I agree with all those points. Never the less all the major construction sites I worked on had a closed shop restriction. You had to be a union member to work onsite. The union stewards claimed to be followers of Marx, unfortunately they seemed more closely linked to Groucho Marx then Karl. I won’t bore everybody with the details of the restrictive practices we were working under. Just one example, on one site for several months I was paid over 80 hours for working just 44 hours. This was an incentive because the union stewards had decided every time we came out on strike we lost money. So the little scamps came up with the idea of working without enthusiasm. This resulted in low production levels from a previous low production level.
So the management paid us extra hours to increase production. A lot of my pals worked for councils and other government bodies. They were on strikes, go slows walkouts etc etc. We were the laughing stock of the world. Even more so when you looked at British leyland. Most posters won’t be familiar with that debacle. It’s a lesson as to the future if jezza comes to power.

Your entire post was valid, and reminds me of when I was working somewhere, I won't say where. The "refuse collectors" (bin men) went on strike and chained the gates shut, our offices were on there, so we got bolt cutters and opened them. Found out a few weeks later that the "refuse collectors" got paid whilst on strike, and then double pay for the weekend needed to make up lost time.

people rarely strike for a reason other than personal gain

Not much gets past you.
Have you been on strike in favour of austerity lately?

never been on strike in my life, I don't expect my employer to give me wage rises just because I try and hold them to ransome!

I take it that you've "benefited" from the strike action of others though ?

Strike action should only ever be as a last resort and despite the "workers getting paid whilst on strike and then getting double pay" story, it is usual to get nothing whilst on strike (and rightly so).
"Tigertot" gave a whole list of "benefits" that we all now receive, that just wouldnt have happened without the Unions and many of these would not have happened without some form of strike action.

Of course there is a balance in all of these situations and the most successful companies/employers treat their workforce properly and usually, this is to the benefit of all.

Just for the record, I too have never had to strike in 35 years of working but, I totally respect the right to take strike action as a last resort.

I've benefited nothing from work shy socialists who ruined our industries.

Team Corbyn, Team JEALOUS

Makes you wonder with all these benefits bestowed on the workers why are we less productive than virtually every other country in the civilised world?

Do you get holiday pay or payments when you are off sick ??
Do you class miners as "work shy socialists" or school teachers, firemen, nurses even doctors.
Apart from miners, the others would be classed as "middle class" yet, all of them have had cause to take strike action over the years.
Look at the bigger picture and not just the bit's with a "Thatcher" blue rinse.

Perhaps you think that we should still be sending 8 year olds down t'pit and forcing people to work 60 hours a week
Shame on you.

A lot of these progression in working rules had little to do with union involvement - the 1833 factories act stopped children working in the factories - the first union was formed in 1834.

Unions restrictive practises have also held industries back - Barbara Dean who recently died brought the workers out to prevent progress towards digital/computer plate printing. Perhaps if they accepted the inevitable and helped their members re-train that would have been a better use of union money and time. This happens all the time business find more efficient ways of doing things but this progress is blocked by the unions.

The problem with striking is the union leaders who organise it don't suffer any financial loss so it becomes a power struggle. McClusky uses his position as a union leader to advance his ultra-left ideaolgy - got shown his backside when he came up against Ineos



Another is the union's inability to treat individual disputes on their merit. They take a view that they can't be seen to be giving in in one chapel in case it means giving in in another even if logic suggests its the right thing to do -

no, I don't get holiday pay, or sick pay. I work for myself and get paid for what I do.

it's simple, take personal responsibility, don't expect handouts.

the Unions destroy everything when they becone inolved.

ask yourself why Unison needs to be based in central London and recently moved to plush new offices, why does it need a subsidised bar, for "the benefit of the workers", utter sham.

don't start involving facts, you'll be telling them the Earth isn't flat next!

I actually agree with much of your post.
However, you choose to look as one side of the equation and not offer any balance.
To deny that unions have had ANY positive contribution to the well being of workers is pure denial and there are some who would love to treat their workers with utter contempt.
Even with the legislation already in place, some employers STILL flaunt the rules on working conditions, minimum wage legislation and the current hot topic "equal pay".

It's quite incredible that you cant see this (or choose not to) and instead choose to cherry pick one small aspect of my post.
Not everything that occurs to improve the plight of the "working man" results in strike action and nor should it, as I mentioned previously, it (striking) should only ever be a last resort and in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary.

