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

Tories now with a 14pt lead in the polls... Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ChaoticButterfly I always figured under a Capitalist society there would be no unions and if they weren't happy with their jobs then they should quit and get another and thus protect their boss's inalienable right to be a di** to their workforce if they desire. Free market will fix it baby!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    The electorate isn't stupid.
    That's why they'll vote to remain in the EU
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    ChaoticButterfly I always figured under a Capitalist society there would be no unions and if they weren't happy with their jobs then they should quit and get another and thus protect their boss's inalienable right to be a di** to their workforce if they desire. Free market will fix it baby!
    In a right wing libertarian one sure, in theory.

    It's like what my zoology friend said about when he went to Africa to observe lions. You can read a lot about lion behavior in textbooks but the lions don't read the textbooks. They don't stick to the theory.

    In free market theory individual people are supposed to only be concerned with maximizing their utility (is that what it is called?) on an individual level. They are not supposed to be concerned with any externalitites of their economic actions or wider effects on society. Also what happens when a worker realizes he can increase his utility by joining a union and demanding higher wages? That's the wrong type of greed and his is messing up all these wonderful theories! So the free market ideologue can either accept his theories are not always correct or he can use the state to try and enforce his ideology into people, like a statist communist enforcing collectivization. But the whole point of right wing libertarianism is the state leaves things largely alone, so if you do a Thatcher you can no longer call yourself a libertarian. The ideology is flawed and doesn't work. No amount of fancy hand waving or mathematics can change that.

    Another thing about the current crop of people who like to think about themselves as libertarians is that they focus on the problems with the workers not behaving correctly as apposed to the people and organizations at the top of the pyramid. Which probbaly shows what the current strain of real existing captlaism really is. It is powerful with all the wealth playing mental gymnastics with economic theories with the sole purpose of shoveling all the money and power to themselves, this can be seen in the 2008 financial crisis when neoliberal theory was dropped out the window and a kind os state socialism was adopted to bail out banks that should have been destroyed by market discipline. Market discipline only applies to the weak, not the powerful.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.


    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.
    No doctors are not overpaid.
    They are being asked to work the same hours for 30% less. They have no choice in the matter.

    Some people want to be doctors because it's a meaningful profession where you actually help people in a substantial way. I know compassion and care seem obsolete concepts to some but there you go.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No doctors are not overpaid.
    They are being asked to work the same hours for 30% less. They have no choice in the matter.
    They can decide to decline the contract, seek some other employment. If enough did that, really any more than a tiny minority, the government would be forced to backtrack. What I think is more likely is that they will still consider being a doctor better than any other alternative, and stay, which means they were being overpaid before.

    Some people want to be doctors because it's a meaningful profession where you actually help people in a substantial way. I know compassion and care seem obsolete concepts to some but there you go.
    And those people won't mind the changes in pay much.
    Offline

    1
    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
    It's not at all clear what you're referring to. If someone goes on strike, their employer can sue them for breach of contract.

    pickets would likely be considered intimidation
    Don't be so precious. Pickets cannot obstruct entry to a workplace, and those on the picket are liable to all normal laws in terms of breach of the peace. If they attempt to intimidate someone not to enter, they are liable.

    and even the organisation itself of breach of contract via the union could be considered a criminal conspiracy.
    What does breach of contract have to do with a criminal conspiracy? Are you mixing up criminal and civil law?

    Unions are subject to a lot of special restrictions in exchange for special status.
    Unions are subject to certain restrictions, particularly relating to the right to strike. You can't just call a strike, so it could well be argued the restrictions go very much the other way. The government denies people the right to withdraw their labour en masse.

    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.
    That's a pretty dumb analysis. You haven't been able to identify what special status unions have, so your argument doesn't even go over the starting line. It's also pretty witless to claim they wouldn't exist without this "special status" given they existed before the government started to regulate labour disputes.

