Brexit could end 48 hour working week

[muckles]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Oh of course, good god I haven’t come across anything like it from European workers - most are far more ready to be solid than the average British worker.

Don’t remember German car workers striking in support of their Brit counterparts regarding the blacking of transferred Dagenham and Luton production.Or when Brits were striking for equal pay for equal hours as their German counterparts.Also don’t remember foreign miners,transport workers and dockers blacking coal exports that were putting Brit miners out of work and breaking Brit coal strikes.Don’t remember the European unions striking over the removal of the right to strike in the form secondary action laws here.But do remember the Polish union’s thanks for Thatcher’s support in helping them to jump ship from Soviet rule to EU rule.Can’t be bothered to list plenty more examples.

Probably help if the British workers hadn’t stitched their colleagues up when they took industrial action, before blaming foreign workers.
And it comes back to my thing of a global economy with global companies needs a global workers movement that operates across borders instead of pitting national groups of workers against each other.

[carryfast]

muckles:

Carryfast:
Don’t remember German car workers striking in support of their Brit counterparts regarding the blacking of transferred Dagenham and Luton production.Or when Brits were striking for equal pay for equal hours as their German counterparts.Also don’t remember foreign miners,transport workers and dockers blacking coal exports that were putting Brit miners out of work and breaking Brit coal strikes.Don’t remember the European unions striking over the removal of the right to strike in the form secondary action laws here.But do remember the Polish union’s thanks for Thatcher’s support in helping them to jump ship from Soviet rule to EU rule.Can’t be bothered to list plenty more examples.

Probably help if the British workers hadn’t stitched their colleagues up when they took industrial action, before blaming foreign workers.
And it comes back to my thing of a global economy with global companies needs a global workers movement that operates across borders instead of pitting national groups of workers against each other.

Surely banning the closed shop and secondary action ( sympathy strikes ) was a government admission that the Brits were generally doing anything but ‘stitching each other up’.

While the examples shown prove that the idea of cross border union co operation is a deluded dream.Bearing in mind that for any such system to work you’ll also need the cross border right to take secondary action.As I said obviously there’s no wish among European workers to even help to defend that right for Brits.While even if there was such a wish then that co operation isn’t mutually exclusive with seperate nation states.As opposed to the lie that only undemocratic Soviet style Federal control can provide the necessary conditions for that.

[rjan]

muckles:
The Estonian workers were part of a union affiliated to the ITF, therefore were bound by the ITF’s instructions not to negotiate with Viking Lines about reflagging.

I did a bit of research on what happen to the Viking Line and the ship Rosella, it wasn’t reflagged and continues to sail under the Finnish flag, and the shipping line then replaced on that route with a new ship in 2008 and this was reflagged in Estonia in 2014 and is the only Viking Line ship registered on Estonia.
The Viking line seems to be doing quite well operating many ships under both Finnish and Swedish flags.
Apparently it the was the Estonian route losing money after a drop of in passenger numbers, taking advantage of duty free shopping when Estonia joined the EU, however despite not flagging the ship out in the end the route ended up making money despite employing workers on Finnish pay and conditions.

I didn’t accuse the EU judiciary or laws of being fundamentally anti-worker, I said that EU treaties had been used to stop workers taking industrial action.

I’m in agreement with the tenor of everything else you say except around this Viking Line case. I noted (when I originally researched the case) what commentaries said about the effect on industrial action - but I don’t agree with them.

The case turned on whether workers could dictate the EU country in which a business sets up or remains. It turned on that question because that is how the union decided to defend its members. The British court decided it was not a proportionate measure.

To me, the appropriate solution was not to try and prevent the company moving. It was to agree with the Estonian workers that a common wage policy would apply - set at existing Finnish standards, those being the most generous to workers.

The situation would then have ceased to be about where the company is located, merely about the common wage policy that would apply to it wherever it did business.

To me, this case was decided reasonably according to the correct principles - which are not anti-worker but have instead struck a blow against an attempt by a union to enforce national preference axiomatically and favour for workers of a particular nationality (even if well-intentioned, to the extent it was preferring the nation with the better wage standards).

The appropriate solution is to enforce a pay and conditions floor across the entire market, not to try and hoard businesses into a particular nation with particular laws (where not all workers have had democratic representation in the drafting of those laws, and potentially at the expense of workers in other nations). The EU supports collective bargaining, so there is no question that it would treat a market-wide wage floor, voted on by workers of all countries, as unacceptable. If workers are solid, they will have no problem imposing such a policy.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

muckles:

Carryfast:
Don’t remember German car workers striking in support of their Brit counterparts regarding the blacking of transferred Dagenham and Luton production.Or when Brits were striking for equal pay for equal hours as their German counterparts.Also don’t remember foreign miners,transport workers and dockers blacking coal exports that were putting Brit miners out of work and breaking Brit coal strikes.Don’t remember the European unions striking over the removal of the right to strike in the form secondary action laws here.But do remember the Polish union’s thanks for Thatcher’s support in helping them to jump ship from Soviet rule to EU rule.Can’t be bothered to list plenty more examples.

Probably help if the British workers hadn’t stitched their colleagues up when they took industrial action, before blaming foreign workers.
And it comes back to my thing of a global economy with global companies needs a global workers movement that operates across borders instead of pitting national groups of workers against each other.

Surely banning the closed shop and secondary action ( sympathy strikes ) was a government admission that the Brits were generally doing anything but ‘stitching each other up’.

While the examples shown prove that the idea of cross border union co operation is a deluded dream.Bearing in mind that for any such system to work you’ll also need the cross border right to take secondary action.As I said obviously there’s no wish among European workers to even help to defend that right for Brits.While even if there was such a wish then that co operation isn’t mutually exclusive with seperate nation states.As opposed to the lie that only undemocratic Soviet style Federal control can provide the necessary conditions for that.

The Brits themselves elected a Tory government which ended those rights.

However fiddled our democracy is, the fact remains, and must be emphasised, that these anti-worker policies have been endorsed by workers.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
While the examples shown prove that the idea of cross border union co operation is a deluded dream.Bearing in mind that for any such system to work you’ll also need the cross border right to take secondary action.As I said obviously there’s no wish among European workers to even help to defend that right for Brits.While even if there was such a wish then that co operation isn’t mutually exclusive with seperate nation states.As opposed to the lie that only undemocratic Soviet style Federal control can provide the necessary conditions for that.

The Brits themselves elected a Tory government which ended those rights.

However fiddled our democracy is, the fact remains, and must be emphasised, that these anti-worker policies have been endorsed by workers.

Surely in that case the correct course of action is to de indoctrinate the workforce just on the basis of asking them the question how are weak unions and anti union laws good for us ?.As opposed to the failed delusional idea of Europe being one big happy family and using that lie to impose Soviet style government on us which would just make things worse.While also proving that the EU isn’t a benevolent pro working class institution that’s going to rescue the country’s workforce even from itself.

