Well this is Great Britain ,and some workers have rights(the ones that stick together). 
southwales-eveningpost.co.uk … story.html
Well done 
Strange how employers seem to be all for collective bargaining on an across the board basis when it suits them but not when it doesn’t in the form of secondary action.
It would be interesting to find out the exact reasoning for the GMB position in the dispute but I’m guessing that they aren’t trying to seperate any certain group of workers to under cut any other. 
Lidl supermarket:
Allowing just 223 workers to set up their own bargaining unit could lead to “fragmentation” of employees, with lots of small groups “competing” for the best terms and conditions.
Watch 'em squeal at the thought the workers will actually compete up their own wages, and demand the same or better than the rest, rather than workers racing each other to the bottom as the employers would like!
Carryfast:
It would be interesting to find out the exact reasoning for the GMB position in the dispute but I’m guessing that they aren’t trying to seperate any certain group of workers to under cut any other.
Obviously not, because if they were, then the employer would be in favour of it! Employers are never against workers undercutting each other.
Rjan:
Lidl supermarket:
Allowing just 223 workers to set up their own bargaining unit could lead to “fragmentation” of employees, with lots of small groups “competing” for the best terms and conditions.Watch 'em squeal at the thought the workers will actually compete up their own wages, and demand the same or better than the rest, rather than workers racing each other to the bottom as the employers would like!
^ This.Now we’re on the same hymn sheet. 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
It would be interesting to find out the exact reasoning for the GMB position in the dispute but I’m guessing that they aren’t trying to seperate any certain group of workers to under cut any other.Obviously not, because if they were, then the employer would be in favour of it! Employers are never against workers undercutting each other.
That’s what I was thinking. It’s a bit like the CBI being against the Brexit vote and Kate Hoey being in favour in that regard. 
No employer appears to like unions, as they get in the way of business profits…
Some in Portsmouth docks have just voted for strike action, as the company wants to cut wages etc…
Strangely the topic of increasing prices doesn’t seem to have been mentioned!
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Lidl supermarket:
Allowing just 223 workers to set up their own bargaining unit could lead to “fragmentation” of employees, with lots of small groups “competing” for the best terms and conditions.Watch 'em squeal at the thought the workers will actually compete up their own wages, and demand the same or better than the rest, rather than workers racing each other to the bottom as the employers would like!
^ This.Now we’re on the same hymn sheet.
This happened at a large air cargo company I worked for. Ground services and air services ratcheting up. Then the collective working agreement came up for renewal and the company decided on a new turn of divide and conquer. Worked a treat. Departments hated each other after the poison. Terms collapsed when one side vetoed the other and sign a new agreement on badness. Was a right mess.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Watch 'em squeal at the thought the workers will actually compete up their own wages, and demand the same or better than the rest, rather than workers racing each other to the bottom as the employers would like!^ This.Now we’re on the same hymn sheet.
This happened at a large air cargo company I worked for. Ground services and air services ratcheting up. Then the collective working agreement came up for renewal and the company decided on a new turn of divide and conquer. Worked a treat. Departments hated each other after the poison. Terms collapsed when one side vetoed the other and sign a new agreement on badness. Was a right mess.
How does ‘ratcheting up’,obviously still in co operation with each other as a union,suddenly turn back into race to the bottom,assuming solidarity remained the same between the seperate groups of workers ?.While any breakdown in that solidarity would have happened in either case.In which case applying locally organised union recognition,among smaller,seperate,autonomous groups,would surely be even more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage.Because then any breakdown in solidarity has safety barriers to stop it affecting the whole.
In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective. 
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Watch 'em squeal at the thought the workers will actually compete up their own wages, and demand the same or better than the rest, rather than workers racing each other to the bottom as the employers would like!^ This.Now we’re on the same hymn sheet.
This happened at a large air cargo company I worked for. Ground services and air services ratcheting up. Then the collective working agreement came up for renewal and the company decided on a new turn of divide and conquer. Worked a treat. Departments hated each other after the poison. Terms collapsed when one side vetoed the other and sign a new agreement on badness. Was a right mess.
