Labour leadership contest

[Spud1]

I'd rather they were off their own bat to be honest - greater variety in politics is a good thing imo, offering more choice..of course that would completely bankrupt labour, then even their own "lets spend lots and borrow more because thats a good way to get out of debt!" ideas wouldn't work.

[peterb]

That then leads into the muddy waters of who or what is "The Working-class population", which was perhaps more clearly delineated in the 1920's. I work for a living, but I don't think there is any particular trade union that I would consider represents my interests. There are several professional institutions that do (and I am a member of those) but while they may engage in lobbying Parliament on behalf of their membership, they don't directly sponsor MPs or have a block vote within any particular party.

That then raises some contradictions within the labour party itself. I would argue that given the origins of the Labour Party and its traditional core support, it is in its interest to maintain the class system that it apparently deplores and to suppress aspirational class movement, because as members of a class move 'up' the social ladder, they are less likely to support the party. Conversely, the Conservative Party are more likely to encourage social mobility because that is likely to increase its core support base.

And that I think is where Tony Blair had particular insight in modernising the Labour Party (avoiding the "Nu-lab" title dragging it away from its traditional core base - and which so upset the Unions who saw their political power being further eroded - or at least sidelined.

Ed Miliband stood an a more traditional labour footing which has appealed to the Trade Unions, but had less support from individual Labour Party members. Although interestingly he now appears to be distancing himself from the slightly more left stance of his election campaign. David Miliband's pitch was more centre-right - with the converse appeal.

[scaryjim]

... I would argue that given the origins of the Labour Party and its traditional core support, it is in its interest to maintain the class system that it apparently deplores and to suppress aspirational class movement, because as members of a class move 'up' the social ladder, they are less likely to support the party. Conversely, the Conservative Party are more likely to encourage social mobility because that is likely to increase its core support base. ...

QFT. One assumes that at the time of its formation it was very rare for someone to even want to move between classes, let alone be able to. Society has changed quite drastically since then, so while I came from a predominantly working class background, I would be hard pressed to describe myself as working class now. But I do think it's a real shame that we don't have a "grown-up" left-leaning mainstream party that can couple sensible and workable policies with supporting ethical and social development. Somehow I don't think the unions breaking away from Labour would provide that...

[santa claus]

If not, we have a nomination for the next leader.

He'd certainly attract the pink vote .

I find myself more in favour of the coalition than I expected, but its early days yet - new territory and all that.

Messrs Cameron and Clegg seem decent enough chaps; whether there's enough depth in others remains to be seen. As mentioned, Vince Cable appeared to have more answers in opposition than he does in Government. I do think he is genuine and his naturally soft-spoken manner is probably masking his real worth.

As you say, time will tell. Though the current set up would not be my choice, I think we all want whoever is in charge to succeed.

[Blitzen]

I have a different view to many here.
This forum is populated 'mostly' by well educated, reasonably high earning people, so the persuasion of power will normally swing towards the Conservatives/Anti-Union stance.

Please try to not to jump down my throat, but i summise that the majority of people that come here, are from a reasonably comfortable background, with parents/grandparents coming from well paid, middle management and above jobs.
This is the reason that the unions are attacked in these circles.

IMHO, unions are a closed society that although getting it wrong often, are there and perform moderately well, in looking after the common man on the street.
I have a unon background...my dad was actually the leader of NUPE (before Bill Morris) before it merged with COHSE, so i know a bit about the parts others do not see.

[peterb]

<--snip

IMHO, unions are a closed society that although getting it wrong often, are there and perform moderately well, in looking after the common man on the street. snip--->
.

I would agree with that - trade unionism has done a lot to improve working conditions and have played an important role in protecting the interests of people who, through no fault of their own, were unable to defend or represent themselves - and a loit of that work is unreported because it is not sensational enough.

But they are closed groups and to have an agenda which includes their own survival which might mean maintaining the status quo. And when (for example) someone like Bob Crow starts spouting off rhetoric that goes back to ther 1970s and "Reb Robbo" who did so much damage to the British car industry, or Arthur Scargill, who hastened the demise of the mines (and destroyed the NUM) it is eagerly reported and overshadows the good work done by Trqade Unions.

