kr79:
You cant please everyone all the time.
I still wouldn’t be as badly off as some as my mortgage is relatively modest.
But assuming that it probably would have been a bit more than modest at some time and those type of subsidised relatively low interest rates have been a relatively long established factor then the fact is where you are now isn’t where you would have been because instead of the low (subsidised) interest rate culture interest rates would have been kept at reasonable levels.Which would have showed up the flaws in the Thatcherite system even more because at the end of the day it’s just based on low wages in real terms compared to living costs subsidised by low interest rates for low wage employment and cheap imports of stuff that we can make for ourselves and borrowed/printed money because she also got rid of all the industry which we were using to pay our higher wages in those better days before she came along.
Yeah but that’s not my fault we are all stuck with the system unless we go and stand for election as I can’t see anyone to vote for who would change anything for the better.
kr79:
Totally agree about the lack of industurys you do need a mix to be successful.
It’s no good having all the industry if it’s not paying the wages hence the difference between 1920’s/30’s Britain and America and 1960’s/early 70’s Britain and America.We had plenty of industry but the factory gates were mostly closed because no one could afford to buy anything during the former years unlike the latter ones.
kr79:
Yeah but that’s not my fault we are all stuck with the system unless we go and stand for election as I can’t see anyone to vote for who would change anything for the better.
Sadly I think it’s too probably late for that for the (once) developed western economies.It won’t matter what government we’ve got or how good the unions are without the massive industrial infrastructure that we had to pay for it before Thatcher’s ideas took off and closed it down.
UNITED ROAD TRANSPORT UNION, (URTU), no political affilation, does not subscribe to any political party. Most reps and regional officers are drivers or ex drivers, not a general union. Does what it says on the tin. urtu.com
You would never get all the truck drivers on strike at the same time, and it would be ilegal as well.
why would it be illegal?
Because you can’t go out on strike through sympathy anymore.
Thats one of the reasons why they privatised the london bus industry.
Secondary action is illegal but there’s no law that says that seperate union actions can’t be arranged to take place all at the same time.
Yeah right, a completly different company is going to strike in support of another company, get real…
That’s secondary action.
Which isn’t the same as seperate companies,all with union recognition of the same union,all being subjected to synchronised action at the same time in respect of a terms and conditions demand,which applies the same for all the members,regardless of the fact that they all work for different employers.I think that is similar to the situation which would apply in the case of the tanker drivers assuming that the dispute with their individual employers resulted in any action .
But if caledonian dream was correct about the Blair administration being different to the Thatcher one,then that government would obviously have reversed the secondary action laws introduced by the Thatcher government.Which would have returned the rights,in those type of cases where secondary action,by one group of workers,not involved directly in a dispute,to take action in support of another group,which can actually have the benefit for all concerned of getting a dispute over with faster.Although that wouldn’t have been as effective without also reversing the policy of industrial closures and the resulting levels unemployment.Which,as history shows,the Blair administration also made no attempt to do.
All well and good but how can I go in and tell my boss I’m going on strike when he is paying decent wages for what he asks of you I’ve got a decent legal truck to do the job.
Before we get on to it’s not good compared to 1965 I’m talking the going rate for the job in 2012.
kr79:
All well and good but how can I go in and tell my boss I’m going on strike when he is paying decent wages for what he asks of you I’ve got a decent legal truck to do the job.
Before we get on to it’s not good compared to 1965 I’m talking the going rate for the job in 2012.
The issue isn’t one of any job in isolation it needs to be applied to the economy as a whole.The ‘going rate’ for ‘every job in 2012’,not just driving trucks,would have looked a lot different ‘if’ we’d have kept our industrial base and therefore higher employment levels and resulting continuing growth in demand for goods and services that comes with that,as existed in 1965-1970 for example,together with the type of union powers and attitudes of most of the workforce to union membership and action as/when required to maintain and improve terms and conditions at that time.
I’ve already said that without that combination of industrial strength and resulting high employment levels,together with strong unions in the economy as a whole to continue the growth in wage levels and therefore demand for the products turned out by those industries,it’s obvious that there’s no way that joining a union in the present climate can make a big difference.However my point is that,contrary to those who share caledoniandream’s view,that situation is a bad thing for the economy not a good one as the decline in the British (and US) economy as a whole since the end of the 1970’s seems to prove.
Company A drivers are on a good wage and are happy with thier terms and conditions.