As for the working class electing a Tory government which ended those rights.You seem to have conveniently left out the lead up to all that.In many of us not having voted for Maggie at all.But having stayed at home after Europhile Callaghan’s government stitched us up in favour of German workers and their banker class and closet Communist leadership.

Which sort of says everything about your idea of fixing an internal national problem of a Labour Party which isn’t fit for purpose by sub contracting the whole lot out to a Soviet style dictatorship in the form of the EU which will just make matters worse.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
How can nation states possibly be expansionist when that defeats the whole object of them.You’ve either got the status quo of nation states living in the harmony of friends with fences and respect of each other’s right to self determination and sovereignty and borders.Or you’ve got expansionist Federal dog eat dog anarchy and imposition of foreign rule in others’ countries.

Perhaps you have finally grasped the insight that everyone else grasped in the mid 20th century. Nations don’t inherently have an “object” of tolerating other nations or constraining their own borders.

Using your analogy with families, it is not the perceived purpose of having a family to remain separate from all other families - that would lead to inbreeding and backwardness.

And indeed where the central state is weak, and the family really does become a political entity, such as with mafia extended “families”, we simply observe interminable war as soon as one family comes up against another (assuming that one cannot vanquish the other entirely and permanently, either by destruction or integration, just as the central state seeks to).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
How can nation states possibly be expansionist when that defeats the whole object of them.You’ve either got the status quo of nation states living in the harmony of friends with fences and respect of each other’s right to self determination and sovereignty and borders.Or you’ve got expansionist Federal dog eat dog anarchy and imposition of foreign rule in others’ countries.

Perhaps you have finally grasped the insight that everyone else grasped in the mid 20th century. Nations don’t inherently have an “object” of tolerating other nations or constraining their own borders.

Using your analogy with families, it is not the perceived purpose of having a family to remain separate from all other families - that would lead to inbreeding and backwardness.

And indeed where the central state is weak, and the family really does become a political entity, such as with mafia extended “families”, we simply observe interminable war as soon as one family comes up against another (assuming that one cannot vanquish the other entirely and permanently, either by destruction or integration, just as the central state seeks to).

My ‘insight’ was clearly that the removal of national borders and not recognising the sovereignty and right to self determination of others is by definition a Socialist/Federalist trait not a Nationalist one.While you’re obviously ( deliberately ? ) confusing,the hypocrisy of Socialists/Federalists masquerading as Nationalists when it suits them,with true Nationalist ideals in that regard.Which is why we went to war with Germany to protect the Nation State status of Poland ( among others ) against the Socialist/Federal takeover of Europe aims of Hitler’s rabble.

As for the families analogy.It’s clear that the the idea of the nuclear insular family ( monogamy ) isn’t mutually exclusive with maintaining the gene pool.While in the real world the logical conclusion of your idea just means a few dominant males ( Politburo/Top Nazis/German bankers and EU commissioners ) taking all the women ( Europe’s nation states ) creating loads of half siblings resulting in a load of inbred freaks ( Facists/Bolsheviks/EUSSR supporting brainwashed drones ).

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
How can nation states possibly be expansionist when that defeats the whole object of them.You’ve either got the status quo of nation states living in the harmony of friends with fences and respect of each other’s right to self determination and sovereignty and borders.Or you’ve got expansionist Federal dog eat dog anarchy and imposition of foreign rule in others’ countries.

Perhaps you have finally grasped the insight that everyone else grasped in the mid 20th century. Nations don’t inherently have an “object” of tolerating other nations or constraining their own borders.

Using your analogy with families, it is not the perceived purpose of having a family to remain separate from all other families - that would lead to inbreeding and backwardness.

And indeed where the central state is weak, and the family really does become a political entity, such as with mafia extended “families”, we simply observe interminable war as soon as one family comes up against another (assuming that one cannot vanquish the other entirely and permanently, either by destruction or integration, just as the central state seeks to).

My ‘insight’ was clearly that the removal of national borders and not recognising the sovereignty and right to self determination of others is by definition a Socialist/Federalist trait not a Nationalist one.While you’re obviously ( deliberately ? ) confusing,the hypocrisy of Socialists/Federalists masquerading as Nationalists when it suits them,with true Nationalist ideals in that regard.Which is why we went to war with Germany to protect the Nation State status of Poland ( among others ) against the Socialist/Federal takeover of Europe aims of Hitler’s rabble.

But you can’t be self-determining, if you’re expecting to do global trade (for example, to gain access to the natural resources that other nations control), or just live generally in a manner that impinges on the wider world.

I can be king of my castle within the confines of my own home, but if I turn the stereo up to 11, it stops being just my problem - neighbours have a stake in the setting of my stereo volume, and the amount of noise they are subjected to in consequence. A stream may pass across my land, but if I contaminate it, or draw more than my fair share of water, my downstream neighbours end up having a stake in what I do in relation to the stream.

I may be an utter tyrant in my family, ruling with a rod of iron, but if I rule so poorly that my family flees and becomes a problem for others (including both a problem for their consciences, and a problem for whether they have to physically recapture those fleeing and return them to me, inkeeping with and supporting the policy of mutual isolation), or if my kids are raised so violently or irresponsibly that they stop respecting the boundaries of neighbouring properties and instead become roaming predators, my neighbours end up with a stake in my behaviour.

Your policy of national isolation fails to grasp how often political questions arise that are fundamentally questions for neighbours also. So little that actually matters in life is local or individual. Truly parochial concerns in the modern day, like how many rat-catchers and pest control staff the local council hires, or how big the Christmas tree in the local square should be, are often left to be fully self-determined by a local community.

Also, today’s national boundaries are the product of yesterday’s conquests and political carve-ups. That being the case, there is never (except by continued mutual agreement) a policy reason why a further conquest should not change them. Mafias engage in turf wars all the time, not just because the borders of their turf are potentially ambiguous, but simply because they were only set at the conclusion of a previous war according to relative strengths and interests at the time, and the question of where the border should be can be re-opened at any time by either side declaring war. Political unification solves the problem by eliminating the border, so that there is nothing to fight over, no geographic line on which your interests depend on being on the right side of it.

As for the families analogy.It’s clear that the the idea of the nuclear insular family ( monogamy ) isn’t mutually exclusive with maintaining the gene pool.While in the real world the logical conclusion of your idea just means a few dominant males ( Politburo/Top Nazis/German bankers and EU commissioners ) taking all the women ( Europe’s nation states ) creating loads of half siblings resulting in a load of inbred freaks ( Facists/Bolsheviks/EUSSR supporting brainwashed drones ).

I didn’t say anything about monogamy. A political family need not consist of two people - that’s why I used the analogy of the mafia.

