Picket lines

[revol68]

ive had this debate before so im not goin into it but ur talking out ur rear end! the working class can never go too far until they have seized the means of production for themselves and run it themselves thru democratic organs!

im not getting into this debate as it makes my blood boil but needless to say the idea that the unions went too far is a middle class myth. How can miners striking for their jobs go to far? Strikes are always goin to happen cos the interests of captial and labour are opposed therefore u gotta pick a side.. the workers or the bosses it really is that simple, unless u write for the guardian and then u have to sit so hard on the fence ur ass is sore for a month.

[Big RICHARD]

ive had this debate before so im not goin into it but ur talking out ur rear end! the working class can never go too far until they have seized the means of production for themselves and run it themselves thru democratic organs!

im not getting into this debate as it makes my blood boil but needless to say the idea that the unions went too far is a middle class myth. How can miners striking for their jobs go to far? Strikes are always goin to happen cos the interests of captial and labour are opposed therefore u gotta pick a side.. the workers or the bosses it really is that simple, unless u write for the guardian and then u have to sit so hard on the fence ur ass is sore for a month.

This miners did go too far! Scargill himself admitted wanting to subvert the government! They nearly suceeded! That is MUCH too far! Their aim was not fair wages, or working practices!

[Big RICHARD]

So...what you're saying is that because you and others in your workplace haven't got together to bargain collectively, then no-one else should be able to... And you're calling unionised workers selfish? A union is a democratic institution. Its leadership is elected by popular ballot and is accountable to their membership. Compare that to the average company where the majority of shares (if it's public) are owned by financial companies like banks and insurance firms - exactly how accountable are they, outside of maybe publishing year end financials? And as to unions representing a small proportion of workers, what, like...everyone in the NHS? All teachers? All lecturers? All of the Civil Service? Car manufacturers' production line workers? Banking staff? Postal workers? The list goes on, and for a very good reason - collective bargaining is a heck of a lot more effective than individual bargaining.

Any STUDENTS here? Aren't they members of one of the biggest unions? NUS anyone?

[grand_witch]

What a load of socialist rubbish. (Not a personal attack just my opinion). Unions are not on some kind of idealistic crusade to help everyone in the country. In reality a high percentage of the unions members are only out for what they can get. Striking is an outdated way of handling a dispute and unions needs to develop and change which they do not do they are still working as they were years ago. I agree with the principle but not how they achieve their goal. Why should the public suffer. You only have to look at the holes in the system with the proposed tube strike, on a small number of people actually voted but yet it still may go ahead. I say Unions should modernise are face closure.

The whole arguement of less holidays than Europe is nothing to do with Unions. The public need to get off their bottoms and speak to their MP's and make it an issue, not unions who represent only a limited section of the working public. Some of the union information and rhetoric I have read could be lifted straight from communist texts.

[nichomach]

What a load of socialist rubbish. (Not a personal attack just my opinion). Unions are not on some kind of idealistic crusade to help everyone in the country. In reality a high percentage of the unions members are only out for what they can get. Striking is an outdated way of handling a dispute and unions needs to develop and change which they do not do they are still working as they were years ago. I agree with the principle but not how they achieve their goal. Why should the public suffer. You only have to look at the holes in the system with the proposed tube strike, on a small number of people actually voted but yet it still may go ahead. I say Unions should modernise are face closure.

Well here we differ - you say socialist as though it were a bad thing...

No-one claims that unions are on an idealistic crusade; they're out to represent their members and it is quite proper that they do so. That said, quite a lot of the advances that you take for granted in the workplace simply wouldn't have happened without unions making them happen - statutory sick pay, actual paid holidays, that sort of thing. Prior to the unions opposing big business on behalf of their members, these things simply didn't happen.

As far as striking is concerned, if you feel that the terms and conditions of your employment are unfair and require amendment and your employer is unwilling to listen, how is it improper to withdraw your labour from their business? Why should you continue to work when you feel that the circumstances under which you are required to work are wrong? Your labour (and its withdrawal) is the only bargaining chip you have - yet you're arguing that workers should be banned from using it.

As to "why should the public suffer?", the public benefit from the services provided by these workers, indeed rely upon them, but does that give the public the right to demand that workers in those services work regardless of the fairness or otherwise of their working conditions? I don't think so. You seem very keen to blame unions for industrial disputes without taking into account the possibility that the employer may be at fault - "business right, union wrong". Perhaps in many cases asking why management are intransigent and unwilling to negotiate would be more to the point?

No-one likes going on strike - you lose pay, and it makes your life harder, yet you seem to think that strikers do it for rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishs and giggles. You say unions should modernise - well, that statement's predicated on the idea that strikes are outmoded, when in fact they're still an effective negotiating tool; but modernise how? Ban strikes? What an absurd suggestion. Make unions democratic? Oh...they already are...

The whole arguement of less holidays than Europe is nothing to do with Unions. The public need to get off their bottoms and speak to their MP's and make it an issue, not unions who represent only a limited section of the working public. Some of the union information and rhetoric I have read could be lifted straight from communist texts.