    You've also failed to demonstrate any linkage between this proclaimed "special status" and some putative justification for the government to interfere in the right of association in order to prevent trade unions donating money to whom they wish. It seems obvious that this is really about narrow partisan advantage, rather than any serious, justifiable basis for interference
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They can decide to decline the contract, seek some other employment. If enough did that, really any more than a tiny minority, the government would be forced to backtrack. What I think is more likely is that they will still consider being a doctor better than any other alternative, and stay, which means they were being overpaid before.


    And those people won't mind the changes in pay much.
    Typical.
    Despite what you think, doctors are not paid a fortune. Doctors are not paid hugely. They are paid a reasonable wage for an exceptionally stressful job, in which they often work nights, weekends and extra hours for free under intense pressures.

    They are being asked to now do all that for £8000 less.

    So spare me your 'if they really cared they wouldn't mind' crap.
    Do you know how much doctors are paid?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Typical.
    Despite what you think, doctors are not paid a fortune. Doctors are not paid hugely. They are paid a reasonable wage for an exceptionally stressful job, in which they often work nights, weekends and extra hours for free under intense pressures.

    They are being asked to now do all that for £8000 less.

    So spare me your 'if they really cared they wouldn't mind' crap.
    Do you know how much doctors are paid?
    Just out of interest, would you be happy or angry if the government increased training places to the point that doctors never got any overtime and therefore got paid that amount less simply due to it being their contractual standard pay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    It's not at all clear what you're referring to. If someone goes on strike, their employer can sue them for breach of contract.
    This is true but misleading. The employer can sue for damages but cannot fire that employee, regardless of what it says in his contract, provided that the strike is organised in accordance with the law.

    Don't be so precious. Pickets cannot obstruct entry to a workplace, and those on the picket are liable to all normal laws in terms of breach of the peace. If they attempt to intimidate someone not to enter, they are liable.
    Sure, pickets do not have a legal right to commit violent crimes, but their original purpose was to do so, and a world that didn't privilege unions would rather see them like a group of football hooligans hanging around outside a rival team's pub.

    What does breach of contract have to do with a criminal conspiracy? Are you mixing up criminal and civil law?
    I am recapitulating English law as it once was.

    Unions are subject to certain restrictions, particularly relating to the right to strike. You can't just call a strike, so it could well be argued the restrictions go very much the other way. The government denies people the right to withdraw their labour en masse.

    That's a pretty dumb analysis. You haven't been able to identify what special status unions have, so your argument doesn't even go over the starting line. It's also pretty witless to claim they wouldn't exist without this "special status" given they existed before the government started to regulate labour disputes.

    You've also failed to demonstrate any linkage between this proclaimed "special status" and some putative justification for the government to interfere in the right of association in order to prevent trade unions donating money to whom they wish. It seems obvious that this is really about narrow partisan advantage, rather than any serious, justifiable basis for interference
    A union is defined by its intent to abridge free association, to unilaterally impose changed contractual terms - or the effects of changed contractual terms - on third parties who wouldn't have voluntarily agreed to them. Founding union rights on a bedrock of freedom of association makes as much sense as founding the powers of the British Board of Film Classification on a bedrock of freedom of speech: the board makes publications disseminating its decisions, after all. If everyone were playing by the rules of freedom of association then I agree that unions ought to be allowed to make political donations, but if unions had to play by those rules too then that's probably about all they would be doing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This is true but misleading. The employer can sue for damages but cannot fire that employee, regardless of what it says in his contract, provided that the strike is organised in accordance with the law.
    Just as the employee can't go on strike unless it's a properly balloted dispute. The restrictions bind both parties. In any case, it's still unclear what this has to do with interfering with the rights of unions to donate money to whom they will

    Sure, pickets do not have a legal right to commit violent crimes
    Great. So what are you complaining about? Positing hysterical counterfactuals isn't a serious argument.

    I am recapitulating English law as it once was.
    So we are agreed that you mixed up criminal and civil law.