A nuclear family is a prime example of something that is most certainly not insular - since the adult partners originate from separate families, and the children will not be expected to breed amongst themselves but to find partners from outside the nuclear family. The adults of the family work outside of the home, not on their domestic premises.

In the wild humans do not naturally live as self-determining nuclear families, Flintstones-like - in fact, the very notion of it is modern and coincides with the development of the central state, and one its intended functions is social control - another is to create better mobility of labour, by unbinding workers from the communities in which they live.

The ideology of the nuclear family is not to create families that actually are insular in lifestyle. It is to encourage patterns of thought and moral reasoning in which one’s main moral rights and obligations arise in the context of the nuclear family (and not elsewhere, such as in the workplace, the neighbourhood, or the civic square), and to encourage standard patterns of daily life and loyalty amongst the populace that are amenable to inspection and oversight (and leverage) by the state apparatus.

The notion of people freely choosing their own partners with which to form a family unit is an even more modern development - permissible because of the presence of the central state, and the unbundling of the political arena from family life (it is rarely the case nowadays, even at the highest level of royalty, let alone the ordinary person, that one’s choice of partner has a decisive impact on political events or one’s political power).

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But you can’t be self-determining, if you’re expecting to do global trade (for example, to gain access to the natural resources that other nations control), or just live generally in a manner that impinges on the wider world.

I can be king of my castle within the confines of my own home, but if I turn the stereo up to 11, it stops being just my problem - neighbours have a stake in the setting of my stereo volume, and the amount of noise they are subjected to in consequence. A stream may pass across my land, but if I contaminate it, or draw more than my fair share of water, my downstream neighbours end up having a stake in what I do in relation to the stream.

I may be an utter tyrant in my family, ruling with a rod of iron, but if I rule so poorly that my family flees and becomes a problem for others (including both a problem for their consciences, and a problem for whether they have to physically recapture those fleeing and return them to me, inkeeping with and supporting the policy of mutual isolation), or if my kids are raised so violently or irresponsibly that they stop respecting the boundaries of neighbouring properties and instead become roaming predators, my neighbours end up with a stake in my behaviour.

Your policy of national isolation fails to grasp how often political questions arise that are fundamentally questions for neighbours also. So little that actually matters in life is local or individual. Truly parochial concerns in the modern day, like how many rat-catchers and pest control staff the local council hires, or how big the Christmas tree in the local square should be, are often left to be fully self-determined by a local community.

Also, today’s national boundaries are the product of yesterday’s conquests and political carve-ups. That being the case, there is never (except by continued mutual agreement) a policy reason why a further conquest should not change them. Mafias engage in turf wars all the time, not just because the borders of their turf are potentially ambiguous, but simply because they were only set at the conclusion of a previous war according to relative strengths and interests at the time, and the question of where the border should be can be re-opened at any time by either side declaring war. Political unification solves the problem by eliminating the border, so that there is nothing to fight over, no geographic line on which your interests depend on being on the right side of it.

As for the families analogy.It’s clear that the the idea of the nuclear insular family ( monogamy ) isn’t mutually exclusive with maintaining the gene pool.While in the real world the logical conclusion of your idea just means a few dominant males ( Politburo/Top Nazis/German bankers and EU commissioners ) taking all the women ( Europe’s nation states ) creating loads of half siblings resulting in a load of inbred freaks ( Facists/Bolsheviks/EUSSR supporting brainwashed drones ).

I didn’t say anything about monogamy. A political family need not consist of two people - that’s why I used the analogy of the mafia.

A nuclear family is a prime example of something that is most certainly not insular - since the adult partners originate from separate families, and the children will not be expected to breed amongst themselves but to find partners from outside the nuclear family. The adults of the family work outside of the home, not on their domestic premises.

In the wild humans do not naturally live as self-determining nuclear families, Flintstones-like - in fact, the very notion of it is modern and coincides with the development of the central state, and one its intended functions is social control - another is to create better mobility of labour, by unbinding workers from the communities in which they live.

The ideology of the nuclear family is not to create families that actually are insular in lifestyle. It is to encourage patterns of thought and moral reasoning in which one’s main moral rights and obligations arise in the context of the nuclear family (and not elsewhere, such as in the workplace, the neighbourhood, or the civic square), and to encourage standard patterns of daily life and loyalty amongst the populace that are amenable to inspection and oversight (and leverage) by the state apparatus.

The notion of people freely choosing their own partners with which to form a family unit is an even more modern development - permissible because of the presence of the central state, and the unbundling of the political arena from family life (it is rarely the case nowadays, even at the highest level of royalty, let alone the ordinary person, that one’s choice of partner has a decisive impact on political events or one’s political power).

Let’s just say that ideological wars have rightly been fought to stop those with your obvious ideas on Stalinist world takeover and rule.In which like Kahn’s London fiefdom world government is fine when it follows your rules and the perception of what you want but self determination is suddenly good when it doesn’t.

Hopefully this country will wake up to the threat it faces under Corbyn and his fanatical Bolshevik rabble.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:
I didn’t accuse the EU judiciary or laws of being fundamentally anti-worker, I said that EU treaties had been used to stop workers taking industrial action.

I’m in agreement with the tenor of everything else you say except around this Viking Line case. I noted (when I originally researched the case) what commentaries said about the effect on industrial action - but I don’t agree with them.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I’ll stick with the opinion of those whose job involved scrutiny of employment laws and industrial relations.

Rjan:
To me, the appropriate solution was not to try and prevent the company moving. It was to agree with the Estonian workers that a common wage policy would apply - set at existing Finnish standards, those being the most generous to workers.

The reason for Viking Line wanting to reflag the vessel to Estonia was to reduce wage costs, so why would they negotiate a deal where they had to pay the same rate as on a Finnish registered vessel?

Rjan:
To me, this case was decided reasonably according to the correct principles - which are not anti-worker but have instead struck a blow against an attempt by a union to enforce national preference axiomatically and favour for workers of a particular nationality (even if well-intentioned, to the extent it was preferring the nation with the better wage standards).

There was and is nothing to stop the Viking Line employing Estonian workers, on a Finnish registered vessel, at Finnish pay and conditions, so how were the Finnish union and ITF insisting on the vessel remaining under the Finnish flag detrimental to Estonian workers?

I would say that if the Viking Line had been able to get a deal with the Estonian unions to flag the vessel out, then that would have that favoured the workers of their country over those in Finland, as although the Finnish sailors could have worked on the ship under Estonian pay and conditions, it would have been economically restrictive for them to do so, but it would be economically advantages for the Estonian workers to work on a Finnish registered vessel.