How does ‘ratcheting up’,obviously still in co operation with each other as a union,suddenly turn back into race to the bottom,assuming solidarity remained the same between the seperate groups of workers ?.While any breakdown in that solidarity would have happened in either case.In which case applying locally organised union recognition,among smaller,seperate,autonomous groups,would surely be even more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage.Because then any breakdown in solidarity has safety barriers to stop it affecting the whole.
In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective.
Well I didn’t say as you describe, that’s your take on my very brief paragraph. I’m not criticising anyone. Just what you two wrote I’ve witnessed. It works but I sore it when it went wrong in this instance. It just took mistrust.
If you wish to study it it’s here. You’ll have to trawl back a year as the headlines for the company have moved on since.
theloadstar.co.uk/tag/the-cargolux-chronicles/
article at the time I found:-
Our union has been at war with the company since pay negs started in April, really dragging along so it is. Looks like some form of work to rule is coming in. So god knows what the reps will be asking us to do.
And the subs have just went up aswell
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
How does ‘ratcheting up’,obviously still in co operation with each other as a union,suddenly turn back into race to the bottom,assuming solidarity remained the same between the seperate groups of workers ?.While any breakdown in that solidarity would have happened in either case.In which case applying locally organised union recognition,among smaller,seperate,autonomous groups,would surely be even more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage.Because then any breakdown in solidarity has safety barriers to stop it affecting the whole.In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective.
Well I didn’t say as you describe, that’s your take on my very brief paragraph. I’m not criticising anyone. Just what you two wrote I’ve witnessed. It works but I sore it when it went wrong in this instance. It just took mistrust.
article at the time I found:-
Thanks for posting all the details of that argument FD.That all seems consistent with the idea of different unions and/or even different autonomous local recognition within the same union all co operating to drive up terms and conditions as usual.‘But’ with the safeguard that such autonomous different union or local recognition throws a spanner in the works of employers trying to use that same collective bargaining to drive down terms and conditions in the case of any breakdown in solidarity.
As it stood at the time of that article at least the LCGB were actually on the winning side of the argument at least morally and legally on exactly that basis of the employers not being able to force any unfavourable agreement reached with OGBL on the different autonomous recognition held by the LCGB.At which point LCGB should have called a strike shutting down the Italian operation until an agreement in their favour was reached.
Carryfast:
In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective.
Isn’t that what scab labour is? An ability of one group to veto the decision of another to withdraw labour?
You don’t seem to have grasped yet that solidarity means that a decision of a part of the workforce to strike against their employer, to withdraw labour and to boycott the means of production, is binding on all the workforce in relation to that employer.
It is the key part that workers play in working the means of production (and therefore in creating profit for the bosses), that allows them to walk out and thereby cancel the bosses’ profits (albeit at the cost of their own wages, too). If another lot of workers are willing to work the means of production whilst one lot are on strike, then the work gets done and profits are maintained, and the strike rendered worthless.
Unless all workers agree not to act as scabs when others are taking industrial action, then they cannot expect others not to scab when they themselves are taking industrial action, and if workers are not able to take industrial action, then none of them have any bargaining power in the market and end up like most truckers: on 15 hour days, six days a week, frequently for little more than minimum wage per hour (effectively, the resulting squalid pay and conditions are limited only by government decree over maximum working time and minimum wages).
Unions first won the 8 hour day for workers some time in the Victorian period!
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
How does ‘ratcheting up’,obviously still in co operation with each other as a union,suddenly turn back into race to the bottom,assuming solidarity remained the same between the seperate groups of workers ?.While any breakdown in that solidarity would have happened in either case.In which case applying locally organised union recognition,among smaller,seperate,autonomous groups,would surely be even more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage.Because then any breakdown in solidarity has safety barriers to stop it affecting the whole.In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective.