So...basically, you're saying that government should intervene and impose better working practices. Interesting viewpoint from someone who claims to despise socialism; and alongside that you state that unions shouldn't campaign for those better working practices...even for their own members. Unions are there to represent their members, so each individual union does only represent a limited section of the workforce - that's their job, and all that they claim to do. Unions plural represent a massive proportion of the workforce as noted above. As to the stuff about "lifted straight from communist texts", well, so what? I'm not a communist, but bluntly if a criticism or viewpoint has merit, it has merit whatever its source - simply saying "a communist wrote it therefore it's rubbish" is nonsensical and extremely blinkered.

[nichomach]

This miners did go too far! Scargill himself admitted wanting to subvert the government! They nearly suceeded! That is MUCH too far! Their aim was not fair wages, or working practices!

And the aim of the government was to destroy the NUM, even if they put thousands of workers into poverty, destroyed whole communities to do it and wrecked an industry (even closing PROFITABLE pits purely on political grounds). In fact the NUM had agreed a pay and conditions deal with the NCB, and were not planning to strike until the Thatcher government put in Ian MacGregor as the NCB chief exec, who promptly threw out the agreed deal in order to force a confrontation. When you're faced with a government that acts like that, I'd say attempting to use what leverage you've got to remove it from office if you can is a reasonable response. Your point is what?

[grand_witch]

I agree with some of the points you have made and withdraw the comment regarding communist texts. I gather from the above that this is obviously a subject that you are deeply interested in. I stand by the statement that strikes are an outmoded way of dealing with any problem. You call them an effective negotiating tool therefore you can also include blackmail , murder and intimidation as further realley good tools for negotiating. This may sound extreme but I use this to better illustrate my arguement.

I am not defending businesses and accept they will often screw the worker in anyway possible and nowhere in the text did I say that I was pro employers!! I also never said to Ban strikes and I never mentioned "rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishs and Giggles" Having been made redundant once I believe I better undertand just how some workers feel. I resent it being implied that because I am not entirley convinced that unions are a good idea I am anti workers rights. I agree to some extent that unions are needed but I think a modern approach is required.

I am afriad my issue with Socialists is based purely on my experiance with the representatives in my local area. I agree some ideas are good but I find a lot of the arguements put forward idealic and lacking soltuions. I stress this view is formed through contact with the Watford Socialist worker group.

[nichomach]

I agree with some of the points you have made and withdraw the comment regarding communist texts. I gather from the above that this is obviously a subject that you are deeply interested in. I stand by the statement that strikes are an outmoded way of dealing with any problem. You call them an effective negotiating tool therefore you can also include blackmail , murder and intimidation as further realley good tools for negotiating. This may sound extreme but I use this to better illustrate my arguement.

That isn't merely extreme, it's defamatory - if you equate legal strike action with violent criminal acts, then I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously by anyone; you might argue that they're outmoded (I disagree) but your equation of the legal withdrawal of labour with such criminal acts is frankly disgusting as well as wholly untrue. If that's your "illustration", you have no argument.

I am not defending businesses and accept they will often screw the worker in anyway possible and nowhere in the text did I say that I was pro employers!! I also never said to Ban strikes and I never mentioned "rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishs and Giggles" Having been made redundant once I believe I better undertand just how some workers feel. I resent it being implied that because I am not entirley convinced that unions are a good idea I am anti workers rights. I agree to some extent that unions are needed but I think a modern approach is required.

OK, fair enough, you're not defending business, but you DID suggest that if unions did not "modernise" (in context, abandon industrial action) they should be closed/shut down. I don't see how that's anything other than advocating the banning of strikes. OK, you've been made redundant once, so have I, so have lots of people, but that doesn't make one an instant industrial relations expert (I don't claim to be one either! ). That said, if you felt that you were being axed unfairly, and you had people willing to support you by withdrawing their labour in sympathy so you at least got a decent severance package if you didn't get to keep your job, wouldn't you feel better about that? Wouldn't you be in a stronger position to demand fair and equitable treatment from your employer? And what would be wrong with that? All too often, companies pay lip-service to listening to their employees, but when it comes to the crunch, they only pay real attention when they're hit in the balance sheet, and that's what industrial action does.

I am afriad my issue with Socialists is based purely on my experiance with the representatives in my local area. I agree some ideas are good but I find a lot of the arguements put forward idealic and lacking soltuions. I stress this view is formed through contact with the Watford Socialist worker group.

Well, the SWs don't really have any unions of any significance affiliated to them, so far as I am aware. Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that Socialism is necessarily always state socialism (Soviet-style) or that it necessarily precludes private enterprise; many countries in Europe have socialist governments and still manage to have a very healthy private enterprise culture.

[grand_witch]

"That isn't merely extreme, it's defamatory - if you equate legal strike action with violent criminal acts, then I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously by anyone"

I was only illustrating other methods that could be argued to be other valid tools for negotiaition I was not argueing whether they are ilegal or not. In fact it could be argued that strikes are ilegal as well. As for the bit about not been taken seriously I find that a strange thing to say. I never claimed to be an industrial relations expert I merely stated that I "better undertood". I put the better in their as I new you would argue that very point.