Rjan:
The appropriate solution is to enforce a pay and conditions floor across the entire market,

But are any of the main players in the EU seriously pushing this as a policy and considering the protests made to the EU by various East European countries over Germany and France imposition of their countries minimum wage on foreign drivers delivering and undertaking cabotage work with their countries, I doubt it will happen soon.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Let’s just say that ideological wars have rightly been fought to stop those with your obvious ideas on Stalinist world takeover and rule.In which like Kahn’s London fiefdom world government is fine when it follows your rules and the perception of what you want but self determination is suddenly good when it doesn’t.

Hopefully this country will wake up to the threat it faces under Corbyn and his fanatical Bolshevik rabble.

I don’t have any Stalinist views. I’m not even advocating anything, I’m simply delivering devastating blows against the underpinnings of your views - the main faulty one of which, is this idea that most important political and economic questions only concern a single nation, and therefore nations should be left to determine their political policy according to their national electorate.

You’re expressing (in respect of international politics) just the same notion as that, in your house, you’re the person (and the only person in your neighbourhood) that determines the volume setting of the stereo. It’s entirely a matter for your self-determination, you say. The reality is, the more extremely you pursue that policy, the sooner your neighbours will intervene. And it doesn’t matter how big you are, or how well armed you are, because there is always going to be someone else in the neighbourhood who is equally large and well armed, equally as determined to enforce their own interests and the sanctity of their own property as their sole purpose in life, and is determined to defend their right to a peaceful night’s sleep free of noise pollution generated at your property.

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
I didn’t accuse the EU judiciary or laws of being fundamentally anti-worker, I said that EU treaties had been used to stop workers taking industrial action.

I’m in agreement with the tenor of everything else you say except around this Viking Line case. I noted (when I originally researched the case) what commentaries said about the effect on industrial action - but I don’t agree with them.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I’ll stick with the opinion of those whose job involved scrutiny of employment laws and industrial relations.

Just because their job involves employment laws and industrial relations, does not mean their job involves international relations or statecraft, or even that they are socialists. There are plenty of business experts in the CBI - do we believe them when they say every increase in wages is a nail in the coffin for jobs, because it’s their job to be involved in business?

The case was a blow against the ability of unions to unilaterally determine the location of businesses within the EU, no doubt about that. My point is that this is not a loss for the workers of the EU, since the right of Estonians to bargain for Finnish pay has not been eroded or injuncted against - nor has their right to elect a national government that mandates Finnish pay. The bosses have not secured the right to undercut pay, immune to collective action, since the Estonian workers need not accept any less wages than the Finnish workers currently are. There’s nothing even to stop the Finnish union organising them I wouldn’t have thought, if that’s what the Estonian workers are minded to do.

My point is, there is nothing legally amiss here which makes the EU particularly anti-worker. The capitalist system is of course anti-worker fundamentally, but I’m only arguing for the comparative advantages of the EU against nationalist myths. The fact is, workers in England would not be permitted to strike against a business setting up in Scotland - the state would act against it, not necessarily because it is otherwise anti-worker, but because it creates a threat to the political integrity of the whole once you have the citizens of separate regions fighting against each other for their regional interests and not the national interest (which would probably be unaffected by the move of a business from England to Scotland).

The EU, by marrying nations which currently have disparate living standards has somewhat created that problem for itself, but that will tend to equalise out over time (and could, if it so chose, implement transitional arrangements). But allowing workers to organise against the principle of integrity will not equalise out - it will grow and solidify the more it is rehearsed, and that’s why there is a law against it (regardless of whether there should be other laws in place, such as those which accelerate the equalisation of living standards, or wage councils that set minimum wages at the EU level, or redundancy pay that compensates workers amply when existing jobs move away, or even laws which allow the EU populace to collectively vote on where businesses are geographically established).

I can accept that the EU should have other laws which it doesn’t currently. Again though, speaking comparatively, they are only laws that individual national members don’t have at the national level - for example, Britain does not enshrine a national right for union members to determine the location of business activity, for example to permit English workers to strike against the establishment of any Scottish subsidiary, or to permit London workers to strike against the establishment of a Birmingham subsidiary. No sensible union would even attempt it in principle, because most unions are national, and they know what effect it would have on the solidarity on which they depend.

Rjan:
To me, the appropriate solution was not to try and prevent the company moving. It was to agree with the Estonian workers that a common wage policy would apply - set at existing Finnish standards, those being the most generous to workers.

The reason for Viking Line wanting to reflag the vessel to Estonia was to reduce wage costs, so why would they negotiate a deal where they had to pay the same rate as on a Finnish registered vessel?

That’s the question I asked you, but you assured me that the Estonian workers were on board (ha!) with the policy of maintaining Finnish levels of wages. Therefore, the answer to the question of why they would bargain for Finnish wages, is because they were on board from the outset with the policy of maintaining Finnish levels of wages.

Rjan:
To me, this case was decided reasonably according to the correct principles - which are not anti-worker but have instead struck a blow against an attempt by a union to enforce national preference axiomatically and favour for workers of a particular nationality (even if well-intentioned, to the extent it was preferring the nation with the better wage standards).

There was and is nothing to stop the Viking Line employing Estonian workers, on a Finnish registered vessel, at Finnish pay and conditions, so how were the Finnish union and ITF insisting on the vessel remaining under the Finnish flag detrimental to Estonian workers?

Because it hasn’t given the Estonian workers a democratic say in what those pay and conditions should be. If the Estonian working class supported them, there was nothing stopping them from bargaining for them - the Estonian unions could even have issued a direct threat against the company, that any Finnish ship relocating there would be paying Finnish wages.

I would say that if the Viking Line had been able to get a deal with the Estonian unions to flag the vessel out, then that would have that favoured the workers of their country over those in Finland, as although the Finnish sailors could have worked on the ship under Estonian pay and conditions, it would have been economically restrictive for them to do so, but it would be economically advantages for the Estonian workers to work on a Finnish registered vessel.

The problem is that what you call “economically restrictive” means “working for the same rate that other workers are actually working for”.

We’ve had this problem with unionisation in Britain, where you get one set of workers saying that the workers in the company down the road don’t deserve the same for the same work (like the miners did with productivity pay, for example), or you get older workers saying that they’re entitled to better pay and conditions than younger workers (not because of a salary scale, but because existing workers had at some point struck a deal with bosses to permanently disfavour new intakes). The result in the end is that the high-wage subgroup, by renouncing solidarity and insisting on their own privilege, eventually lose all bargaining power - divide and rule.

Rjan:
The appropriate solution is to enforce a pay and conditions floor across the entire market,

But are any of the main players in the EU seriously pushing this as a policy and considering the protests made to the EU by various East European countries over Germany and France imposition of their countries minimum wage on foreign drivers delivering and undertaking cabotage work with their countries, I doubt it will happen soon.