Well I didn’t say as you describe, that’s your take on my very brief paragraph. I’m not criticising anyone. Just what you two wrote I’ve witnessed. It works but I sore it when it went wrong in this instance. It just took mistrust.
article at the time I found:-
Thanks for posting all the details of that argument FD.That all seems consistent with the idea of different unions and/or even different autonomous local recognition within the same union all co operating to drive up terms and conditions as usual.‘But’ with the safeguard that such autonomous different union or local recognition throws a spanner in the works of employers trying to use that same collective bargaining to drive down terms and conditions in the case of any breakdown in solidarity.
As it stood at the time of that article at least the LCGB were actually on the winning side of the argument at least morally and legally on exactly that basis of the employers not being able to force any unfavourable agreement reached with OGBL on the different autonomous recognition held by the LCGB.At which point LCGB should have called a strike shutting down the Italian operation until an agreement in their favour was reached.
No problem mate. It was pretty heavy and the nett result wasn’t good for people in my field. The LCGB had their hand forced. I’m at the limit of what I feel comfortable chatting about it online but thought you’d find it interesting/slight relevance. Naturally, they have the different laws over there to UK.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
In which case how could any particular seperate locally organised group ‘veto’ another.Unlike the situation of a larger recognised collective.Isn’t that what scab labour is? An ability of one group to veto the decision of another to withdraw labour?
You don’t seem to have grasped yet that solidarity means that a decision of a part of the workforce to strike against their employer, to withdraw labour and to boycott the means of production, is binding on all the workforce in relation to that employer.
It is the key part that workers play in working the means of production (and therefore in creating profit for the bosses), that allows them to walk out and thereby cancel the bosses’ profits (albeit at the cost of their own wages, too). If another lot of workers are willing to work the means of production whilst one lot are on strike, then the work gets done and profits are maintained, and the strike rendered worthless.
Firstly scab labour means any workforce unionised or not ‘ignoring’ a rightful decision by another workforce to walk out thereby compromising that action.
The point in FD’s example being a disagreement and resulting breakdown of solidarity within the relevant Union/s collective itself regarding ‘negotiations’ not strike action.Which the employer then obviously wanted to take advantage of.
The point then being that I thought that we’re in agreement,that the idea of breaking up that collective,into smaller autonomous units,is that it then creates a barrier against any such breakdown in solidarity,leading to the imposition of lower terms and conditions on any of those seperate groups who don’t agree to be bound by it.Which seems to fit the description of the situation in FD’s example and which I’d guess is also the motive behind the GMB’s attempt to seperate its union activeties in the example regarding the topic.Which as we’ve posted we both seem to be in agreement about.IE seperate smaller autonomous union recognised groups can still act together to drive up terms and conditions.But also have the autonomy to then disagree and thereby stop any attempts by the employers,to use the collective bargaining process to drive down terms and conditions,in the event of such a disagreement within the relevant union/s.No doubt with the Moderates v Militants card then getting played at some point.While as history proves a union isn’t working if it isn’t ‘militant’. Which leaves the question of the obvious hypocrisy in employers moaning about that situation while being happy to take advantage of secondary action laws when it suit them.
From the firm’s point of view “Collective Bargaining” works best out in the sticks where the working environment is always “Times are 'ard” and “you’re lucky to have a job” and “You’re lucky we didn’t close down when forced to pay the minimum wage to all”. The firm will collectively bargain for the notion that pay should be as close to minimum wage as possible. “More unemployed workers than jobs.” they’ll say.
In a more prosperous area though - workers have a better idea of their worth. Why SHOULD any employee have to put up with “race to the bottom” bull all the time? Companies can save more money by cutting down on wasting product in the grocery business - more than cutting everyone’s pay to the bone - that’s for sure1
It’s nice to see that in Wales now - rumblings of worker discontent are growing. Wales is our ally in Brexit as well of course.
Winseer:
It’s nice to see that in Wales now - rumblings of worker discontent are growing. Wales is our ally in Brexit as well of course.
It’s strange how remainers like Rjan seem to be able see the logic in unions co operating to drive up terms and conditions but also putting in barriers to stop the employers using the collective to drive them down.While not seeing how that applies in the case of the Labour Leave vote which is effectively the same thing in seperating the UK workforce from any downward pressures emanating from Europe.While there’s no reason why UK unions still can’t co operate with European ones to drive up terms and conditions even if we leave.