    A union is defined by its intent to abridge free association
    I would say you're allowing your personal embitterment with trade unions to affect your judgment. Trade unions were designed to allow employees to bargain with employers based on the laws of supply and demand, and to get the best price for their labour. That's why the right-wing detests them so much.

    to unilaterally impose changed contractual terms
    You are getting mixed up again. A union cannot unilaterally impose contractual terms on an employer.

    or the effects of changed contractual terms - on third parties who wouldn't have voluntarily agreed to them.
    Again, you are getting mixed up. Unions cannot unilaterally impose contractual terms; their leverage comes from the ability of their members to withdraw their labour, thus sending a price signal to the labour market. That right to withdraw labour is highly circumscribed, and an employer can both sue the employee for breach of contract and after 12 weeks they can dismiss them anyway.

    f everyone were playing by the rules of freedom of association then I agree that unions ought to be allowed to make political donations
    You still haven't demonstrated any link between the "special status" about which you're so embittered (and for which unions have "paid" for by other concessions strongly circumscribing the circumstances in which they can withdraw their labour) and the right of these organisations to donate to a particular party which has nothing to do with any particular labour dispute.

    I'm sorry but you're a rather obvious fellow; if the trade unions donated to the Conservative Party instead it's pretty clear you wouldn't be supporting these anti-freedom proposals to interfere in the rights of private associations to organise their finances as they wish.

    If a potential member doesn't like a union donating to a party, they are free not to join. But that would be too simple, and too freedom-oriented, for the hypocritical modern conservative
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Just out of interest, would you be happy or angry if the government increased training places to the point that doctors never got any overtime and therefore got paid that amount less simply due to it being their contractual standard pay.
    That's not how it works in reality.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's not how it works in reality.
    It's how it could work though. So answer the question.. if doctors were not provided with overtime (therefore worked less) would you support their existing pay arrangement or would it still be too low.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's how it could work though. So answer the question.. if doctors were not provided with overtime (therefore worked less) would you support their existing pay arrangement or would it still be too low.
    But it's not. Having the same doctor throughout is of fundamental importance, especially for patients who don't want to be seen by 8 different doctors.


    It would still be too low. I know you love capitalism and aspiration and all, and therefore a public sector role like a doctor massively offends that vision...
    But doctors are incredibly important to a society. No point having money, a house etc if you don't have health.

    They perform an incredibly stressful job and are not paid hugely. Another misconception is that doctors rake it in - they absolutely do not. They get decent pay for an exceptionally stressful and hard job.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    In a right wing libertarian one sure, in theory.

    It's like what my zoology friend said about when he went to Africa to observe lions. You can read a lot about lion behavior in textbooks but the lions don't read the textbooks. They don't stick to the theory.

    In free market theory individual people are supposed to only be concerned with maximizing their utility (is that what it is called?) on an individual level. They are not supposed to be concerned with any externalitites of their economic actions or wider effects on society. Also what happens when a worker realizes he can increase his utility by joining a union and demanding higher wages? That's the wrong type of greed and his is messing up all these wonderful theories! So the free market ideologue can either accept his theories are not always correct or he can use the state to try and enforce his ideology into people, like a statist communist enforcing collectivization. But the whole point of right wing libertarianism is the state leaves things largely alone, so if you do a Thatcher you can no longer call yourself a libertarian. The ideology is flawed and doesn't work. No amount of fancy hand waving or mathematics can change that.

    Another thing about the current crop of people who like to think about themselves as libertarians is that they focus on the problems with the workers not behaving correctly as apposed to the people and organizations at the top of the pyramid. Which probbaly shows what the current strain of real existing captlaism really is. It is powerful with all the wealth playing mental gymnastics with economic theories with the sole purpose of shoveling all the money and power to themselves, this can be seen in the 2008 financial crisis when neoliberal theory was dropped out the window and a kind os state socialism was adopted to bail out banks that should have been destroyed by market discipline. Market discipline only applies to the weak, not the powerful.
    To be fair the libertarians like Dan Hanaan were all for letting the banks go down. (As an aside, from what I understand; whilst bailing out the banks was unpopular it was actually managed quite well and prevented mass job losses. I think i heard Varoufakis say it was necessary...)

