A superb article: Ordinary workers should be protected from the evil influence of public sector unions

heroine. It's no coincidence that uncleanliness in hospitals increased following privatisation of cleaning services.

The more people who move out of the public sector and into the private sector, the better.

Longfingernails. The private sector is too busy moving jobs abroad.

No this is a superb article.

www.leftfutures.org/2010/09/trade-unions-are-a-public-asset/

This current animosity towards unions, particularly public sector unions, is misguided. Unions were originally formed to protect some very basic human rights and it is these basic standards that have now become the norm throughout society thanks to the civilising influence of the unions. This has become established throughout history and is not something that can be understood simply via a one-off incident of labour withdrawal by a particular set of workers. It's far more complex than that and to form an opinion based on a particular (and frankly quite rare) set of actions is lazy and foolish. Members have fought hard over the years for these rights, pay for the privelege and for the most part subvert their individual values for the benefit of the collective good. If you think that individuals can protect themselves, then you are sadly wrong. Individuals can only protect themselves where they are in a position of power; generally speaking, most of us wield little or no bargaining power within an organisation and have no choice but to seek strength in collective representation.Members of public sector unions are very often badly-paid (cleaners, binmen etc) doing unpleasant jobs and the perceived enhanced benefits enjoyed by these workers was intended only to compensate for poor wages. It is only relatively recently that the private sector has slipped behind the public sector in terms of benefits-until the current passion for downsizing, outsourcing and "casualisation" of workforces the private sector was seen as more attractive to work in because wages were generally better. Unfortunately for many, unions were seen as an irrelevance and many have seen their terms and conditions gradually eroded by unscrupulous employers. If everyone exercised their right to join a trade union-or were perhaps compelled to do so-working life would be a lot better for a lot more people.

A good example. NHS managers introduced and increased the use of private contractors for cleaning, which dissolved the command and control relationship with nursing staff, who previously had seen cleaners as part of a team effort against disease - ie promoting a team approach to healthcare. This was eroded by companies seeking to make profit out of contracts by undersupllying cleaners, undertraining them, and making them resentful. Nurses were prevented from asking cleaners to change their cleaningf routine or even from disciplining cleaners (not necessarily harshly just a word here or there) who were neglecting things in a way that just happens (i.e a cleaner might not notice that if she/he cleans duiring a ward round, tables aren't out and don't get cleaned for example) because the person responsible for cleaning quality is the contracts manager details just didn't get discussed.

Who opposed this naive and cost (rather than benefit-led) discussion most vociferously? UNISON. Who overruled it? Largely conservative supporting senior management.

What people forget is that Unions act as fast and sometimes aggressive lightning conductors upwards and downwards. Management decisions come through unions to bottom lefvel staff who very quickly feed their concerns directly back to management. This is far more cost-effective than waiting until all the 'detail' problems (as we've heard) magnify (into mrsa) because you are ignoring or disregarding unions, and then paying both lawyers, management consultants and change managers to solve problems that unions were trying to head off.

Of course, this last approach significantly benefits a particular ('professional') class more than following union advice would. (note fact fans that professional expectations of pay and benefits are far more protected than those of non-professional staff - once a lawyer there is no market drive for £400 per hour to read a document and write a summary.. professional bodies really are unions in disguise)

Yes. The private sector most definitely always gets more bang for it's buck. By fleecing others. Private cleaning firms used in hospitals for one example.

well 4. a. no government has run surplus since 1983 ish?
b. you are more likely to run a deficit in good years! this is when you spend income on imports to accellerate your growing economy (similarly you might accellerate your economy after a slump by going into large deficit as the country invests faster than it outputs as is happening now...

1. non-affordability is not necessarily a case for not spending a. investing in lean times means acceleration out is faster and longer b. if by not investing you lose all.. better keep investing (labour strategy fuelled by (largely tory) bankers and free-marketeers.

1. It depends how what you value as productive and innovative - certainly the private sector is more proftable (again some variation in defining this is possible) but empty 'innovation' is not necessarily productive or profitable. productive may just as easily represent consisttency stability and persistent return on effort...
2. No I didn't say encouraged, I said benefitted from. the way tax is spent is the issue, not how much is paid so this is really a moot point.
3. you can't have accountability without either monitoring or evaluation (or indeed legal robustness) which requires pen-pushing I'm afraid (cf global gang economics for a better model of unregulated free markets).

Litchick, I take your point and sometimes the posturing is unnecessary, that said if i was in bother with my company I would want Bob Crow in my corner.

newwave - you won't get an argument from me about that...but that doesn't give the union leaders carte blanche to do likewise.

I recall a very heated discussion between my Mother and King Arthur about the sale of council houses.

Arthur was making a lot of noise in our constituency (heavy mining area) about the policy, and while my Mum had some sympathy with his views, she pointed out that a. it would be mostly local miners who would benefit from the policy and b. it really really did have absolutely nothing to do with him as an elected union leader, and he should not be using his time on the campaign, nor assume that he spoke for miners on that particular issue.

Doh

The way the ConDems and more so the FibDems effectively ignore what their voters actually think and want smacks of patronage to me.

Litchick.

The way union leaders the ConDems and more so the FibDems effectively ignore what their members voters actually think and want smacks of patronage to me.

I wish I could run the local council. Their waste makes me weep, especially with regard to jobs. Last week in the paper the redundancy (with appropriate golden goodbyes) was announced of two people, each earning £140K. £140K! And the irony is that their jobs were dispensable!

