Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    So what's the problem then? You need train drivers, and if you want it badly enough then you'll pay what they demand, or pay to upgrade the system to be automated.

    Of course, free market (misnomer, of course; monopoly market) adherents are always in favour of freedom to set ones prices at whatever level they choose.... except when it's a group of workers choosing to set the price of their labour at a particular level.

    Hypocrite, much?
    Slight problem with that one though. The trade Unions in effect attempted to create Monopolies.

    You can't work here unless you're a member and we'll all go on strike unless you give us what we want.

    Trade Unions have a place, and as can be seen by Germany they can work quite effectivly. The main difference is that in Germany the Unions are able to look at the situation strategically. Our trade Unions just looked at things shport term as in how much money they could get resulting in less money for reinvestment for teh future. But then again, they didn't have to worry about that as they were mainly in nationalised industry so they knew that the taxpayer would keep on having to stiump up the extra cash.

    When everybody keeps banging on about the importance of trade unions, people seem to forget the success story that is Japanes automotove car plants in the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    So all unions were behaving unreasonably? All of them?
    Clearly not all. But unions were affecting the country to the point where there was a three day week. There were blackouts, power cuts etc. My dad recalls him and his brothers being constantly ill through the 70's (one of them seriously ill with pneumonia, to the point where he almost died) as the heating in their Islington council flat kept getting shut off. Working class people suffered because of the Unions as well.

    Even if not all Unions were, it doesn't change the fact that some were holding this country to ransom and bringing it to a standstill. Thatcher didn't waste her time taking on the Hackney Carriage guild etc. Had a compromise been reached with Callaghan during the 70's (instead of them just pushing for more and more) Thatcher being elected could have been avoided, and a lot of working people in this country wouldn't have suffered they way they did from Thatcherism. I blame the greed of the Union leaders almost as much as Thatcher for what happened.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    X
    You appear to be confused between things that occurred with certain unions and in certain workplaces, and the workplace today. You realise the closed shop was ended decades ago?

    As I've said before, everyone becomes pro-union when they get a redundancy notice or have a grievance or get the sack. I've seen it a million times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soul of Mischief)
    I blame the greed of the Union leaders almost as much as Thatcher for what happened.
    That's quite funny, considering in the case of Callaghan it was the refusal of the employer, Ford, to engage in wage restraint that saw the collapse of the incomes policy.

    What say you about that?

    And "greed of the union leaders". Which union leaders? All of them? Were those union leaders who didn't make excessive demands responsible for those who did?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    That's quite funny, considering in the case of Callaghan it was the refusal of the employer, Ford, to engage in wage restraint that saw the collapse of the incomes policy.

    What say you about that?

    And "greed of the union leaders". Which union leaders? All of them? Were those union leaders who didn't make excessive demands responsible for those who did?
    I honestly don't understand what you're trying to prove. I've already agreed with you that it wasn't all union leaders and it definitely wasn't the Union members itself. What is quite clear is that the country was not functioning. Some of them needed to be taken a step down. Thatcher went far too far the other way. In my opinion the correct thing to do would have been to wind down British Industry over a much longer period while reinvesting in education and retraining people from all the industrial areas. What Thatcher did was unforgivable. She shut down industry as a method of a depriving the unions of a bargaining chip and then left those people with nothing.


    Also Ford was just one employer. Not all of those striking were employed by Ford...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soul of Mischief)
    Thatcher went far too far the other way. In my opinion the correct thing to do would have been to wind down British Industry over a much longer period while reinvesting in education and retraining people from all the industrial areas. What Thatcher did was unforgivable. She shut down industry as a method of a depriving the unions of a bargaining chip and then left those people with nothing.
    Agree with all that.

    In respect of unions and governments, I tend to believe in personal responsibility. The unions are responsible for what they did, and Thatcher is responsible for what she chose to do.

    Otherwise you're getting into rather dubious "provocation" territory. The unions provoked Thatcher to attack her. The wife provoked her husband to hit her. And so on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Agree with all that.

    In respect of unions and governments, I tend to believe in personal responsibility. The unions are responsible for what they did, and Thatcher is responsible for what she chose to do.

    Otherwise you're getting into rather dubious "provocation" territory. The unions provoked Thatcher to attack her. The wife provoked her husband to hit her. And so on.
    I understand what you mean by the provocation point. I think that's what happened. I don't think it's right though. Had the Union's not 'provoked' I think there would have been more protest and opposition from those in non industrial areas to what Thatcher did.

    Again, this is anecdotal evidence but a lot of my family and fam friend's attitude at the time was the ****s had what was coming to them (with regards to the actions Thatcher did against the Unions). Later as they came to appreciate the savagery and the lack of regard for any consequences Thatcher had for what she did up there, people changed their minds. Pure conjecture from me (I wasn't alive, and my family weren't particularly politically active) but had the dark 70's not occurred I reckon there wouldn't have been such an appetite from a lot of the country to knock down the unions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Strike pay?