    In regards to the unions, I think the libertarians are fine with individual greed but not with collective greed as that infringes on peoples rights (Tyranny of the majority).



    The problem as you've identified is that Libertarians :

    A: Believe humans to be rational decision makers (Lol @ Wars, religion etc)
    B: The Market is the most efficient economic system ( Lol No-Early USSR/ China)
    C: We can survive outside of a resource based economy in the long term (Lol Climate Chang)
    D: Overpopulation is going to go down at some point (Lol Malthus)


    Capitalism in many ways is the last religion that needs to be defeated i think.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But it's not. Having the same doctor throughout is of fundamental importance, especially for patients who don't want to be seen by 8 different doctors.

    It would still be too low. I know you love capitalism and aspiration and all, and therefore a public sector role like a doctor massively offends that vision...
    But doctors are incredibly important to a society. No point having money, a house etc if you don't have health.

    They perform an incredibly stressful job and are not paid hugely. Another misconception is that doctors rake it in - they absolutely do not. They get decent pay for an exceptionally stressful and hard job.
    I think you need a tea break to calm down.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    To be fair the libertarians like Dan Hanaan were all for letting the banks go down. (As an aside, from what I understand; whilst bailing out the banks was unpopular it was actually managed quite well and prevented mass job losses. I think i heard Varoufakis say it was necessary...)

    In regards to the unions, I think the libertarians are fine with individual greed but not with collective greed as that infringes on peoples rights (Tyranny of the majority).

    The problem as you've identified is that Libertarians :

    A: Believe humans to be rational decision makers (Lol @ Wars, religion etc)
    B: The Market is the most efficient economic system ( Lol No-Early USSR/ China)
    C: We can survive outside of a resource based economy in the long term (Lol Climate Chang)
    D: Overpopulation is going to go down at some point (Lol Malthus)

    Capitalism in many ways is the last religion that needs to be defeated i think.
    Purists are idiots when they fail to consider the sheer size of such firms in relation to the economy.

    Allowing the banks to collapse would have first led to a decrease in the supply in the supply of money which would have been catastrophic to the value of Sterling and on top of that you put a few hundred thousand people out of work and also withdraw credit lines that were keeping other firms alive or fueling growth. Negative feedback takes over and people suffer hard.

    That said the government was too lenient. A better scenario would have been to nationalise at 1p per share (you screw pension funds but to be fair, it's an investment that is not guaranteed) and then wind down the firm while asset stripping it. Do this over a year and you mitigate some of the effects, especially if you guarantee deposits.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I think you need a tea break to calm down.



    Purists are idiots when they fail to consider the sheer size of such firms in relation to the economy.

    Allowing the banks to collapse would have first led to a decrease in the supply in the supply of money which would have been catastrophic to the value of Sterling and on top of that you put a few hundred thousand people out of work and also withdraw credit lines that were keeping other firms alive or fueling growth. Negative feedback takes over and people suffer hard.

    That said the government was too lenient. A better scenario would have been to nationalise at 1p per share (you screw pension funds but to be fair, it's an investment that is not guaranteed) and then wind down the firm while asset stripping it. Do this over a year and you mitigate some of the effects, especially if you guarantee deposits.
    I don't like tea.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    To be fair the libertarians like Dan Hanaan were all for letting the banks go down. (As an aside, from what I understand; whilst bailing out the banks was unpopular it was actually managed quite well and prevented mass job losses. I think i heard Varoufakis say it was necessary...)

    In regards to the unions, I think the libertarians are fine with individual greed but not with collective greed as that infringes on peoples rights (Tyranny of the majority).