And also I met an "Obesity Officer". I asked her what she did. She said that her job description wasn't active yet because the committee needed to be set up "to discuss protocols". So then I persisted in asking what she was intending to do to cut obesity in the area. She got a bit belligerent and said that nothing could be done until the appropriate committees were in place and again went on about "protocols".

I think local councils should be drains and dustbins. The end.

Dittany I completely agree with your analysis of how important unions are.

That is and should be there job - too protect their members interests.

However, I do question their role as a wider political force. Many union leaders would prefer to see an end to capitalism in its entirety and spend a lot of energy and time (paid for, quite handsomely, by their members) on pursuing this.

They would say, I'm sure, that this wider political pressure is about protecting workers. However, do they have a mandate from their members to pursue it?

I'm really not convinced that the average train driver actually wants to see an end to capitalism and globalisation.
He or she wants to work in reasonabale conditions, then go home and watch Sky TV.

The way many union leaders effectively ignore what their members actually think and want smacks of patronage to me.

I wish I could join in these intellectual debates

And the total disregard for social justice is not good either. Because that's what she stands for. Hence the energetic questioning of her views. You espouse such bollocks extreme opinions, then be prepared to soundly defend them.

As for her background, I think people are genuinely curious as to what background produced such extreme - and they are extreme - views. If people choose to have a bit of a laugh - nothing malevolent unless you are extremely sensitive, then so be it.

"Socialists have this disgusting sense of moral superiority"

Socialists? That's where LFN's massive ignorance really shows itself. Anyone who is not pro reduced state role to whatever % she insists upon is socialist. Mad. I'm not not a socialist.

And "disgusting"? That's pretty potent inflammatory language. And weird anger too.

I believe in justice. There is no way the private sector ever tries to deliver justice and a fair way. That is where the moderation of other elements like the state and unions come into play.

sort of stuff that is worn when singing "Whose side are you on?" and other similarly pretentious, dreary dirges.

'remember donkey jackets being fashionable (and cheap cos they could be old council issue) on pair of doc marten shoes for school and one pair of trainers'

sounds a bit like Billy Bragg's dream gear

Interesting but...

1. Council swimming pools - you are talking incorrectly about 'affordableness' If a council pool doesn't make profit, and is subsidised such that the takings don't pat for its operation, this can be down to many factors and not all of them sensible economics - pools that are only sustainable through profit aren't feasible - large international facilities (eg the pool in Manchester) would only either be financed by borrowing (which you seem against, yet the private sector borrows far more than the public sector - Orange PC took 25 years before it broke even) or not be present - and if they are not present, then we are not internationally competitive

1. you forget that £40bn x 4 is £160 Bn yet even in your answer you cite 2 companies with huge tax 'avoidance' (though that point is a little moot - as some isn't true avoidance, it is negotiated evasion which isn't quite the same ethically). Tescos, Vodaphone, Sainsbury's, Vodaphone, Guardian Media Group, Sky.. etc etc the list goes on for companies who have negotiated bulk payments that represent a small proportion of what they owe. 160bn underpaid is representative.
2. Not as much as you think was financed by debt - most of the deficit comes from the bank subsidies (which we have yet to fully realise our profit on actually), as well as a devaluation of our currency against the Euro and Dollar helped along by the general election
3. Don't negate interdependence - it is a feature of modern economies
4. In order to judge if it is a cost sink or not you need to also do a value calculation, that you have neglected here - if economic value is higher than cost these are not sinks.
5. Not true actually, organic growth in the private sector does not necessarily contribute to profit-making enterprises conducted by the private sector - in fact in some cases shrinkage in private sector activity allowes public-sector fuelled profitable enterprises to thrive.
6. Plenty of business leaders acknowledge that having to manage difficult problematic mployees, the disabled, people who need flexible work patterns, alcoholic and drug addicted people, older workers, is less profitable than recruiting non-problematic workers, overseas staff and people they can exploit (I also argue that this is because of weak management skill in the private and public sector because of class issues (but will reserve that for another occasion) and that the benefit system keeps these people out of work OR stops these people becoming an extra cost in terms of crime, anti-social behaviour etc (which will absolutely rise if you cease to pay them a dependent income - see the states for high crime rates and high security costs).
7. Sorry but this is naive - I do agree that a more socialist community approach should be in evidence in our culture, but that is not the same as moving accountability from paid officials to volunteers If cameron's big society is to work, it can't be on the basis that all the difficult interim stuff is done by well-meaning but unaccountable people and only the easy quick wins are done by central government - we had a minor version of this idea in the late 80s and we had an absolutely awful country where racist, disablist, and class attacks were commonplace, where poverty was so normal it even had to become 'cool' so people didn't lose heart (remember donkey jackets being fashionable (and cheap cos they could be old council issue) on pair of doc marten shoes for school and one pair of trainers, as well as social drugs being glue and solvents?? That's pretty bloody grim for a nation like ours and that is where your philosphy is heading..

TBH I sometimes think LFN is on a wind up, no normal person with an ounce of human empathy could post some of the things she does.

Doesn't matter who gets hurt, what services are lost. Doesn't matter who cannot afford their rent or mortgage due to the ConDemn actions.

Force people off benefits into non existent jobs.

Wants to change strike laws so as the union has to give 3 months notice and can only strike for one day at a time.

No right to strike for pay or to protect terms conditions.

It,s OK for Philip Green and other rich companies and individuals to avoid taxes they should morally be paying.

The world of LFN, Robothatcher :o