Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Who owns a company? THE SHAREHOLDERS.
    The whole point of a business is a vehicle to make money for it's shareholders. Every profit motivated idea a business does is on behalf of it's shareholders, to increase the value of their asset- the shares- and dividend payments. I know in left-wing cuckoo land you're taught only the select few richest own shares, but in actual reality millions and millions of ordinary Brits do, either directly or indirectly through funds and pensions.

    We'll have to beg to differ on what trade union's 'only' goals are.

    Corporations do want their shareholders to have more money. Money is quite a vital commodity in life. Whether you agree with a money-driven agenda or not is irrelevant. Corporations 'represent' a lot of people, simply in a different are than trade unions, and many on the left have little comprehension of how much their anti-business agenda actually does affect 'ordinary' people.

    Many corporations have their board and CEO positions approved by the shareholders. Regardless, little relevance to the point.

    How cheap? Were they actually undervalued, or is this a continuation of your normal recent trend of making up statistics on the fly?

    I'm not referring to the doctor strike. I'm talking generally. I never said all unions are like this. It's only the more militant ones I'm concerned about.
    When corporations lobby and give money so that they can avoid paying tax, shout down proposals for a higher minimum wage, shout down proposals for greater worker rights etc, they are doing it for those at the top of the corporation. Does every shareholder benefit as much as the major owners and CEOs? When Google pay no tax who benefits more, your average joe with a few shares or the CEOs and those with huge amounts of shares?

    Furthermore, the vast majority do not rely on shares in CEOs for their income, it's a little bonus. Whereas those in unions very much do rely on workers rights, pay guarantees and secure contacts for their living.



    Why bring up left wing? Stop looking for cheap shots at me and leave it, I've not made a single personal remark to you.

    Yes on the cheap, big money man gives huge amounts to tories and gets given NHS contract? Just a massive coincidence?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What will be more interesting is whether the Tories call a snap election in 2017/2018. It's a long way off, and the effect of the EU referendum on the party will be huge, but you'd think they'd be best to capitalise and call a snap election once the water has calmed and provided they still have a convincing lead post EU referendum and pre inevitable Corbyn binning. But then Dave said he wouldn't seek reelection.

    Boris vs Corbyn 2k20 is ****ing scarily poor, neither are men who should be leading this country, but then neither should Yvetter Cooper, Gideon, Teresa May, Ummuna and all the other big name politico's
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When corporations lobby and give money so that they can avoid paying tax, shout down proposals for a higher minimum wage, shout down proposals for greater worker rights etc, they are doing it for those at the top of the corporation. Does every shareholder benefit as much as the major owners and CEOs? When Google pay no tax who benefits more, your average joe with a few shares or the CEOs and those with huge amounts of shares?

    Furthermore, the vast majority do not rely on shares in CEOs for their income, it's a little bonus. Whereas those in unions very much do rely on workers rights, pay guarantees and secure contacts for their living.



    Why bring up left wing? Stop looking for cheap shots at me and leave it, I've not made a single personal remark to you.

    Yes on the cheap, big money man gives huge amounts to tories and gets given NHS contract? Just a massive coincidence?
    What a load of generic anti-business waffle.
    People who own the most shares benefit nominally the most? Well no kidding Sherlock. Next you'll be proclaiming the bleedingly obvious statement that someone who buys ten lottery tickets has a higher chance of winning than someone who buys one, as if that too is a great injustice.
    How does that change anything I said? Businesses provide the same benefits to all shareholders proportionally.

    It wasn't personal. To quote, well, you, stop being so delicate.

    How cheap? What were competing bids? Give me some actual figures.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The Tories are the natural party of government, for all the flack they get one has to ask how much of that is simply due to the current generation of mainstream journalists and young people being from the Blair era? If the Tories are as bad as such people make out they woukd not be the natural party of government

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It long pre-dates the Blair era. If we had had a journalist-only franchise, Michael Foot would probably have been elected by a landslide.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    What business is it of the government to interfere in the internal operations of trade unions? These are private associations of individuals, which should be free to conduct their affairs as they wish.

    The right answer to these kinds of situations is that people are free not to join a union if they do not agree with how it spends its money. It is quite contrary of the liberty of individuals to exercise a right of association as they wish for the government to come in and forcibly change their governance and constitution.