Company B drivers are not happy with thier wages and terms and conditions, so decide to strike.
Can you really see company A drivers going on strike about thier terms in order to support company B.
Off corse not.
Believe it or not a similar type of action was a possibility and a fact during the years before the secondary action laws without any dispute with Company A at all only Company B.But I don’t think the situation as you described it would ever have applied or could legally apply now under present laws anyway.
The logic would have gone along the lines of how long will Company A be able to sustain those better terms and conditions when it has to compete for the same work as Company B and/or how many Company A type employers would realistically want to turn down the extra profit margin that they could be earning by reducing their terms and conditions to Company B type levels assuming that they don’t pass on the savings in labour costs to the customer .
The fact is striking,wether as secondary action or not,actually costs workers a lot of money and hardship and few,if any,strikes in history ever took place for the fun of it or for no reason and as I’ve made the case the figures of the pre war economy and those since the late 1970’s,compared to those of the post war period up to the early 1970’s,show that most,if not all,union activeties,were for good reason and to good effect and it’s mostly downhill for the economy in general unless constant pressure is kept on employers to maintain terms and conditions across the board.
So company a loses business and jepodises it’s future to Suppourt company b.
Is that why do much British industry went down the pan due to red Robbo etc.
kr79:
So company a loses business and jepodises it’s future to Suppourt company b.
Is that why do much British industry went down the pan due to red Robbo etc.
No Company A’s employees were just making sure that they didn’t end up in the same state that Company B’s employees were in by helping Company B’s employees get their levels up to Company A type ones instead of Company A having to reduce it’s levels to those of Company B.
The reason why so much British industry went down the pan since the late 1970’s was for similar reasons as to why so much went a similar way during the 1920’s and 1930’s.Both periods were notable for weak unions,low wage levels relative to prices,and high unemployment caused by,and resulting in an ever increasing cycle of,lack of spending power in the economy to create economic growth.The only difference was that in the former case the problem of low wage levels causing stagnation was then added to and compounded by a deliberate policy of industrial closures and cheap imports to create a rigged labour market of excess supply over demand.The results are still with us.
So it’s 1974 you go off to buy you self a nice British built colour tv you see a lovley 24 inch made in Britain tv go to buy it and the salesman says sorry we are out of stock and the factory’s on strike will be at least six weeks befor you can have one but we have this lovley Japanese tv that you can leave now with.
It’s five o clock Friday afternoon and it’s the cup final tomorrow I know what most of us would do.
Exactly the same scenario al the hauliers go on strike the shops are empty the public will be calling for norbert and willi to come to the rescues to keep the shelves full of bacon and bog roll.
It’s obvious…and any fool can see… that every benefit that we have today was given to us freely by benevolent employers and governments via instructions from the “Employers UNION” that esteeemed social benefactor the CBI.
They wanted us to have parity of living standards to that which they enjoyed.
The same purchasing power so as to be able to sway elections so that we also could accumlate £1000’s in offshore bank accounts and live in large sub-urban houses or expensive town-houses without a worry in the world. The Union members of recent generations didn’t need to subscribe to such organisations. They were fools. The benevolent and fair employers and governments would insure thro’ the CBIthe workers got a fair deal and enjoy those luxuries. These employers and governments wouldn’t legislate against these workers. After going out of their way to elevate the workers to the same financial and social status as themselves what would be the point? It couldn’t happen. The workers would never take action against these wonderfully philanthropic people. Not possible. That’s correct isn’t it?
Well?
Isn’t it■■?
caledoniandream:
I am still waiting on an answer what further succes stories had the Unions after;
Longbridge
British Steel
L D V
Leyland Daf
The Mines
Ryton on Dunsmore
Because these where of course great actions from the “strong” Unions, al these people have now plenty of work and great incomes■■?
Union leaders and some Shop Stewards are wanna be politicians, but cannot make it.
A little bit like security guards are cardboard cut-out coppers.
I’ve already given you your answer more than once.All of the main British industries were in a far better state before the Callaghan and Thatcher years than after.The British economy was in a better state and grew better between the end of WW2 up until the mid 1970’s.Whereas it’s been a case of downhill since that time and during most,if not all,of the 1920’s/30’s.The period of the best employment levels and sustained growth in living standards co incided with the period during which the unions had the most power.Whereas employment and income levels and therefore living standards have fallen in real terms since that time in just the same way that income levels and living standards were in a zb state during those inter war years of the 1920’s/30’s.