But the other side of the coin is that Eastern Europe already is haemorrhaging many of it’s best and most educated workers into Germany and France (and Britain) in order to access their better wages - and Eastern Europe can’t stop that because of the fundamental freedoms. It’s a big mess I agree, but it’s not fair to cast the Eastern European countries as being the only ones who are getting anything out of it. The ones who are getting the most out of it everywhere are the bosses, not because of political unification but because of free markets.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Let’s just say that ideological wars have rightly been fought to stop those with your obvious ideas on Stalinist world takeover and rule.In which like Kahn’s London fiefdom world government is fine when it follows your rules and the perception of what you want but self determination is suddenly good when it doesn’t.

Hopefully this country will wake up to the threat it faces under Corbyn and his fanatical Bolshevik rabble.

I don’t have any Stalinist views. I’m not even advocating anything, I’m simply delivering devastating blows against the underpinnings of your views - the main faulty one of which, is this idea that most important political and economic questions only concern a single nation, and therefore nations should be left to determine their political policy according to their national electorate.

You’re expressing (in respect of international politics) just the same notion as that, in your house, you’re the person (and the only person in your neighbourhood) that determines the volume setting of the stereo. It’s entirely a matter for your self-determination, you say. The reality is, the more extremely you pursue that policy, the sooner your neighbours will intervene. And it doesn’t matter how big you are, or how well armed you are, because there is always going to be someone else in the neighbourhood who is equally large and well armed, equally as determined to enforce their own interests and the sanctity of their own property as their sole purpose in life, and is determined to defend their right to a peaceful night’s sleep free of noise pollution generated at your property.

Oh wait now you’re advocating invading someone’s property and attacking them on the pre text of a supposed dispute about noise.Isn’t that what Hitler did in the Sudentenland and the Soviet Union tried in Cuba against the US and against Europe and failed spectacularly.When we all stood together to maintain our freedom and right of self determination against Socialist ■■■■■■■■■■.

In which case supposing it’s the type of neighbourhood where the majority of ‘them’ actually like to play loud music while you like a quiet peaceful existence.So you decide to move to a detached house in the country with decent neighbours where you can listen to music of choice without bothering each other.Or for that matter you decide to move to a decent area where the idea of friends with fences isn’t mutually exclusive with all being considerate neighbours.While that idea of friends with fences obviously doesn’t mean telling each other that they can’t play any music in their own houses at all,or drive their car of choice and park it in their own garage or on their own driveway.Or have sole use of their own gardens and property.While if the neighbours like to visit they do so on the basis of being welcomed and invited and leave in a considerate manner at a considerate time not needing to be asked or told that they’ve over stayed their welcome.

Not take down the neighbour’s fence and/or kick down the front door saying that they have as much right to enter and use each other’s gardens and houses and tell their neighbours how to live whenever and as they feel like it.

Why is it that EU supporters like Kahn are happy to rely on the idea of self determination and local democracy when it suits them.To get what they want in the form of the contradiction of a Federal Europe and by your logic that just being a step towards one world dictatorship.

While it’s ironic that you make the big song and dance about one world Socialism being the only way to live in peaceful co existence with your neighbours and to guarantee access to raw materials.While China suppresses the legitimate right to self determination and national sovereignty of Tibet on the bs grounds that removal of Tibet’s national border and sovereignty is supposedly ‘mutually beneficial’ for both.While still having no problem with plundering the world’s resources.All in the name of stinking Socialism just like Hitler and Stalin and obviously Corbyn’s Bolshevik mob.

IE your whole bs position is based on a one world dictatorship so long as it’s in line with your personal view point.That viewpoint all being from one angle based on a single world ■■■■■■■■■■ agenda while ignoring all the others that don’t fit your obvious script.No surprise that true to form your argument turned to a typical invasive aggressive stance on the basis that if someone doesn’t agree with you you’ll just invade their property by force and impose your rules on them.As I said dangerous nutters just as I always knew since turning my back on the so called ‘Labour Party’ and it’s Bolshevik tendency long ago.

[muckles]

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:

muckles:
I didn’t accuse the EU judiciary or laws of being fundamentally anti-worker, I said that EU treaties had been used to stop workers taking industrial action.

I’m in agreement with the tenor of everything else you say except around this Viking Line case. I noted (when I originally researched the case) what commentaries said about the effect on industrial action - but I don’t agree with them.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I’ll stick with the opinion of those whose job involved scrutiny of employment laws and industrial relations.

Just because their job involves employment laws and industrial relations, does not mean their job involves international relations or statecraft, or even that they are socialists. There are plenty of business experts in the CBI - do we believe them when they say every increase in wages is a nail in the coffin for jobs, because it’s their job to be involved in business?

But this isn’t one side saying it restricts union power and give companies more tools to fight industrial action, it’s the management side and trades union side and the European parliament, who I assume know a bit about International Relations and statecraft, have a consensus of opinion.

Rjan:
The case was a blow against the ability of unions to unilaterally determine the location of businesses within the EU, no doubt about that. My point is that this is not a loss for the workers of the EU, since the right of Estonians to bargain for Finnish pay has not been eroded or injuncted against.

And there was nothing to stop Viking Lines Employing Estonian workers at Finnish level of pay without relocating, when their ship was based in Finland.
Their reason for wanting to relocate was to reduce their wage cost by getting rid of their Finnish workers and replacing them with cheaper Estonian workers.

Rjan:
My point is, there is nothing legally amiss here which makes the EU particularly anti-worker. The fact is, workers in England would not be permitted to strike against a business setting up in Scotland

I have kept saying that the EU isn’t fundimentally anti union.

It’s appears to be perfectly legal to strike to stop relocation within the UK and Unions do take action against it all the way up to strike action. Britvic workers in Norwich have been trying to stop production moving to London, but failed in the end. Others have voted for strike action to stop it.

insurancetimes.co.uk/unite- … 42.article

morningstaronline.co.uk/a-4c … relocation

lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/n … 2-workers/

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
To me, the appropriate solution was not to try and prevent the company moving. It was to agree with the Estonian workers that a common wage policy would apply - set at existing Finnish standards, those being the most generous to workers.

The reason for Viking Line wanting to reflag the vessel to Estonia was to reduce wage costs, so why would they negotiate a deal where they had to pay the same rate as on a Finnish registered vessel?

That’s the question I asked you, but you assured me that the Estonian workers were on board (ha!) with the policy of maintaining Finnish levels of wages?

I said that the Estonian Union had agreed not to talk to the Viking Line, after a request from the ITF on behalf of the FSU.

The Estonian seaman’s Union is affiliated to the ITF, as is the FSU, when the dispute started the ITF asked the Estonian union not to negotiate with the Viking Line,
Now I suppose the Estonian Unions could have gone against the request, but the power of workers is nothing without solidarity and it’s no good having an International workers organisation if those unions affiliated to it don’t show solidarity with it’s other members regardless of national bounderies.
If the dispute hadn’t involved the Estonian Unions, then the Viking Line wouldn’t have had to take out the injunction against the ITF and the case wouldn’t have eventually made it to the ECJ.