    We all know the reason the government is doing this, to cripple Labour's funding sources, while hypocritically failing to act at the same time on the other recommendations of the committee which said that private donations from wealthy individuals should be dealt with at the same time as union funding (if we are even to accept that it is reasonable for the government to interfere in the internal affairs of private associations in this manner)
    That's probably true, but if unions were treated just like any other private association they would not be able to grant their members the right to breach contract without recourse, pickets would likely be considered intimidation, and even the organisation itself of breach of contract via the union could be considered a criminal conspiracy.

    Unions are subject to a lot of special restrictions in exchange for special status. If they didn't have that special status, it is likely they would not exist at all, as they would provide their members with very little.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What a load of generic anti-business waffle.
    People who own the most shares benefit nominally the most? Well no kidding Sherlock. Next you'll be proclaiming the bleedingly obvious statement that someone who buys ten lottery tickets has a higher chance of winning than someone who buys one, as if that too is a great injustice.
    How does that change anything I said? Businesses provide the same benefits to all shareholders proportionally.

    It wasn't personal. To quote, well, you, stop being so delicate.

    How cheap? What were competing bids? Give me some actual figures.

    So in other words, corporations hugely represent financial interests the very wealthy who can afford lots of shares. When CEOS and corproations give money they aren't doing it for joe working man with a £100 worth of shares, they do it for those with millions of pounds worth of shares.

    Unions on the other hand represent all its members equally for better working conditions.

    In nearly every debate at some point you throw the term 'left wing' about in some sort. Come off it, not relevant at all here. As you say, you don't like identity politics so stop engaging in it.


    But why then were the tories looking to slash union funding to Labour meanwhile ignoring proposals of the committee to cut donations from corporations?

    JD and the tory party made out it was to do with democracy, that you should be given the choice to opt in, yet when you buy shares you don't 'opt in' to that company giving money to parties do you?
    Those at the top of corporations benefit most, every single person in a union benefits equally.
    The attack on union funding was a very clear and deliberate attempt by the tories to financially cripple Labour, not for any reasons of 'democracy'.

    If it's undemocratic for unions to fund labour, it's undemocratic for corporations to fund the tories.

    But it's the double standards which are astonishing. When Unions threaten to strike to stop their members facing a 30% pay cut they are accused of holding the country to ransom, when corporations threaten to move offshore and take jobs with them if they are taxed more, that's apparently fine.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That's probably true, but if unions were treated just like any other private association they would not be able to grant their members the right to breach contract without recourse, pickets would likely be considered intimidation, and even the organisation itself of breach of contract via the union could be considered a criminal conspiracy.

    Unions are subject to a lot of special restrictions in exchange for special status. If they didn't have that special status, it is likely they would not exist at all, as they would provide their members with very little.
    The pure contempt and hatred for unions and workers trying to protect their rights and pay is staggering.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The pure contempt and hatred for unions and workers trying to protect their rights and pay is staggering.
    I have the same contempt for unions as I would have for BT cutting off my phone line to shake me down for a higher subscription. Neither more nor less.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So in other words, corporations hugely represent financial interests the very wealthy who can afford lots of shares. When CEOS and corproations give money they aren't doing it for joe working man with a £100 worth of shares, they do it for those with millions of pounds worth of shares.
    Unless you're telling me that that the exact same type of shares in fact have different values and different payouts for different people, then your logic is utter horse crap. It's not even a complex situation to understand. Joe working man reaps the EXACT same benefit proportional to the amount of shares he owns. Tens of millions of Brits have a vested interest in the financial well being of private enterprise in this country, so no, they don't represent the few.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Unions on the other hand represent all its members equally for better working conditions.
    But by your logic, the fact that trade union leaders are well remunerated apparently negates that or some crap.
    Anyhow, totally not relevant to the point, which was that corporations represent more people than trade unions do. I'm not debating who advocates labour rights more.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In nearly every debate at some point you throw the term 'left wing' about in some sort. Come off it, not relevant at all here. As you say, you don't like identity politics so stop engaging in it.
    You take the mere phrase 'left-wing' to be an insult?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But why then were the tories looking to slash union funding to Labour meanwhile ignoring proposals of the committee to cut donations from corporations?