I think we probably have very differnet views not on the goal but on how to get there. Its good to find someone who actually argued with a bit of passion and seems to know his stuff.

Today is probably also the worst day for me to argue my point of view as you rpobably know it is the 20th Anniversary of the Miners Strike. I think we may ahve to argee to disagree.

[Big RICHARD]

How are strikes illegal?

[grand_witch]

contary to the laws governing trade unions.

[Big RICHARD]

Show me......

[NeilI]

oh yeah just a wee quote from ole charlie Marx on unions (or combinations as they were known in his day) i still think it is of great relevance today.

“Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people unknown to one another. Competition divides their interest. But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance- combination. Thus combination always has a double aim, that of stopping competition among the workers, so that they can carry on general competition with the capitalist. If the first aim of resistance was merely the maintenance of wages, combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups as the capitalists in their turn unite for the purpose of repression, and in the face of always united capital, the maintenance becomes more necessary to them than that of wages. This is so true that English economists are amazed to see the workers sacrifice a good part of their wages in favour of associations, which in the eyes of these economists, are established solely in favour of wages. In this struggle-a veritable civil war-all the elements necessary for a coming battle unite and develop. Once it has reached this point, association takes on a political character.”

I think I'll have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

A lot of Marx's and Engel's literature was based on the assumption, that Caplital assumed Labour was only interested in work for remuneration. As were Essays like Harvey Ramsay's 'Cycles of Control'. This is becoming less evident as the 'knowledge economy' gathers pace. As soft skills become more at the front of HRM and Quality management styles, workers are more likely to get involved in participation, empwerment, participative management schemes etc.
Managers are recognising that personal and social needs (such as those higher up in Maslow's hierarchy of needs) are becoming more important to workers and thewy are more likely to have a say in the running of businesses, through things like quality circles, work teams, feedback groups and employee-manager steering commitees.

Its about time this sort of approch was adopted in every organisation. If employees are given more responsibility, they become more creative, more efficient, more satisfied and happier workers. Unfortunately, going on my experience, this sort of thing will be introduced very slowly and even more slowly in to the public sector.

Also, I detest Socialism. Everytime I see Tommy Bloody Sheridan and his cronies it makes me want to puke. Is it just the SSP, or do all Socialists continue to bang on about taxing big businesses and wealthy peopl 80% etc?? They are like a stuck record. Do they realise that competition exists, or do they just assume that entrepreneurs, businesses and foreign investment would just stay here for the craic if they had their way? You can already see the effects, with Dyson moving his plant, BT and heaps of other companies outsourcing to India etc.

Maybe I am just a naive Student, unaware of the 'real' world, but those are my views.

[nichomach]

I was only illustrating other methods that could be argued to be other valid tools for negotiaition I was not argueing whether they are ilegal or not. In fact it could be argued that strikes are ilegal as well.

1. No, such acts could NOT be argued to be valid tools since they are illegal - strikes are not. I would also point out that the withdrawal of labour is a non-violent act which only applies economic pressure. Comparing that to acts which delibarately hurt people is just ridiculous. There IS no comparison.

2. Strikes are NOT illegal in themselves. Period. Not. Get over it, or acquire an LLB(Hons) like I did.

As for the bit about not been taken seriously I find that a strange thing to say. I never claimed to be an industrial relations expert I merely stated that I "better undertood". I put the better in their as I new you would argue that very point.

I delibarately stated that if you continued to present such farcical, idiotic ideas as strikes being comparable to murder that it would be difficult to take you seriously. The idea is STILL farcical and idiotic, and that you cleave to it in the face of that does make it difficult to take you seriously.

I think we probably have very differnet views not on the goal but on how to get there. Its good to find someone who actually argued with a bit of passion and seems to know his stuff.

Well, thank you for that at least.

Today is probably also the worst day for me to argue my point of view as you rpobably know it is the 20th Anniversary of the Miners Strike. I think we may ahve to argee to disagree.

Well, we may have to at that. I have never bought into the Thatcherite propaganda about that strike, and I remember it very well. I note from your profile that you'd have been 7 in 1984; from what I remember of being 7, I recall some news stuff, but also know that I didn't understand it particularly well. On the other hand, I was 16 in 1984, and followed the news coverage very closely, and I well remember the absolutely vicious policing tactics used, the rejection by management of any attempt at negotiation, the political motive underlying the government's actions...it was all pretty nasty, and a lot of communities were absolutely savaged purely to break the NUM.

[NeilI]

Sorry, drifted off topic a little, but can I quanlify my statemenys, by saying if these HRM models were adopted, strikes, pickets and industrial action would (should?) dissappear.

[grand_witch]

Hmm so my age and lack of qualifiactions make my views invalid. I find your attitude or debating style very confrontational and a little arrogant.

P.S I have a degree and a Masters (has no relevance but makes me feel better)