And the trade uUnions aren't the only force for good in improving working conditions. Enlightened employers like the Lever Brothers, Cadbury and Rowntree (all quakers!) also played a major part in settinmg improved standards for their workers, including the provision of housing (but no pubs) in the nineteenth century.

[Spud1]

t i summise that the majority of people that come here, are from a reasonably comfortable background, with parents/grandparents coming from well paid, middle management and above jobs.
This is the reason that the unions are attacked in these circles.

I agree with you, but I also think that the recent behaviour by certain well known unions with companies like BA have had an impact. For me that is my biggest issue with them, the fact that they can effectively hold a company or country to ransom because they disagree with a decision..this would be fine if that company were a co-operative, but its not..and I have a fundamental issue with that.

On the other hand there is plenty of good work that the unions do for their workers - defending people when employers do take illegal actions, campaigning (without resorting to blackmail/strikes) for better conditions, offering help and support for their members with problems both inside and out of work, and they do have a place in our society.

They also have a right to influence the shape of our country - after all they are essentially just a collection of workers - but I think this should be directed from outside the political parties. I would liken it to British Airways deciding to join the tories, or Microsoft joining the lib dems - this wouldn't happen (not sure if its legal!) but has a similar sort of effect imo.

[badass]

If unions started moving with the times, they would start behaving more like professional bodies/representatives and less like the striking unions of old. They would achieve far more like this than by threatening strikes or ordering strikes. When there's a recession, people must lose jobs or money - it seems that certain unions simply cannot accept that. Some i'm sure are far more reasonable but they don't get the airtime as that's not newsworthy.

[SeriousSam]

The simple fact of the matter is that on balance the Unions have done more harm than good for the "working man" in this country. Unfortunately their demographic is far more succeptable to the lure of tub thumping rhetoric than rational argument and thus are blind to the reality of the situation we are in.

In any case the left vs. right situation is just a specious as the class war. At the heart of the British politics the divide is much more about State control (Labour and the old Social Democrats*) vs. Individual Freedom (Conservatives and the old Liberals*). Ultimately both sides want the same thing, i.e. a healthy and prosperous UK which is a nice country to live in. They just disagree on how to go about it.

*Think I've got them the right way round

[santa claus]

I agree with you, but I also think that the recent behaviour by certain well known unions with companies like BA have had an impact. For me that is my biggest issue with them, the fact that they can effectively hold a company or country to ransom because they disagree with a decision..this would be fine if that company were a co-operative, but its not..and I have a fundamental issue with that.

You could turn that perception on its head and argue that it is intransigent management that can hold a Country to ransom. Worse still, a Country could be virtually brought to its knees by those prepared to take advantage of uncontrolled and irresponsible risk. The Banks are not a Union that went on strike; save your vitriol for their greed and selfishness.

And this notion that Trade Unionists are hanging about mouths a-frothing, rabidly waiting to destroy their own livelihood and the economy is just a media spawned lie. Unions comprise ordinary working people who want to provide for their family by getting a reasonable wage for their labour and decent working conditions.

Relying on the magnanimity of an employer to provide these things would be naive.

[Blitzen]

The simple fact of the matter is that on balance the Unions have done more harm than good for the "working man" in this country. Unfortunately their demographic is far more succeptable to the lure of tub thumping rhetoric than rational argument and thus are blind to the reality of the situation we are in.

In any case the left vs. right situation is just a specious as the class war. At the heart of the British politics the divide is much more about State control (Labour and the old Social Democrats*) vs. Individual Freedom (Conservatives and the old Liberals*). Ultimately both sides want the same thing, i.e. a healthy and prosperous UK which is a nice country to live in. They just disagree on how to go about it.

*Think I've got them the right way round

Sorry but i totally disagree with that.
Unions when implemented in the correct manner, are a fantastic institution that stand between the unscrupulous corporation and the 'little man' on the street.

If the unions of old were not effective in their beliefs, we would all still be whipped and beaten for being two minutes late for work, and living on a wage that wouldn't feed a mouse for a month.