As it is it seems the Estonian Unions solidarity was paid back by a show of solidarity from the FSU in supporting the Estonian Seaman’s Union pay demand.

itfseafarers.org/maritime_ne … /0/order/1

The settlement follows a one-hour long warning strike on 4 August when five ferries were stopped in Estonia’s capital Tallinn, as well as in ports in Helsinki, Finland, and Stockholm, Sweden, where Finnish and Swedish unions organised solidarity action.

Rjan:

muckles:
Although the Finnish sailors could have worked on the ship under Estonian pay and conditions, it would have been economically restrictive for them to do so, but it would be economically advantages for the Estonian workers to work on a Finnish registered vessel.

The problem is that what you call “economically restrictive” means “working for the same rate that other workers are actually working for”.

So are you advocating that the Finnish sailors should have taken a reduction in pay, to Estonian levels?

Rjan:

muckles:

Rjan:
The appropriate solution is to enforce a pay and conditions floor across the entire market,

But are any of the main players in the EU seriously pushing this as a policy and considering the protests made to the EU by various East European countries over Germany and France imposition of their countries minimum wage on foreign drivers.

But the other side of the coin is that Eastern Europe already is haemorrhaging many of it’s best and most educated workers in order to access their better wages - and Eastern Europe can’t stop that because of the fundamental freedoms. It’s a big mess I agree, but it’s not fair to cast the Eastern European countries as being the only ones who are getting anything out of it. The ones who are getting the most out of it everywhere are the bosses, not because of political unification but because of free markets.

You are reading stuff into my posts that isn’t there, I never said East European workers are the only ones benefiting. The point is the EU has no plans to introduce an EU wide minimum wage.

Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

[carryfast]

muckles:
Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

It’s clear that Rjan can’t/won’t answer the question if he isn’t basically following the Chinese Dengist line then what is it he’s standing for.

As for the seamens dispute it’s equally clear that if the EU supposedly works the way that Rjan says it does then the ECJ’s judgement would obviously have gone along the lines that the interests of the ITF are more in line with EU policies regarding workers’ rights and outweigh the idea of national boundaries between EU states.

IE it’s clear that Rjan and the EU are following the Dengist Chinese line of dictatorial centralised government together with free markets policies when it suits them.As it stands everything points to the West being zb scared of China and following the Chinese line which just makes the Chinese government and its military stronger.While true to form Rjan’s argument seems to be one of comply with what China wants in the form of Dengist Marxism or their Bolshevik allies here will kick off.While the employers don’t care so long as they get a good kick back from the proceeds of this alliance of corrupt Capitalism and devious Communism.

[muckles]

Carryfast:

muckles:
Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

It’s clear that Rjan can’t/won’t answer the question if he isn’t basically following the Chinese Dengist line then what is it he’s standing for.

As for the seamens dispute it’s equally clear that if the EU supposedly works the way that Rjan says it does then the ECJ’s judgement would obviously have gone along the lines that the interests of the ITF are more in line with EU policies regarding workers’ rights and outweigh the idea of national boundaries between EU states.

IE it’s clear that Rjan and the EU are following the Dengist Chinese line of dictatorial centralised government together with free markets policies when it suits them.As it stands everything points to the West being zb scared of China and following the Chinese line which just makes the Chinese government and its military stronger.While true to form Rjan’s argument seems to be one of comply with what China wants in the form of Dengist Marxism or their Bolshevik allies here will kick off.While the employers don’t care so long as they get a good kick back from the proceeds of this alliance of corrupt Capitalism and devious Communism.

The EU is now a Dengist Chinese system? Earlier you likened it to a Soviet system, then a Fascist system, a socialist federal system, a dictatorship and even managed to get anarchy into a post. Do you have some random political name system generator and you just pick whatever comes up?

[carryfast]

muckles:

Carryfast:

muckles:
Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

It’s clear that Rjan can’t/won’t answer the question if he isn’t basically following the Chinese Dengist line then what is it he’s standing for.

As for the seamens dispute it’s equally clear that if the EU supposedly works the way that Rjan says it does then the ECJ’s judgement would obviously have gone along the lines that the interests of the ITF are more in line with EU policies regarding workers’ rights and outweigh the idea of national boundaries between EU states.

IE it’s clear that Rjan and the EU are following the Dengist Chinese line of dictatorial centralised government together with free markets policies when it suits them.As it stands everything points to the West being zb scared of China and following the Chinese line which just makes the Chinese government and its military stronger.While true to form Rjan’s argument seems to be one of comply with what China wants in the form of Dengist Marxism or their Bolshevik allies here will kick off.While the employers don’t care so long as they get a good kick back from the proceeds of this alliance of corrupt Capitalism and devious Communism.

The EU is now a Dengist Chinese system? Earlier you likened it to a Soviet system, then a Fascist system, a socialist federal system, a dictatorship and even managed to get anarchy into a post. Do you have some random political name system generator and you just pick whatever comes up?

No Dengism clearly combines Marxist expansionism with free market principles to get the money in to spend on the Chinese military for obvious aims IE the cat to catch the mice.It’s equally clear that the EU is also dedicated to expansionist centralised government with just the illusion of democracy also combined with free market principles.IE as close as makes no difference to the aims of the Chinese model.Possibly even acting as a Chinese puppet because they are too scared to face the reality of telling China and its stinking exploitative expansionist system to do one.

‘‘Global governance’’.Isn’t that what Rjan is calling for.

thediplomat.com/2017/08/a-new-g … nd-the-eu/

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Let’s just say that ideological wars have rightly been fought to stop those with your obvious ideas on Stalinist world takeover and rule.In which like Kahn’s London fiefdom world government is fine when it follows your rules and the perception of what you want but self determination is suddenly good when it doesn’t.

Hopefully this country will wake up to the threat it faces under Corbyn and his fanatical Bolshevik rabble.

I don’t have any Stalinist views. I’m not even advocating anything, I’m simply delivering devastating blows against the underpinnings of your views - the main faulty one of which, is this idea that most important political and economic questions only concern a single nation, and therefore nations should be left to determine their political policy according to their national electorate.

You’re expressing (in respect of international politics) just the same notion as that, in your house, you’re the person (and the only person in your neighbourhood) that determines the volume setting of the stereo. It’s entirely a matter for your self-determination, you say. The reality is, the more extremely you pursue that policy, the sooner your neighbours will intervene. And it doesn’t matter how big you are, or how well armed you are, because there is always going to be someone else in the neighbourhood who is equally large and well armed, equally as determined to enforce their own interests and the sanctity of their own property as their sole purpose in life, and is determined to defend their right to a peaceful night’s sleep free of noise pollution generated at your property.