THe unions do have a role in supporting some workers - in my experience workers in businesses without a union presence have better conditions, better pay and better benefits. I have never felt the need of union to either support a disciplinary or my T&Cs. For all the good the unions do has to be offset against the negative impact they have on business.

The gender gap needs to be looked at on a like for like basis i.e. do men and women doing the same job earn the same monies. All that will happen here is women will positively discriminated against to get them in higher jobs simply to reduce the gender pay gap.

Most employers value they employees yes you might have a few who view them as canon fodder but these are in the minority

Much of the change in working conditions is just natural social evolution - union positive impact is small on a macro level. The Health & Safety act evolved through disaster e.g. factory fires/explosions etc as knowledge was gained from investigation same with asbestos.

The problem with unions is the leadership who want to be celebrities and create situations to allow themselves maximum publicity. The SWT dispute is about keeping the union in the forefront of attention.

lets not forget the Union cheif who was living in a Council home and getting £120k a year, "workers rights"

laughable organisations, laughable politics.

Crikey, there's been a hell of a lot of thread drift lately.

Let's not also forget that one of the largest businessmen the "Little Englanders" wheeled out prior to the referendum, moved all his production of vacuums & washing machines out to Malaysia & Singapore.

Perhaps he'll do a u-turn, once those nasty Europeans have been shipped out.

Little englanders. You have missed out daily mail reader, not forgetting xenaphobe. Don’t worry when jezza comes to power and proceeds with his Marxist clap trap , you will see a real exodus of industry.

Quote ="PCollinson1990"I've benefited nothing from work shy socialists who ruined our industries. Team Corbyn, Team JEALOUS'" Just for balance and I acknowledge that YOU have benefited nothing but fill your boots anyway https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/

Quote ="PCollinson1990"I've benefited nothing from work shy socialists who ruined our industries. Team Corbyn, Team JEALOUS'" Just for balance and I acknowledge that YOU have benefited nothing but fill your boots anyway https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/

And if Comrade Cob has his way, an exodus of Jews.

They've been there before though. Perhaps Jezza can part the Channel for them. After all, isn't he the saviour?

At the risk of sounding "anti-semitic" -: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/ ... 34136.html

At the risk of sounding "anti-semitic" -: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/ ... 34136.html

Quote ="wrencat1873"Just for balance and I acknowledge that YOU have benefited nothing but fill your boots anyway https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/'" an opinion piece about America is relevant, how?

Quote ="wrencat1873"Just for balance and I acknowledge that YOU have benefited nothing but fill your boots anyway https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/'" an opinion piece about America is relevant, how?

I presume you're talking about James Dyson? Didn't he move his production abroad when the local council refused him planning permission to expand and create even more UK jobs?

Someone I know who lives in Malmesbury, where Dyson is based, told me if Dyson was ever to shut up shop completely, half of Wiltshire would be unemployed.

Oh I see, refusal of planning permission, there was me thinking it was more to do with production costs being thirty percent lower in Malaysia.



How is it that the Remoaners (an insult to start with) are labeled Marxists, Corbinites, Bleeding Heart Liberals et al, yet one reference gets you all hot & bothered?

Is it because the reference encompasses all those Nationalist traits you have mentioned?

Lots of people like to throw around insults like "snowflake" but are the very people to get disproportionately offended very quickly. Usually when irrefutable matters of fact are presented to them. It would be funny if the topic at hand wasn't so serious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no cheerleader of James Dyson, just take a look into his Wiltshire farming escapades.

The irony is of course that around the time of him exporting his production, James Dyson was very Pro-European, he was even keen for the UK to adopt the Euro. Whether that was for his own gain (it'd have made exports from the UK highly competitive) or for the benefit of the rest of the country remains questionable. Imagine if he'd have got his wish though... He may have still ended up with the pantomime villain tag, especially among those who lost their good exchange rate for their holiday money, but it'd have made Brexit pretty much impossible.

Most businessmen and politicians who advocate "leave" or "remain" do so for their own benefit.
Very, very few advocate these things for the greater good.

The successful businessmen with thrive in any environment, once they have had time to adjust and for the masses, it's just a case of coping with short/medium term pain.

In the words of Echo and the Bunnymen "nothing ever lasts forever".

Dyson, if allowed, would bring additional jobs into the UK, but, as with most manufacturing companies, assuming they can still offer the required delivery service and not sacrifice quality, they will follow the cheapest labour market.

Hence the move by many companies moved from the UK into Europe and then out to the Far East and India, all pre Brexit.