As i said earlier, i generally believe that most (not all) people that dislike unionism are people from a background at the more pleasant end of the spectrum.
In fact, the very people, that if alive during the early 1900's, would be the very people that were 'cracking the whip'.

You could turn that perception on its head and argue that it is intransigent management that can hold a Country to ransom. Worse still, a Country could be virtually brought to its knees by those prepared to take advantage of uncontrolled and irresponsible risk. The Banks are not a Union that went on strike; save your vitriol for their greed and selfishness.

And this notion that Trade Unionists are hanging about mouths a-frothing, rabidly waiting to destroy their own livelihood and the economy is just a media spawned lie. Unions comprise ordinary working people who want to provide for their family by getting a reasonable wage for their labour and decent working conditions.

Relying on the magnanimity of an employer to provide these things would be naive.

Spot on!
It's the corporations that a trying to 'turn over' the working man, and then the business bleats it is being held to ransom when it cannot push the employee around to suit itself.

I do however agree that unions can be self serving, and i have seen that first hand, but i cannot accept that unions hold the business wourld to ransom just for sheer enjoyment.

[Spud1]

Relying on the magnanimity of an employer to provide these things would be naive.

True, but strikes are never the answer, they are just as bad as an employer sacking everyone who doesn't agree to the new terms.

I'm almost tempted to suggest that there should be an intermediary with real power who can step in, listen to both cases in a timely manner (not over months and months) and then make a decision. It's better than strike action but does have the downside of more administration/cost to someone (who pays for it..taxpayer?) and of more governmental involvement. I don't have the answer but its 100% clear that strikes do vastly more harm to the workers and employers than they do good.

Workers do need some comeback against an employer attempting to impose unfair conditions on them, but the problem is that unfair is subjective.

I won't get into the recent banking issues in this thread as that goes way OT.

[santa claus]

Workers do need some comeback against an employer attempting to impose unfair conditions on them, but the problem is that unfair is subjective.

It is a delicate balance I agree but my point is that it takes two to tango. Too often the public focus is on 'the Union calling a strike' whereas industrial action is a symptom of a problem shared by employer and employee. The media do such a good job of brainwashing everyone that if 'strike' is mentioned everyone assumes "it's the fault of the Union'. No sane person wants to strike.

Sometimes management need reminding that its biggest asset is a content and productive workforce and that success and pain has to be shared equally.

S'only fair.

Spot on!

Ta!

[SeriousSam]

Sorry but i totally disagree with that.
Unions when implemented in the correct manner, are a fantastic institution that stand between the unscrupulous corporation and the 'little man' on the street.

If the unions of old were not effective in their beliefs, we would all still be whipped and beaten for being two minutes late for work, and living on a wage that wouldn't feed a mouse for a month.

As i said earlier, i generally believe that most (not all) people that dislike unionism are people from a background at the more pleasant end of the spectrum.
In fact, the very people, that if alive during the early 1900's, would be the very people that were 'cracking the whip'.

I don't disagree that the unions have been a positive influence when implemented in the correct manner, however the notion that they are a fantastic institution that are all that stands between the little man and unscrupulous corporations just isn't true any more. The majority of companies have taken on board the fact that looking after their workers is good business practise. Neither is it the case that workers are trapped in a life of poverty in the same way as when we did have Mill barons and the like. Yes there are still issues around social mobility, which I might add have got worse in the past 13 years, but it is possible to change your own personal circumstances if your willing to work for it.

The real issue is that under the current union system all workers are the same. It allows companies to be lazy and enter into collective bargaining where every man (or woman) gets a yearly raise irrespective of what they have actually done for the past year. This is detrimental to both the company and the people that work for it for the simple fact that it creates a demotivating environment. How would you feel if you spent the whole year doing your job conscientiously only to discover that the layabout next to you who did the bare minimum got exactly the same pay rise?