Oh wait now you’re advocating invading someone’s property and attacking them on the pre text of a supposed dispute about noise.Isn’t that what Hitler did in the Sudentenland and the Soviet Union tried in Cuba against the US and against Europe and failed spectacularly.When we all stood together to maintain our freedom and right of self determination against Socialist ■■■■■■■■■■.

I’m not advocating invasion. I’m saying that by blasting music out into the wider neighbourhood, you already have invaded other people’s properties and trammelled their interests. And bear in mind, because other people are self-determining sovereigns, it is entirely up to them to determine what those interests are, and what amounts to an infringement of them.

In which case supposing it’s the type of neighbourhood where the majority of ‘them’ actually like to play loud music while you like a quiet peaceful existence.So you decide to move to a detached house in the country with decent neighbours where you can listen to music of choice without bothering each other.

How can you practicably move a nation, without also redrawing your borders and somebody else’s? And who determines who is the person to move when two neighbours don’t get along?

Why should I leave the ground where my relatives are buried, where my house is decorated to my taste, where I like the majority of my neighbours, where I’ve invested hard time and effort into my soil and workshops, where I’ve become accustomed to the landscape view that generations of my household have looked out upon?

Not take down the neighbour’s fence and/or kick down the front door saying that they have as much right to enter and use each other’s gardens and houses and tell their neighbours how to live whenever and as they feel like it.

You don’t seem to recognise the contradiction in your own argument. I’m the sovereign here. I say what goes. My family and I have a democratic decision-making process, and if the outcome of that process is that your noisiness which intrudes onto my property is unacceptable, then you will turn it down because we say so. And our sovereignty over our conditions on our property will be enforced.

There is no previous treaty between us which says that your noise is not a kind of intrusion that is equivalent to you personally intruding - and even if we had signed a previous treaty, I’m sovereign to renegotiate it as I go along, because as a sovereign I cannot be bound except by my own continued will, and I’m not willing to bind myself to anything that is against my interests (as determined by me alone).

Why is it that EU supporters like Kahn are happy to rely on the idea of self determination and local democracy when it suits them.To get what they want in the form of the contradiction of a Federal Europe and by your logic that just being a step towards one world dictatorship.

While it’s ironic that you make the big song and dance about one world Socialism being the only way to live in peaceful co existence with your neighbours and to guarantee access to raw materials.While China suppresses the legitimate right to self determination and national sovereignty of Tibet on the bs grounds that removal of Tibet’s national border and sovereignty is supposedly ‘mutually beneficial’ for both.While still having no problem with plundering the world’s resources.All in the name of stinking Socialism just like Hitler and Stalin and obviously Corbyn’s Bolshevik mob.

IE your whole bs position is based on a one world dictatorship so long as it’s in line with your personal view point.That viewpoint all being from one angle based on a single world ■■■■■■■■■■ agenda while ignoring all the others that don’t fit your obvious script.No surprise that true to form your argument turned to a typical invasive aggressive stance on the basis that if someone doesn’t agree with you you’ll just invade their property by force and impose your rules on them.As I said dangerous nutters just as I always knew since turning my back on the so called ‘Labour Party’ and it’s Bolshevik tendency long ago.

It’s like I say, I’m not arguing for dictatorship. Political unity is not about ceding your own right to influence decisions. It is recognising that other people have as much right, and ultimately as much power, to influence those decisions as you do.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Oh wait now you’re advocating invading someone’s property and attacking them on the pre text of a supposed dispute about noise.Isn’t that what Hitler did in the Sudentenland and the Soviet Union tried in Cuba against the US and against Europe and failed spectacularly.When we all stood together to maintain our freedom and right of self determination against Socialist ■■■■■■■■■■.

I’m not advocating invasion. I’m saying that by blasting music out into the wider neighbourhood, you already have invaded other people’s properties and trammelled their interests. And bear in mind, because other people are self-determining sovereigns, it is entirely up to them to determine what those interests are, and what amounts to an infringement of them.

In which case supposing it’s the type of neighbourhood where the majority of ‘them’ actually like to play loud music while you like a quiet peaceful existence.So you decide to move to a detached house in the country with decent neighbours where you can listen to music of choice without bothering each other.

How can you practicably move a nation, without also redrawing your borders and somebody else’s? And who determines who is the person to move when two neighbours don’t get along?

Why should I leave the ground where my relatives are buried, where my house is decorated to my taste, where I like the majority of my neighbours, where I’ve invested hard time and effort into my soil and workshops, where I’ve become accustomed to the landscape view that generations of my household have looked out upon?

Not take down the neighbour’s fence and/or kick down the front door saying that they have as much right to enter and use each other’s gardens and houses and tell their neighbours how to live whenever and as they feel like it.

You don’t seem to recognise the contradiction in your own argument. I’m the sovereign here. I say what goes. My family and I have a democratic decision-making process, and if the outcome of that process is that your noisiness which intrudes onto my property is unacceptable, then you will turn it down because we say so. And our sovereignty over our conditions on our property will be enforced.

There is no previous treaty between us which says that your noise is not a kind of intrusion that is equivalent to you personally intruding - and even if we had signed a previous treaty, I’m sovereign to renegotiate it as I go along, because as a sovereign I cannot be bound except by my own continued will, and I’m not willing to bind myself to anything that is against my interests (as determined by me alone).

Why is it that EU supporters like Kahn are happy to rely on the idea of self determination and local democracy when it suits them.To get what they want in the form of the contradiction of a Federal Europe and by your logic that just being a step towards one world dictatorship.

While it’s ironic that you make the big song and dance about one world Socialism being the only way to live in peaceful co existence with your neighbours and to guarantee access to raw materials.While China suppresses the legitimate right to self determination and national sovereignty of Tibet on the bs grounds that removal of Tibet’s national border and sovereignty is supposedly ‘mutually beneficial’ for both.While still having no problem with plundering the world’s resources.All in the name of stinking Socialism just like Hitler and Stalin and obviously Corbyn’s Bolshevik mob.

IE your whole bs position is based on a one world dictatorship so long as it’s in line with your personal view point.That viewpoint all being from one angle based on a single world ■■■■■■■■■■ agenda while ignoring all the others that don’t fit your obvious script.No surprise that true to form your argument turned to a typical invasive aggressive stance on the basis that if someone doesn’t agree with you you’ll just invade their property by force and impose your rules on them.As I said dangerous nutters just as I always knew since turning my back on the so called ‘Labour Party’ and it’s Bolshevik tendency long ago.

It’s like I say, I’m not arguing for dictatorship. Political unity is not about ceding your own right to influence decisions. It is recognising that other people have as much right, and ultimately as much power, to influence those decisions as you do.

We know where the boundaries are because they are held at the land registry office.In which case no you don’t bleedin say what happens on your neighbour’s property only your own.