    JD and the tory party made out it was to do with democracy, that you should be given the choice to opt in, yet when you buy shares you don't 'opt in' to that company giving money to parties do you?
    Those at the top of corporations benefit most, every single person in a union benefits equally.
    The attack on union funding was a very clear and deliberate attempt by the tories to financially cripple Labour, not for any reasons of 'democracy'.
    Clearly their logic is that unions and corporations are different entities. Maybe they should, since corporations make up a tiny minority of donations. Meh.
    Again, you seem to be struggling with the concept of ownership. People who own the most of something benefit the most of it. It is however in equal proportion. Share price rises benefit all shareholders proportionally. Dividend payments benefit all shareholders proportionally.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If it's undemocratic for unions to fund labour, it's undemocratic for corporations to fund the tories.
    I think the point is it's undemocratic for unions to fund Labour without clear consent from it's members. Have you not been preaching about how unions are holy democratic organisation that fairly and equally stand up for the rights and views of all members?
    Regardless, okay cool it's undemocratic for a corporation to donate politically. Point being? Whataboutism isn't an argument.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But it's the double standards which are astonishing. When Unions threaten to strike to stop their members facing a 30% pay cut they are accused of holding the country to ransom, when corporations threaten to move offshore and take jobs with them if they are taxed more, that's apparently fine.
    That's not a complete and utter generic simplification of the issue, at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    And the Lib Dems - a rational middle-ground - at 9%, below UKIP.

    It's entirely the fault of the voters that this country is how it is.
    The electorate isn't stupid.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I have the same contempt for unions as I would have for BT cutting off my phone line to shake me down for a higher subscription. Neither more nor less.
    Do you not think workers should be able to pool together to give themselves protection over their pay and contracts?

    is it wrong of the doctors union to oppose a 30% pay cut for the same amount of hours?

    Being in a union is on of the few things that can offer you protection in your job.
    Quite why so many dislike them is shocking. The govt gives workers less rights and less pay, unions protest and then people take their anger out on unions.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you not think workers should be able to pool together to give themselves protection over their pay and contracts?

    is it wrong of the doctors union to oppose a 30% pay cut for the same amount of hours?

    Being in a union is on of the few things that can offer you protection in your job.
    Quite why so many dislike them is shocking. The govt gives workers less rights and less pay, unions protest and then people take their anger out on unions.
    It is very quaint that you hold a torch for the Trade Union movement but it is like the Church of England. Running out of members. Fading into national irrelevance.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    It is very quaint that you hold a torch for the Trade Union movement but it is like the Church of England. Running out of members. Fading into national irrelevance.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535
    I know it's fashionable to hate trade unions, the idea that workers should have their contracts and pay protected is abhorrent and entirely anti-aspirational...or something.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I know it's fashionable to hate trade unions, the idea that workers should have their contracts and pay protected is abhorrent and entirely anti-aspirational...or something.
    This is nothing but hyperbole. Most right wingers are fully supportive of the right of an individual to join a union and bargain collectively.

    Where most people (and a large segment of the public generally agree) draw the line is at striking. There is no reason at all that stakeholders should suffer because of strikes.

    I'd also add that while some unions are very good and work in tandem with management for the success of their employees and the firm the general approach from the larger British and French unions (probably because of their political influence in the Labour Party) is one of militancy and one where quite often they end up shafting their members after causing distress to the public. Look at Scargill, Crow, Grangemouth.

    Point being that if you could find me a non-striking union without political affiliation i would happily join, but many of them behave appallingly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This is nothing but hyperbole. Most right wingers are fully supportive of the right of an individual to join a union and bargain collectively.

    Where most people (and a large segment of the public generally agree) draw the line is at striking. There is no reason at all that stakeholders should suffer because of strikes.

    I'd also add that while some unions are very good and work in tandem with management for the success of their employees and the firm the general approach from the larger British and French unions (probably because of their political influence in the Labour Party) is one of militancy and one where quite often they end up shafting their members after causing distress to the public. Look at Scargill, Crow, Grangemouth.

    Point being that if you could find me a non-striking union without political affiliation i would happily join, but many of them behave appallingly.
    What a load of utter drivel.
    So you support unions but not strikes?
    Typical tory. You arbitrarily reduce the pay of workers and then blame them for striking? So you think unions should be allowed but just that they shouldn't be allowed to do anything that makes them a union.
    What else are they meant to do when they are facing a 30% pay cut and being asked to work longer hours?
    What should the junior doctors have done? Go on, what's the alternative?
    As for Scargill, well millions of jobs were going with nothing to replace them, what else could they do? Withdrawing Labour is one of the only things a worker has power to do, so what should unions do instead? Just lie down and take it?

    Yet you seem to support corporations who don't pay taxes and pay their workers a starvation wage rather than a living wage.

    Then you claim to be 'aspirational'. The irony.

