Page 3 of 3
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:11 am
by Beany
ZedLeg wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:56 am
Obviously coming from my left wing commie echo chamber but it looks like Mick Lynch had a good day making the press look silly yesterday.
Yeah, I saw a few snippets. He was quite comfortable telling people they were liars, to their face, on national television (and pointing out what they were lying about - sometimes very obvious stuff like when negotiations were ongoing and not, etc) and them pointedly and specifically not refuting that, and instead trying to talk away from the subject.
A Bad Look for the Tory backbenchers wheeled out to go up against him.
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:23 am
by duncs500
Saw the interview with Kay Burnley if that's what everyone is referring to? Wasn't impressed with either of them to be honest.

Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:36 pm
by Sundayjumper
ZedLeg wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:47 pm
Unions are good actually
I accidentally clicked on the start of this thread instead of the end and this post gave me a Student Grant flashback. Actually.

- Grant.jpg (45.62 KiB) Viewed 828 times
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:42 pm
by ZedLeg
Student Grant is right actually
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:54 pm
by Beany
duncs500 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:23 am
Saw the interview with Kay Burnley if that's what everyone is referring to? Wasn't impressed with either of them to be honest.
Literally any interview - most of them were looking for a gotcha soundbite, and he minced them. There's a Twitter thread compilation, let me find it...
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:58 pm
by Beany
Here we go
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:32 pm
by Swervin_Mervin
He's certainly no Len McLuskey

Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:37 pm
by ZedLeg
It really shows up how news presenters try and push people into the answers they want. When someone keeps calm and sticks to the facts they end up looking ridiculous.
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:38 pm
by dinny_g
And he certainly wasn't the person getting flustered...

Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:46 pm
by nuttinnew
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:32 pm
He's certainly no Len McLuskey
Sausage on a fork.
Re: Unions
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:19 pm
by Explosive Newt
I don't see how the railways can guarantee a pay rise and no job losses.
We're going to see this everywhere, if we're really, actually transitioning to a high skill, high pay economy: fewer workers doing more skilled jobs for more money, probably with greater automation. Or: we're not transitioning to such an economy and we persist paying people peanuts to do low skill jobs.
Re: Unions
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:25 pm
by Swervin_Mervin
Explosive Newt wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:19 pm
I don't see how the railways can guarantee a pay rise and no job losses.
We're going to see this everywhere, if we're really, actually transitioning to a high skill, high pay economy: fewer workers doing more skilled jobs for more money, probably with greater automation. Or: we're not transitioning to such an economy and we persist paying people peanuts to do low skill jobs.
It's been going on for hundreds of years. It will happen at some point, which is unfortunate for those workers affected. It's always going to be tricky to resolve. It's not great that they can use the power of strikes to protect those potentially unsustainable positions, but then I can well understand why they would.
Re: Unions
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:54 pm
by mik
Explosive Newt wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:19 pm
I don't see how the railways can guarantee a pay rise and no job losses.
We're going to see this everywhere, if we're really, actually transitioning to a high skill, high pay economy: fewer workers doing more skilled jobs for more money, probably with greater automation. Or: we're not transitioning to such an economy and we persist paying people peanuts to do low skill jobs.
Lots of that. Although I don't think the "paying people peanuts" applies to many of the rail workers based on the salaries I have seen quoted.
Unions absolutely had their place in history, but IMHO that's where they belong now. In addition to employment law, company attitudes have also changed enormously. Companies want a healthy, happy workforce. They are flexible to peoples needs, include the workforce in some decisions (not all of course) and policy making etc etc etc. Look how many of us were highlighting to Beany that his previous employer was a long way from normal benchmark for this day & age.
Unions use "might is right" as a bullying tactic. I remember a friend who worked for a very large manufacturing organisation crowing at the grants they had extracted from the government via union threats, whilst I watched the small manufacturing company I worked for slip further down the tube. No grants or subsidies available for the small guys.
And the very fact that their jobs - as paid union representatives - are
entirely dependent on continued and ongoing tension/conflict between the the workforce and management/leadership is a major concern. If harmonious working is achieved - there is no need for these jobs. So they have a tendency (consciously or subconsciously) to create issues, turn mountains into molehills etc etc. I'm sure at times they correct some actual wrongs, but I suspect these are rather few and far between within the fog of distrust and disruption they perpetuate.
Meh.
Re: Unions
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:56 am
by jamcg
The retail unions are useless. There’s a massive shakeup happening at the supermarket where my wife works, which is going to end up with quite a few redundancies and medical pay offs, but the union is nowhere in site.
The only good use for the unions I’ve ever found is during disciplinary procedures. The amount of people I know who should have been sacked or given final warnings but couldn’t be because their employer hasn’t followed legal procedures is shocking
Re: Unions
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:44 am
by ZedLeg
If you’re in the service industry you’re better to join a general union tbh. The industry specific unions don’t really have enough muscle to push at companies, as you say they’re only really good for making sure that individual rights are protected when companies try and take the piss. Which they do, a lot. Service industry businesses view employees as their most disposable asset and treat them as such.
Re: Unions
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:04 am
by Sundayjumper
jamcg wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:56 am
The only good use for the unions I’ve ever found is during disciplinary procedures. The amount of people I know who should have been sacked or given final warnings but couldn’t be because their employer hasn’t followed legal procedures is shocking
That.
My teacher mate was union rep at his school for a while. He said it mainly consisted of defending people who were totally unsuitable as teachers and who should have been fired years ago.
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 6:27 am
by Gavster
Currently writing an article on food inflation as we're going to see a lot of increases over the next six months.
I've been looking back at lessons to learn from the last time inflation was so high, under the Labour government in the seventies. Soaring fuel prices were also one of the causes and unions were shutting down industry calling for higher wages, which essentially made things even worse for the country. I feel that time in the country's history may have given unions a bad name.
Re: Unions
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:42 am
by ZedLeg
Aye, the winter of discontent and how the Labour government dealt with it definitely helped let Thatcher in. We all know how that worked out for the unions and British industry in general.