Bearing in mind that FD’s example and the Welsh example both seem to be a case of small autonomous localised/national groups taking on the bigger EU based collective and big business alliance,to stop ‘downward’ pressure on terms and conditions.
I never really understood why so many ordinary working folk in this country - support the entire “remain” argument, what with it’s race-to-the-bottom mentality. All one gets are the crumbs that fall of the EU high table…
I guess those crumbs must be “very tasty indeed”, and like Christ’s loaves and fish - “a small amount seems to go a long way”. Then again of course, “lack of religion” is another aspect of believing in the gods of Olympus that pantheon represented by Brussels today.
Carryfast:
The point then being that I thought that we’re in agreement,that the idea of breaking up that collective,into smaller autonomous units,is that it then creates a barrier against any such breakdown in solidarity,
You can’t be both autonomous and solid on the same questions.
The goodwill of the working class towards industrial action, and the unwillingness of other workers to engage in scab labour is, itself, an important manifestation of solidarity. This is not a natural law, but a commitment of workers not to undermine the industrial action of other workers, so that their own industrial action will not be undermined likewise.
Otherwise, if scab labour is willing, then an employer would usually just readvertise the jobs of strikers, and get other workers to do the work. Frequently, for one reason or another scab labour is willing, often because a small autonomous union is known to be willing to defend its own minority of members, but will not join forces with others when necessary, so eventually the small union loses the general solidarity and goodwill of the working class on which it depends, and scab workers flow in.
Also, if issues can be resolved at a local level by a small union, then usually they are. Nobody would form a large union, if a smaller one would do.
The fact that in Freight Dog’s case, the management won out, suggests that the smaller group did not have the power to impose themselves without support from a much larger membership.
A small union taking on a large firm (or more usually, a large supply chain), will usually be as ineffectual in raising the workforce’s pay and conditions as if a single (‘autonomous’) individual walks out on their own - the company will just bear the loss and replace the worker, and let the autonomous worker cast himself into destitution, they will not raise the wages of the entire workforce on the say-so of a single worker.
Obviously, even a large union (and its members) have to be aware of the need to maintain solidarity. Militants have to accept the decision of the majority of members and cannot force action, but by the same token, the majority must consider the interests of the minority to ensure they are not cast adrift (because if they are, there will be a loss of solidarity to the detriment of the whole union).
Education, and the willingness of union members to listen and take an interest in such subtle questions, is very important, but in many cases I find the working class has slipped back into delight of their own ignorance on such matters.
Carryfast:
It’s strange how remainers like Rjan seem to be able see the logic in unions co operating to drive up terms and conditions but also putting in barriers to stop the employers using the collective to drive them down.While not seeing how that applies in the case of the Labour Leave vote which is effectively the same thing in seperating the UK workforce from any downward pressures emanating from Europe.While there’s no reason why UK unions still can’t co operate with European ones to drive up terms and conditions even if we leave.Bearing in mind that FD’s example and the Welsh example both seem to be a case of small autonomous localised/national groups taking on the bigger EU based collective and big business alliance,to stop ‘downward’ pressure on terms and conditions.
Because like I’ve said, Eastern Europeans are not racing to the bottom - their wages are undergoing a sustained improvement (some are now said to be returning home for better pay, conditions, and lifestyle).
If workers were not allowed to come here, then factories would simply be sent there to take advantage of the cheaper labour. Even if we threw up borders, we can manage our economy internally, but we would not be able to stop cheap Eastern European factories undercutting us in international markets.
We have to accept wage equalisation (at least in terms of parity pay for equivalent work) as the price of solidarity - which is always the price of solidarity. I know wage equalisation should be managed better (for example, with market wages being regulated against low-quality undercutting, and with better social security), but the principle of union is the correct one.
The EU has become a capitalist club, but so actually are national governments (especially our own), and the real problem for workers is not political union but right-wing politics and neoliberal economic principles which constantly promote competition and undermining of prices and wages.