    There is nothing aspirational about big corporations not paying tax and paying their workers less than a living wage and there is nothing aspirational about stopping unions.

    You think you're so much better than other people that you shun the thought of workers who need a union to give them some protections. Despite using the word 'aspiration' in every other post, it seems you have none whatsoever.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This is nothing but hyperbole. Most right wingers are fully supportive of the right of an individual to join a union and bargain collectively.

    Where most people (and a large segment of the public generally agree) draw the line is at striking. There is no reason at all that stakeholders should suffer because of strikes.

    I'd also add that while some unions are very good and work in tandem with management for the success of their employees and the firm the general approach from the larger British and French unions (probably because of their political influence in the Labour Party) is one of militancy and one where quite often they end up shafting their members after causing distress to the public. Look at Scargill, Crow, Grangemouth.

    Point being that if you could find me a non-striking union without political affiliation i would happily join, but many of them behave appallingly.
    Unions that will never strike are as useful as a chocolate fire guard and may as well not exist.

    Considering "most people" currently support the doctors strikes that puts you at odds with the view the general public are always against strike action. I don't know any figures but I imagine tube strikers are generally unpopular, yet it seems to work for them anyway. As for stake holders... I see no reason why stake holders should be able to do what they want even if that is at the expense of the workers and why workers can not defend themselves or be hostile to stake holders if they wish, just like stake holders may want to drive down the cost of labour in their investments.

    Under a proper cpaltiast system people shoukd be free to form unions and strike without Tories going all Thatcher and wielding the state to intervene. You also do not have to provide all the protections the state currently provides for strikers and unions of course. Considering capitalism is all about bargaining and deal making I do not see any reason why collective bargaining and collectively hostile actions should not occur. Sounds pretty capitalist to me. To think otherwise is to enter right wing lala land with the right's equivalent of not understanding human nature and using the state to force the "ideal" human out of everyone, forcing everyone into the neoliberal shaped hole of how individuals act in the economy.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    I have the same contempt for unions as I would have for BT cutting off my phone line to shake me down for a higher subscription. Neither more nor less.
    Yeah well, human nature isn't what you want it to be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you not think workers should be able to pool together to give themselves protection over their pay and contracts?
    Not engaging the point. Should BT be allowed to break its contracts with its customers? How about if all the phone companies got together to fix prices? If someone then tries to open a new phone company to undercut the cartel, should BT be allowed to send a bunch of guys down to leer and throw rocks at their operation, the dirty scabs?

    The customer and the worker and the honest businessman are protected by free contract. Inroads against free contract aren't about protecting anything, they're about grabbing what wasn't yours to begin with.

    is it wrong of the doctors union to oppose a 30% pay cut for the same amount of hours?
    This situation is a bit different, because it's a new contract. Doctors can freely choose not to sign this contract. In principle I have no problem with all of them getting together to agree not to sign the contract. My personal suspicion is that doctors are overpaid - far more people want to be doctors than e.g. engineers or accountants, so they can surely reduce pay and still fill all the slots - but as the NHS is a monopoly employer of junior doctors we can't really know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Next election will probably be a Tory majority or maybe a hung parliament
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think there been s few allegations of overspending: most recently in my native Rochester: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/n...erspend-90627/


    I can say they really did throw the kitchen sink at that one, forevery leaflet labour or ukip sent out they sent out four.
    The book 'Why the Tories won' is quite a good insight into their campaign
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leinad2012)
    What will be more interesting is whether the Tories call a snap election in 2017/2018. It's a long way off, and the effect of the EU referendum on the party will be huge, but you'd think they'd be best to capitalise and call a snap election once the water has calmed and provided they still have a convincing lead post EU referendum and pre inevitable Corbyn binning. But then Dave said he wouldn't seek reelection.

    Boris vs Corbyn 2k20 is ****ing scarily poor, neither are men who should be leading this country, but then neither should Yvetter Cooper, Gideon, Teresa May, Ummuna and all the other big name politico's
    There won't be a snap election. Their majority will stay, maybe a few less but don't expect lots of resignations. Although there are Eurosceptics, some don't see it as their main political issue. Only those who would want real change after would resign - the likes of Liam Fox (I think that's his name).

    Corbyn, dare I say it, is admirable to have lasted this long with no defections.

    Boris will NOT be leader. Yeah he's a nice chap who's quite witty, but he'll be the Milliband of the Conservatives. The joke of the party.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.