The fact is Callaghan and Thatcher had already effectively killed off the power of the unions by the early 1980’s.The loss of Britain’s industries from that time had absolutely zb all to do with the unions and everything to do with a planned change in economic priorities by the government to rig the labour market and trade system in favour of a cheap labour based economy.So you’ve actually had the type of system that you want from the late 1970’s/early 1980’s to date so what has been so good about it .Because it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the economy is still zb’ed over 30 years later just as it was after Callaghan and Thatcher both agreed that wage restraint,cheap imports and reducing the power of the unions was the way to go over 30 years ago.
By the way as I remember it the last action that the NUM ever took was all about saving the mining industry from closure by Thatcher in favour of cheap subsidised/dumped imports of coal and had absolutely zb all to do with wages.Which has now left the country a net importer of energy.Which seems to sum up the credibility of your listings of industries that were killed off by so called union actions.
kr79:
So it’s 1974 you go off to buy you self a nice British built colour tv you see a lovley 24 inch made in Britain tv go to buy it and the salesman says sorry we are out of stock and the factory’s on strike will be at least six weeks befor you can have one but we have this lovley Japanese tv that you can leave now with.
It’s five o clock Friday afternoon and it’s the cup final tomorrow I know what most of us would do.
Exactly the same scenario al the hauliers go on strike the shops are empty the public will be calling for norbert and willi to come to the rescues to keep the shelves full of bacon and bog roll.
So it’s 2012 and you’re about to be evicted from your house because you lost your job a few months ago and had to take one on minimum wage because that’s the only job offer that you’ve managed to get and the job centre advice is take it or lose your ‘benefits’.But at least you’ll be able to watch that cheap Chinese made wide screen tele in your ‘temporary’ council accomodation when you get home from doing that 12 hour shift that it will take to cover the council rent and feed the kids doing that low paid job.
But during the 1970’s it was usually cheaper to rent a colour tele than to buy one but it was a lot cheaper in real terms to buy a house than it is today and the job was usually a lot more secure after you’d bought it.
At least until Callaghan and then Thatcher got in.
Solly:
It’s obvious…and any fool can see… that every benefit that we have today was given to us freely by benevolent employers and governments via instructions from the “Employers UNION” that esteeemed social benefactor the CBI.
They wanted us to have parity of living standards to that which they enjoyed.
The same purchasing power so as to be able to sway elections so that we also could accumlate £1000’s in offshore bank accounts and live in large sub-urban houses or expensive town-houses without a worry in the world. The Union members of recent generations didn’t need to subscribe to such organisations. They were fools. The benevolent and fair employers and governments would insure thro’ the CBIthe workers got a fair deal and enjoy those luxuries. These employers and governments wouldn’t legislate against these workers. After going out of their way to elevate the workers to the same financial and social status as themselves what would be the point? It couldn’t happen. The workers would never take action against these wonderfully philanthropic people. Not possible. That’s correct isn’t it?
Well?
Isn’t it■■?
It must have been some sort of absolute mass economic madness acting like Lemmings for the workers to have taken such ridiculous action when anyone knows that by their actions they reduced their living standards by a factor of at least 10 or 20 times from those enjoyed by their parents during the 1920’s/30’s.The end result being that Callaghan had no option but to try to bring back some sense into it all by calling for wage restraint and then Thatcher when she did the right thing by just closing the lot down and giving all the work to cheaper foreign workers instead.The benefits are obvious to anyone just by seeing where the UK economy is now let alone 1922-32 when it was at it’s peak compared to where it was in 1972 when those greedy unions’ power was at it’s worst.
then the fact is where you are now isn’t where you would have been because instead of the low (subsidised) interest rate culture interest rates would have been kept at reasonable levels.Which would have showed up the flaws in the Thatcherite system even more because at the end of the day it’s just based on low wages in real terms compared to living costs subsidised by low interest rates for low wage employment and cheap imports of stuff that we can make for ourselves and borrowed/printed money because she also got rid of all the industry which we were using to pay our higher wages in those better days before she came along. 
.Because it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the economy is still zb’ed over 30 years later just as it was after Callaghan and Thatcher both agreed that wage restraint,cheap imports and reducing the power of the unions was the way to go over 30 years ago.