    The problem as you've identified is that Libertarians :

    A: Believe humans to be rational decision makers (Lol @ Wars, religion etc)
    B: The Market is the most efficient economic system ( Lol No-Early USSR/ China)
    C: We can survive outside of a resource based economy in the long term (Lol Climate Chang)
    D: Overpopulation is going to go down at some point (Lol Malthus)


    Capitalism in many ways is the last religion that needs to be defeated i think.
    I very much agree. I do like Hanaan though.
    Modern day capitalism is hugely based on pretending a lot of its ills are non existent (poverty) or are nothing to do with it (global warming). That's not to say capitalism cannot be good, parts of it are. But we don't have to take the bad with the good.

    I heard a humorous summation of modern day capitalism: 'Rich people fooling middle class people into hating poor people'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good news.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GoldenFang)
    You still haven't demonstrated any link between the "special status" about which you're so embittered (and for which unions have "paid" for by other concessions strongly circumscribing the circumstances in which they can withdraw their labour) and the right of these organisations to donate to a particular party which has nothing to do with any particular labour dispute.
    After all that you are now conceding that unions are organisations that trade certain freedom of action for privileges with the state, you just don't agree that slightly underhand fundraising for the Labour party should be included in that freedom of action they have to give up. That's just a matter of opinion and I'm not going to argue it; you started out saying there was a principle of freedom of association at stake which there is not, because unions as they exist in the UK today are already inconsistent with freedom of association. Make a deal with the devil and you can get burned.

    You, btw, are also an "obvious fellow", and have been at least to me under previous pseudonyms as well.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    To be fair the libertarians like Dan Hanaan were all for letting the banks go down. (As an aside, from what I understand; whilst bailing out the banks was unpopular it was actually managed quite well and prevented mass job losses. I think i heard Varoufakis say it was necessary...)

    In regards to the unions, I think the libertarians are fine with individual greed but not with collective greed as that infringes on peoples rights (Tyranny of the majority).
    I never said I was for letting the banks go down. It just shows the unworkability of free market dogma and how rulers do not really believe the theories they subscribe to (I don't think a lot of them even have that great a knowledge of them anyway). I'm sure plenty of honest free market types did support letting banks go under. It's just the risk of what they advocate leading to chaos that seriously holds back human progress or indeed going backwards, we don;t need another 1930s. If we have these banks that know they will be bailed out if they **** up that severely undermines the whole point of markets and why they are supposed to be good. The theory brakes down as these banks are not exposed to market forces like the rest of the economy, they are to big to fail. So things that are too big to fail should be dealt by another approach since they clearly can not be left to "market forces" like everything else. The stupid thing is that we worked all this out after the war... If a corner shop goes bust it's fine. He was uncompetitive etc. If a lot of vital financial infrastructure goes bust the whole game board is smashed and society collapses. You can;t recover from that. The corner shop and vital infrastructure are not the same and should be treated differently. There are load of example so this. Nuclear Power stations are not profitable, but if we exposed them to strickt market discipline we would have brown outs and black outs which then severely undermines the rest of the economy. Free market fundamentalism just doesn't work.

    I'm against the response to 2008. They have some how managed to use the global financial crisis to continue with the same policies that caused the financial crisis in the first place. So whilst they bail out the banks they are using it as a reason to continue their plan which incorporates attacking the welfare state etc.

    I don't see how collective greed in this sense undermines others liberty. As long as they don't use force to stop strike breakers or people from seeking employment it's libertarian. I've been reading about farm collectives in Spain and the collectives respected the "petty individualists" and coexisted with them. The individualist were free to exist but they could not get the benefits of the collective unless they joined and agreed the "rules" of the collective. That's basically the same libertarianism that the right wing libs apply to the liberty in a worker having the choice of whether or not he works at his company, but if he chooses to he has to abide by the companies rules etc.

    Economics is very much like a religion unfortunately. It doesn't have to be though. You should go check out Steve Keen's lectures on complexity and how economics ignores it as an example. Mainstream Economics is obsessed with equilibrium in markets and this idea underpins much of it thinking. But since the advent of computers in physics we know that complex systems do not even have to have an equilibrium at all. To try and model complex systems, of which economies are one, without taking into account all these advances we have made is incredibly anti-science. There is a complete lack of empiricism in economics.
 
 
 
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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    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

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