Added to this they create a roadblock to the evolution of company dynamics which puts the business in question at a dissadvantage in comparison to its competitors. As an example I've just spent the last 6months of my contract with a large food manufacturer working on a project to improve the day to day systems used to manage and control manufacturing plants. Working in conjunction with the operators and engineers we created a whole new system of working which setting aside all of the ways that it made their day to day jobs easier and less stressfull also forced greater accountability onto their management teams to actually fix the problems that they raised. All well and good you would think... not to the union it wasn't. Irrespective of the fact that the majority of the operators were in favour of the new system (having actually had a hand in it for once) they were told point blank by the union reps to have nothing to do with it.

I could go on and on with more examples from my 20 years of working in the manufacturing industry but my point should be pretty evident by now. Unions as they are now are an anachronism of a time long past and unless they realise that and evolve accordingly they will find themselves consigned to the scrapheap of history. Something I actually think would be a pity as they have the potential to do a lot of good.

Finally as someone who's family comes from working class roots I'd actually say that it is more about the attitude of the environment you are brought up in rather than whether being rich or poor. But before I go all "when I were a lad" I'll stop there...

[Blitzen]

but strikes are never the answer, they are just as bad as an employer sacking everyone who doesn't agree to the new terms

No they aren't.
Striking, in order to get some fairness and correct treatment, is unfortunately the only way forward to help the cause in most cases, ESPECIALLY when it is a government organisation or a massive multi-national corporation.

[Blitzen]

I don't disagree that the unions have been a positive influence when implemented in the correct manner, however the notion that they are a fantastic institution that are all that stands between the little man and unscrupulous corporations just isn't true any more. The majority of companies have taken on board the fact that looking after their workers is good business practise. Neither is it the case that workers are trapped in a life of poverty in the same way as when we did have Mill barons and the like. Yes there are still issues around social mobility, which I might add have got worse in the past 13 years, but it is possible to change your own personal circumstances if your willing to work for it.

The real issue is that under the current union system all workers are the same. It allows companies to be lazy and enter into collective bargaining where every man (or woman) gets a yearly raise irrespective of what they have actually done for the past year. This is detrimental to both the company and the people that work for it for the simple fact that it creates a demotivating environment. How would you feel if you spent the whole year doing your job conscientiously only to discover that the layabout next to you who did the bare minimum got exactly the same pay rise?

Added to this they create a roadblock to the evolution of company dynamics which puts the business in question at a dissadvantage in comparison to its competitors. As an example I've just spent the last 6months of my contract with a large food manufacturer working on a project to improve the day to day systems used to manage and control manufacturing plants. Working in conjunction with the operators and engineers we created a whole new system of working which setting aside all of the ways that it made their day to day jobs easier and less stressfull also forced greater accountability onto their management teams to actually fix the problems that they raised. All well and good you would think... not to the union it wasn't. Irrespective of the fact that the majority of the operators were in favour of the new system (having actually had a hand in it for once) they were told point blank by the union reps to have nothing to do with it.

I could go on and on with more examples from my 20 years of working in the manufacturing industry but my point should be pretty evident by now. Unions as they are now are an anachronism of a time long past and unless they realise that and evolve accordingly they will find themselves consigned to the scrapheap of history. Something I actually think would be a pity as they have the potential to do a lot of good.

Finally as someone who's family comes from working class roots I'd actually say that it is more about the attitude of the environment you are brought up in rather than whether being rich or poor. But before I go all "when I were a lad" I'll stop there...

Some i agree with...some not.
I also have extensive knoweldge in the manufacturing sector.
I run plants in the UK, Russia and have a large input into other sites in Spain, France, Sout Africa and Germany.

As i support the unions, (thought the company i represent see no need to have them as it is a fair employer), i do see the other side of the coin and how restrictive union organisations can be.

Example:
In France and Germany there are things called 'Work Councils'.
Although the French are World, European and Universal Champions when it comes to strike action, the Germans are in a league of their own.

In all organisations in Germany, with more than 50 employees, they have a work council that the business must pay for. It has a rolling elected board, form ALL areas of the workforce and NOTHING AT ALL happens unless the work council agrees. The goverment support this to the hilt.

The french have a very similar, but more relaxed system, and it causes major headaches (to me aswell) in manufacturing over there.

If you think the union system in the UK is archaic, take a senior role in a business on the continent and your views will change very rapidly.