As I said the political ‘unity’ you’re referring to means imposing your zb laws and your sovereignty onto the property of others and they supposedly have to submit to it.While the truth is in typical zb socialist style it’s got nothing to do with the volume of the neighbour’s music it’s all about the fact that you don’t like the neighbour’s ‘choice’ of music even though you can’t even hear it where you are anyway.Probably as usual based either on the politics of envy and sour grapes because you can’t afford that type of record collection.Or you just want to take over the neighbour’s land space or rule over his life for whatever reason.Just as in the case of China v Tibet.IE it’s you who’s the aggressor in that case.I’ll make the analogy with zb Jog On and his Chinese cronies v Trump in that just like Kreschev v Kennedy before.No surprise which side you’ll be on if/when push inevitably comes to shove in that argument.

[rjan]

muckles:

Rjan:
The case was a blow against the ability of unions to unilaterally determine the location of businesses within the EU, no doubt about that. My point is that this is not a loss for the workers of the EU, since the right of Estonians to bargain for Finnish pay has not been eroded or injuncted against.

And there was nothing to stop Viking Lines Employing Estonian workers at Finnish level of pay without relocating, when their ship was based in Finland.
Their reason for wanting to relocate was to reduce their wage cost by getting rid of their Finnish workers and replacing them with cheaper Estonian workers.

But I’m struggling to understand how they could replace the Finnish, if the Estonians were solid and weren’t willing to sell themselves any cheaper?

It’s appears to be perfectly legal to strike to stop relocation within the UK and Unions do take action against it all the way up to strike action.

I think you’re missing the distinction. The strikes are never about favouring one region over another - partly because the unity of Britain is so embedded that people don’t even really think in those terms, and partly because there is such legal harmonisation that the disputes can’t arise (i.e. if you reflagged a ship from Hull to Portsmouth, it would still be flagged in Britain).

The FSU and ITWF decided to spark a dispute in those terms - it wasn’t about jobs, but about where the ship would be flagged. All the ECJ said was, yes, it was possible through that dispute to impugn the right of bosses to determine where the ship was flagged.

I don’t of course have to accept that bosses should be free to determine where a ship is flagged - but we’re not talking about political principles, but about whether the ECJ’s judgment was reasonable in terms of the law, or whether it showed some fundamental anti-worker bias on the part of that court (i.e. more anti-worker bias than the law itself embodies, because the law as it stands is a product of democratically elected, centre-right national governments).

Just to recapitulate my agenda here, it is to emphasise that EU law embodies the democratic will of its member states - that is, it is no less democratic, nor more anti-worker, than the average national member. And of the members, Britain is one of the main right-wing influences on the whole.

Britvic workers in Norwich have been trying to stop production moving to London, but failed in the end. Others have voted for strike action to stop it.

insurancetimes.co.uk/unite- … 42.article

morningstaronline.co.uk/a-4c … relocation

lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/n … 2-workers/

These cases don’t show workers striking against the legal relocation of the business. They’re striking against their own job losses (including the movement of workplaces that amount to inflicting redundancies). None involved workers striking against the creation of new workplaces elsewhere without job losses, or the transfer of their jobs to foreign subsidiaries without loss of pay or conditions.

No jobs (it seems) were under threat by Viking Line’s reflagging - they apparently weren’t shutting the workplace (the ship) down, nor were they making any redundancies.

Rjan:

muckles:
The reason for Viking Line wanting to reflag the vessel to Estonia was to reduce wage costs, so why would they negotiate a deal where they had to pay the same rate as on a Finnish registered vessel?

That’s the question I asked you, but you assured me that the Estonian workers were on board (ha!) with the policy of maintaining Finnish levels of wages?

I said that the Estonian Union had agreed not to talk to the Viking Line, after a request from the ITF on behalf of the FSU.

The Estonian seaman’s Union is affiliated to the ITF, as is the FSU, when the dispute started the ITF asked the Estonian union not to negotiate with the Viking Line,
Now I suppose the Estonian Unions could have gone against the request, but the power of workers is nothing without solidarity and it’s no good having an International workers organisation if those unions affiliated to it don’t show solidarity with it’s other members regardless of national bounderies.
If the dispute hadn’t involved the Estonian Unions, then the Viking Line wouldn’t have had to take out the injunction against the ITF and the case wouldn’t have eventually made it to the ECJ.

As it is it seems the Estonian Unions solidarity was paid back by a show of solidarity from the FSU in supporting the Estonian Seaman’s Union pay demand.

itfseafarers.org/maritime_ne … /0/order/1

The settlement follows a one-hour long warning strike on 4 August when five ferries were stopped in Estonia’s capital Tallinn, as well as in ports in Helsinki, Finland, and Stockholm, Sweden, where Finnish and Swedish unions organised solidarity action.

I’m not following you at all. You say Viking Line wanted to move in order to undercut wages - although the court reports suggests no existing jobs would be lost (I accept we could be talking about protecting the pay of future hires). You say the Estonians were, in one way or another, completely solid with the FSU.

I ask, therefore, what was to stop the Estonians issuing a threat to Viking Line, that they’d be paying the same wages wherever they went? That’s not preventing them from reflagging or setting up shop wherever they want - it’s just making perfectly clear that they’ll be paying the same wages no matter where they go (so if their reflagging agenda is driven purely by undercutting, then they better think again).

I still haven’t got a clear answer on this from you. You of course are the expert on the case - I don’t recall that I’ve ever come across it before this discussion.

Rjan:
The problem is that what you call “economically restrictive” means “working for the same rate that other workers are actually working for”.

So are you advocating that the Finnish sailors should have taken a reduction in pay, to Estonian levels?

I’m not advocating it. I’m saying that the Estonian workers’ view on the matter ought to be represented. I see the same theme in your argument as when the rich say they’d struggle to live on £10k a week, but it’s alright in their view if everyone else is forced to manage.

Rjan:
But the other side of the coin is that Eastern Europe already is haemorrhaging many of it’s best and most educated workers in order to access their better wages - and Eastern Europe can’t stop that because of the fundamental freedoms. It’s a big mess I agree, but it’s not fair to cast the Eastern European countries as being the only ones who are getting anything out of it. The ones who are getting the most out of it everywhere are the bosses, not because of political unification but because of free markets.

You are reading stuff into my posts that isn’t there, I never said East European workers are the only ones benefiting. The point is the EU has no plans to introduce an EU wide minimum wage.

Because none of its centre-right governments, and centre-right-voting workers, have plans for those things. Christ, under the Tories, Britain is has levelled down it’s own minimum wages, by abolishing the agricultural minimum wage, and has tried to pretend the latest increase in NMW is a “living wage”.

Hasn’t most of my argument on here been about free market policies being bad for workers, regardless of which country they from or working in.

Yes. I mostly think I’m indulging the narcissism of minor differences between us.