax directly from the pockets of people who work more hours than them, for less money and fewer holidays with no travel perks.


That's why the LU drivers have no sympathy - not because unions are great, but because this union operates outside the market realities and holds taxpayers to ransom.


Public sector is a bullshit argument for union achievements.

Incidentally, holiday and working time rights were not the product of the unions, and it does a massive disservice to 19th century philanthropists like Lord Shaftesbury along with Quaker, Anglican and Methodist religious movements to claim they were.


For the majority of rights we have today, thank the churches.


That's not to say that unions have not been able to make concessions in the present day - however, at 43 days holiday on 35 hour weeks, the LU unions are getting perilously close to making demands that their members should be paid by harder working and lower salaried taxpayers for NOT working.


Lost their way and lost their sympathy? Yes.

Now the tube train cleaners are at it:


"It is these same staff who have played a key role in keeping services clean and safe who are now forced again by their employers to take action for a living wage and recognition of their efforts," Bob Crow said.


Love the '..forced again by their employers..' bit.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Incidentally, holiday and working time rights were

> not the product of the unions, and it does a

> massive disservice to 19th century philanthropists

> like Lord Shaftesbury along with Quaker, Anglican

> and Methodist religious movements to claim they

> were.

>

> For the majority of rights we have today, thank

> the churches.


Poppycock. Trade Unions are directly responsible for or were a fundamental pressure in achieving:


Two-day weekends

Eight-hour working days

Maternity leave

Retirement ages

Occupational health and safety

Workplace pensions

Paid holidays

Equality laws

The right not to be sacked because you got married, had a baby, or became ill (strange how they're seen as similar things)

Pay increases

The minimum wage

Collective bargaining

The right for the working classes to organise themselves

A standard of living above that of 1850s Britain

Presumably they also invented motherhood & apple pie.


I don't have time to research but I'm with Hugenot in that much of enlightened employment practice was non conformist church led - and as a "once upon a time Quaker" proud to have been part of that tradition.

I'm sorry DC, but that's union propaganda.


Whilst unions may have helped disperse ideas, the first firm to intoduce most of those elements was Cadbury during the 1850s.


They recognized that a healthy, secure, well educated workforce whose remuneration was in line with productivity was the recipe for corporate success. As one of the most successful corporations in British history this had a greater impact on business practice than the workers.


Notably, Cadbury didn't have work councils until 1918 and unions until 1969.


What they did have was Quaker ethical beliefs.


Unions may claim to have helped negotiate improved conditions with employers, but they're rewriting history if they reckon most of those things were their ideas.

The rights we enjoy today that DC mentions were fought for by a mixture of working people and organisations (which did indeed include churches) but also trade unions.


Yes Cadburys a Titus Salt may have built houses for their workers. Not because they were mere altruistic nice guys, but because they were enliightened capitalists - a happy healthy workforce works harder in your mill or factory, making you richer.


You need a reality check, if you think these rights had little or nothing to do with the trade unions - by which I mean not union leaders, but the ordinary men and women who made up the membership.


Also KidKruger - the cleaning staff for LU like many cleaning staff are on absolutley crap wages. And quite rightly are figting for a better deal.

I was on crap wages when I was a cleaner for 2 years too, heaven knows why cleaning jobs didn't pay as much as other, more qualified jobs, never did understand that.

If you want a better deal you strive for a better job, not use blackmail. If the LU cleaning jobs are paid less than other cleaning jobs (say, in other sectors) then prove your point by going to work there - LU will soon get the idea.

To strike over BH days shows less spine and more of a leaning to blackmail.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Not supporting the strike, but Fark me plenty of

> people painting it as a very attractive job

>

> Why aren't more of us applying? Serious question


Probably because a lot of us have academic qualifications or specific industry experience that enable more lucrative or rewarding careers. But I can see how becoming a tube driver could be an attractive option for some people (and it's nowhere near as menial as a lot of people think).

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> StraferJack Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not supporting the strike, but Fark me plenty of

> > people painting it as a very attractive job

> > Why aren't more of us applying? Serious question

>

> Probably because a lot of us have academic

> qualifications or specific industry experience

> that enable more lucrative or rewarding careers.

> But I can see how becoming a tube driver could be

> an attractive option for some people (and it's

> nowhere near as menial as a lot of people think).


I would seriously consider it if they opened them up to the public. Always looking for a good career change (nothing like a good mid-life crisis) and, frankly, it looks like easy money.

That raises the depressing possibility that the purpose of many people's employment is not to be unemployed - a sure sign of a long-term economy with deeply serious problems. I remember the thread on here about Southwark street cleaners and someone suggested that we shouldn't clear up rubbish from the streets ourselves if it were bad, as that might put the street cleaners out of work.

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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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