Firstly you need to be a Union Baron with a grudge; usually against an opposing political party and its leader, in order to call a destructive strike. Pretending to be looking after the interests of your members has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
In the early 80's a major strike lost its Union about 200,000 members' jobs. They too pretended that their actions were in defence of their members.
Now in the early 20's, the effect will be spread further afield. To bring a nation's travel to a halt affects more than just those who travel by bus train or plane; it affects everyone in peripheral jobs everywhere.
As they sit atop their high horses in sharp suits, it is very easy for the Union bosses to demand high pay rises for their members, but as everyone knows such an increase in wages causes either unemployment, or a lack of investment in infrastructure or development, or both. Trying to match inflation to wages is always counter-productive.
The man above is Mick Lynch, a self pronounced Marxist. He is the leader of the powerful RTM Union. He claims that his Union's current strike is a 'class struggle'.
The banner they are holding (below) explains a lot. Lynch wishes to cut profits.
Well, Mr Lynch, has no-one explained to you that 'profit' is what separates success from failure in business? No profit means no business, no employment, and no service! It doesn't take a lot to understand that; even for an old-style Marxist. To say 'cut profits, not jobs and services' makes no sense whatsoever.
Lynch will be happy to cause as much disruption as possible. He will be happy to see scuffles between the Police and his more unruly acolytes. He will also be happy to see considerable unemployment as a result of his actions which he will then blame on government; as did the joker who lost the 200,000 jobs back in the 80's.
Lynch is well named. If he'd tried this caper in his beloved Soviet Union, they'd have had him hanging from the nearest tree in a flash.
Just be grateful, Mick, that you live in a very liberal, non Marxist-Socialist, country.
Personally, I have never understood why unions calling strikes are not liable for any contingent losses suffered by parties affected by those strikes. Being hit in their pockets might cause some of these clowns to think again before subjecting the rest of us to their childish posturing.ReplyDelete
I see in today's paper that the wealthy Scargill is out on the picket line. No doubt trying to add to his tally of the unemployed.Delete
It's 7.15 am, and I'm just back from my early morning walk. Whilst out I (amazingly) met a youngish English man with two dogs. He was FURIOUS about this strike. In fact I had to get away from him as he was becoming a tad extreme in what he would like to do to them all. He was returning to the UK today, and didn't quite know what to expect. Chaos mate; chaos!ReplyDelete
Scargill on the picket line speaks volumes about this strike.ReplyDelete
He should keep a VERY low profile, considering all the damage he did.Delete
What about taxing the profits? The obscene billions that many corporations make at the expense of we poor people, who often have to choose between heating or eating. Would that be okay?ReplyDelete
High profits are usually turned into investment; that's how big companies grow. Take away those profits and you take away expansion and the extra employment that it brings. Classic examples include our beloved Google, who have just built a new £1 Billion new office block in London, as well as leasing a further 70,000 sq ft office space. The Socialists wanted to seriously tax them, which would have put a halt to their investment. As it is there are an extra 5,000 employees who are all paying large amounts of income tax.Delete
A rather biased view.ReplyDelete
Many strikes are prompted by political action of governments, of whatever colour.
Unions are there for the welfare of workers on one hand, and to meditate on their behalf for the well being of both the workers and the employers. After all both need to continue.
To demonise either makes no sense.
You have to look deeper and question what is the political agenda behind government involvement, whether covert or not.
Very few strikes benefit the workers. Scargill's silly strike is a good example. The Coal Board wanted to close 13 worked-out pits, the government gave permission to close 11, and it all ended with 200,000 miners unemployed. If that's what you consider to be for their welfare, then I beg to differ!Delete
If you look deeper into the history, Scargill was backed into a corner by politics...but there you go, you have your opinion...Delete
As you would guess, I don't agree with much of what you wrote. I've not seen any evidence of the need for police action. The unions are making a strike protest. Unions and withdrawal of labour are the only powers workers have and it is very unfortunate that union leaders get above themselves, power wise and money wise at times.ReplyDelete
When matters get so bad between management and workers strike, I see it as very poor management that is paid far more than people who actually do the work on the ground, or in this case in the cab or the platform. Management has failed in its task of managing its workforce well if the workers get to the point of striking.
Rail workers are very well paid in the UK. I don't know what their gripe is; even if they have one. This is a politically driven strike which will end with more unemployment.Delete
It's the right or should be for any employee to decide whether to work or strike.ReplyDelete
It is also the employer's right to pay what he wishes to. If there is a labour shortage then wages rise if a glut wages fall.
What the employer should do is shut them out completely and not allow them to come and go as they please. They can come back when a settlement is agreed.
The railways should be privatised completely or nationalised entirely. This halfway house causes confusion.
Unions can be a good thing if localised, It saves negotiating with dozens of folk and settling with the competent ones and upsetting the borderline useful. It all went wrong with the massive increase of state employees. Like Comprehensive education everything heads for the median and the median gets lower.
I don't know if Unions still exist in Russia, but they always worked FOR their members; never against. They built hospitals, holiday hotels, sports facilities, and other recreational facilities. That's what Unions should be doing everywhere.Delete
What the fuck has Russia to do with it? Have you ever employed anyone that didn't come to fix something you couldn't?Delete
I give up here.
Currently, in the US new Unions are forming to achieve a living wage and benefits for employees. For example, Starbucks and Amazon workers are unionizing slowly and it is driven by employees. I'm all for profitability.ReplyDelete
That said, corporate greed needs to be countered. Let's acknowledge, without employees there would be no corporation. I am invested in Corporate America (as well as internationally) but I do see the value of the worker.
Unions should be there to act on behalf of workers, to defend their rights, and to make sure they all have a good living wage. They should not be there to try to bring down governments. Unions will always be 'left wing', but they shouldn't be overtly so.Delete
When employers are getting away with pay their employees unliveable wages, as happens here in, strikes are a powerful tool. I will not claim to know what the particulars of the rail strike, I will tell you that here, profits usually go to the share holders, not for massive expansion such as the one you describe for google. The trickle down theory is a myth in my country.ReplyDelete
Some of the profits will always go back to the investors, otherwise they wouldn't invest and there'd be no Company. I don't believe in looking for very successful Co's, and taxing the hell out of them. All Co's should pay their fair share of taxes, leaving enough to invest in their futures, and pay something back to the shareholders.Delete
They've seen the erosion in pay that has happened bit by bit in some sectors when you don't take a stand.ReplyDelete
Railway workers are very well paid.Delete
They want to keep it that way.Delete
I disagree entirely with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Any rights or benefits that trade unionists ever achieved were only gained through struggle. It was true then and it's true today.ReplyDelete
And very little good, either to workers or their industries, has ever been achieved through striking. As the hard-working Japanese always say "It wouldn't be in the interest of my company for me to strike". Ask any ex-miner to see if he agrees!Delete
YP, cut out the flannel and just say what you want to say.Delete
It's funny that you are one of the few people using comment moderation on your blog and censoring all comments you receive.Delete
Rachel, reasoning isn't YP's strong point. Maybe it got lost somewhere in the pudding or its glutinous gravy.Delete
YP, you "will defend to the death [anyone's] right to say it"? It? Is that why you deny those who, say, by way of example, Rachel, you don't give the time of day? I call bullshit. Not surprised you are afraid of cows. Like dogs they can smell fear.
Long term grudges are his speciality and he is not familiar with the Sermon on the Mount that's for sure.Delete
I think you are on the dreaded farcebook..so should be able to read this...ReplyDelete
You never get the real background in the papers