    A lot? Three MPs in the entire parliamentary labour party? One local council in the entire country (Liverpool)? By no stretch of the English language could that be called "a lot".
    I think you've got a rosier view of the amounts involved than the people who recieved it.

    you've been reading wikipedia. Although that's considerably more mp's than ukip or the bnp have ever had... But the mp's were the tip of the iceberg, milies operated by infiltrating the party structures, passing weird motions, abusing party process, filibustering etc.
    There were loads of millie or swuppie Union shop stewards, the Nut rep at my old school was known to be a swuppie. He appeared on the local news quite often going on about the unacceptable behaviour of 'management'.
    In the 70s and 80s the union leaders were well known names, the evening news reported on what they'd been saying and the wage settlements at the various large unionised employers were all scrutinised by the current affairs media.
    It was so much of a different world I suspect it's hard to understand for people who weren't in it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    He appeared on the local news quite often going on about the unacceptable behaviour of 'management'
    Clearly the behaviour of a militant. How dare he criticise the behaviour of management. He was probably a member of the KGB.

    In the 70s and 80s the union leaders were well known names, the evening news reported on what they'd been saying and the wage settlements at the various large unionised employers were all scrutinised by the current affairs media.
    The power of the unions as a whole has no logical connection to whether they were members of the Militant Tendency. The fact is that the Militant Tendency was a small minority that was booted out of the Unions and the Party.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Clearly the behaviour of a militant. How dare he criticise the behaviour of management. He was probably a member of the KGB.
    And Scargill was actually paid by the KGB...

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    The power of the unions as a whole has no logical connection to whether they were members of the Militant Tendency. The fact is that the Militant Tendency was a small minority that was booted out of the Unions and the Party.
    Scargill is still there, or rather he was until last year when the courts ruled that the NUM don't have to pay for his ~£34,000 a year house for life anymore, or for for his wife when he dies, as he was trying to argue that they should be doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, they were like a child whod found the cookie jar and wouldnt share... they needed a good hiding plus scargill should have been hung from damn tower bridge the meglomaniac toss pot.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    Yep and Bob Crowes still too powerful today.
    imaginer Bob Crow's threats being carried through and multiply this by as many industries as you want ...

    'winter of discontent' 78/79 anyone ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    imaginer Bob Crow's threats being carried through and multiply this by as many industries as you want ...

    'winter of discontent' 78/79 anyone ?
    So what's your opinion about Ford failing to adhere to wage restraint?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    And Scargill was actually paid by the KGB...
    He was. Do you believe that all union bosses are members of the KGB?

    Scargill is still there, or rather he was until last year when the courts ruled that the NUM don't have to pay for his ~£34,000 a year house for life anymore, or for for his wife when he dies, as he was trying to argue that they should be doing.
    No, you see you're confusing the NUM with the Labour Party. They are separate organisations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Clearly the behaviour of a militant. How dare he criticise the behaviour of management. He was probably a member of the KGB.
    that particular guy was in the swp, unfortunately he's not on wikipedia so you'll have to make up your mind whether you believe me or not. militants were a bit more difficult to pin down since it was famously 'just a newspaper'


    The power of the unions as a whole has no logical connection to whether they were members of the Militant Tendency. The fact is that the Militant Tendency was a small minority that was booted out of the Unions and the Party.
    power in itself was never the real problem. It'd be quite easy to argue the german unions (west germany as it was known at the time) were at least as powerful... Just they weren't led by irresponsible people trying to bring about communism by wrecking the economy.

    It would have been political suicide for parallell universe thatcher to go to war on powerful yet moderate and popular unions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    He was. Do you believe that all union bosses are members of the KGB?
    Why do they all have to be? Surely the fact that one of the major ones was in contact with them and being paid by them in secret, a direct enemy of the UK is enough to rasie serious concerns about their political affiliations and objectives. In any case is the only one we *know* about. It is quite possible others with communist leanings were being paid to cause trouble.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    No, you see you're confusing the NUM with the Labour Party. They are separate organisations.
    Confusing? I thought we were talking about militant union members being booted out pretty quickly?

    The power of the unions as a whole has no logical connection to whether they were members of the Militant Tendency. The fact is that the Militant Tendency was a small minority that was booted out of the Unions and the Party.
    Yep, we were... Scargill was not booted out... neither were many others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    In any case is the only one we *know* about. It is quite possible others with communist leanings were being paid to cause trouble.
    By which you mean to say, "I got nothing".

    Please feel free to repeat that accusation in public with your name attached to your assertion. Of course, you have absolutely no intention of repeating your libellous remarks outside the warm, anonymous embrace of the internet.

    Coward.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    By which you mean to say, "I got nothing".

    Please feel free to repeat that accusation in public with your name attached to your assertion.
    It's not 'I got nothing", it's "I got evidence that a communist leaning member of a powerful union was in contact with and being paid by communists to cause trouble."

    I'm actually happy to say that because one of the communist leaning union leaders was caught taking money from a communist enemy government, it IS quite possible, or should I say probable, that others were. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

    I like how you ducked the other points I made. I take it you agree that many militant union members were not booted out of their organisations then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Confusing? I thought we were talking about militant union members being booted out pretty quickly?
    Again, you appear to be confused. Millitant Tendency is a proper noun, relating to a Trotskyist entryist movement to the Labour Party and Union movement.

    Not someone who seems to be "militant" in your eyes. Worth brushing up on your history of this period

    Yep, we were... Scargill was not booted out...
    Actually, he was forced out. Easily available information if you're interested in history and information rather than smears and innuendo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I'm actually happy to say that because one of the communist leaning union leaders was caught taking money from a communist enemy government, it IS quite possible, but by no means certain that others were. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.
    Ha! Rowing the boat back now, I see. Can you please point to where you're publishing your public statement?

    I like how you ducked the other points I made. I take it you agree that many militant union members were not booted out of their organisations then?
    How prematurely you exalted in your fancied victory See the post above
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.