Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

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

105 replies

longfingernails · 13/12/2010 22:02

Bravo, Tim Pawlenty!

He has written an excellent comment piece in today's Wall Street Journal.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410.html

Pawlenty is a bit of what we used to call a "wet" Conservative - think Ken Clarke - the Americans have the more perjorative term RINO - Republican in Name Only. But this article is spot-on.

Public sector unions should be made illegal. As the article so deftly explains, public sector unions are deeply exploitative.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 14/12/2010 00:11

The situation in the UK is far worse - our public sector unions are far more militant - but the issues are exactly the same on both sides of the pond.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 14/12/2010 00:10

I am saying that the good employees are better off without unions. The bad employees should be sacked, even in times of plenty - in fact, especially in times of plenty.

The role of the public sector isn't to provide jobs. It is to provide decent public services for the best possible value.

OP posts:
TheFarSide · 14/12/2010 00:07

It's an American article - not sure how it applies in the UK. Last time I looked the public sector here was facing massive job cuts.

The public sector employs relatively large numbers of women, many on very low pay. Are you saying these women would be better off without unions?

Original poster
longfingernails · 14/12/2010 00:06

The problem is one we are familiar with: the deficit. At some point, Obama will have to start slashing the federal budget.

The Republicans are continuing to behave irresponsibly, giving conservatism a bad name, just like Bush.

Balanced budgets have to come first, before big tax cuts - though the tax cuts have to come eventually. Cameron and Osborne are right and Bush was totally wrong.

But Obama is in a bind. He can't increase taxes - he already repels independents. He can't get them back like Clinton, because he is not a Blue Dog Democrat - he is definitely of the left. And he won't cut spending - most of his Presidency has been occupied, in one shape or form, with massively increasing it.

That means America will have bigger and bigger deficits. It can run them for a while, because the dollar is a reserve currency - but how long will that last?

Obama is in trouble. It's the economy, stupid. How, exactly, is Obama going to lop of hundreds of billions in federal spending, in time for 2012?

OP posts:
huddspur · 13/12/2010 23:57

I think that Obama will get a second term, he's such a good campaigner and powerful speech maker and lets face it the Republicans are far more culpable for Americas economic woes than Obama is

Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 23:55

Of course, Obama isn't Gordon Brown - he can deliver an electrifying speech, on occasion - but his economic policies are exactly the same - tax the rich, and institutionalise a welfare class.

OP posts:
legostuckinmyhoover · 13/12/2010 23:54

Just googled Rubio...not my type at all [on the looks front or politically]. He looks like he should be on Dallas!

Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 23:53

At the moment America loathes Obama but doesn't completely trust the Republicans - same problem that Cameron faced, sort of - but with the Tea Party complicating things, forcing Republicans away from the centre.

I think the nominee will have to be someone both the RINOs and the Tea Party can live with - someone in the middle of the GOP. McCain was a bit too far to the left, as far as GOP politics goes. Someone like DeMint or Palin will have no chance, but a mainstream Republican, probably with a good record as a Governor - but maybe a Senator - is the most likely candidate.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 23:49

Yes, I am getting more interested in American politics these days.

I am trying to work out who the Republican 2012 nominee will be. Pawlenty is an outside chance.

Rubio might be one to watch - he is very conservative, and Hispanic (and quite good looking)!

OP posts:
legostuckinmyhoover · 13/12/2010 23:44

LFN, I read the title and knew it was by you!

I love your determination for something that will never happen Smile [phew]. It is about as likely as my dream for another tax band [or few] after the 50% band.

As a fellow Londoner, may I suggest you commute by bus or taxi or Boris bike or something rather than by tube in the future??

lastly, I think Labour voters think the Conservative party are 'nasty' because, erm well...they are 'nasty'!

By the way, isn't the article american?

Monty27 · 13/12/2010 23:26

Read the post and then recognised poster.

Utter rot again.

23balloons · 13/12/2010 23:24

I have never believed in unions but now working in a school where the head is a total dictator I am changing my opinion. Unfortunately i am not a local council employee as it is a voluntary aided school. Although we do receive funding from the local council.

The things I have experienced during my employment are literally beyond belief. i was told (by HR) that I do not need a job description when I asked for one. I have a contract which describes a totally different job to the one I am doing yet I am powerless as an individual employee.

I wrote to the Admin Manager (a teacher) asking for my job & pay to be reviewed in light of additional & changed duties. I was told my letter would be discussed at the next governors meeting (scheduled 3 months later). I wrote directly to the Head quoting the schools grievance policy on the staff intranet. he didn't respond personally but got the Admin Manager to tell me I wasn't actually doing the job I was doing I was doing the job in my contract (completely untrue). My line manager came to the meeting but was afraid to speak up.

I resolved to leave, unfortunately I have flexible term time only hours & they use this to keep staff on low pay & doing duties they are not paid for.

things have actually gotten much worse lately & I am tempted to resign without another job to go to but am reluctant as I may not find another job for a while & need a reference. I am tied by having young children (& they know it). I am a skilled & respected memeber of the team I work in but unfortunately management have their own agenda. i am intelligent & degree educated but feel totally powerless in the situation I am in as laws do not exist where I work.

moondog · 13/12/2010 23:21

'The moral case for unions?protecting working families from exploitation?does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.'

Great article and above so true.
What irritates me is peopel who seem to think conditions are the same for ordinary peopel as they were 70 years ago. I speak as one whose greatgrandfather was big in the unions in the coalmines in the 20s and 30s when undoubtedly they were essential.

GetOrfMoiLand · 13/12/2010 23:20

Mind you I only worked in public sector for 18 months donkey's years ago, hated it.

Think unions are hugely important in the private sector. Some companies try to get away with all sorts.

huddspur · 13/12/2010 23:19

I don't want to see unions having a stranglehold over the Government but that doesn't mean I don't think they have no place.

moondog · 13/12/2010 23:18

I agree.Stranglehold of unions over the country is madness. I see so many peopel who would be out on their arse in the real world and rightly so.
Right, off to read the article. Sounds right up my street.

GetOrfMoiLand · 13/12/2010 23:15

LFN - you spout shite. I am glad Claig is on here to talk sense - I would naturally disagree with you being left wing, however Claig is a out and proud tory and even she thinks what you are talking is rot.

Strong unions benefit workers long term - and it is not only public sector in which they have a strong negotiating arm. I used to work for a hugely successful manufacturing company, GKN, which had a very strong union (Amicus) presence, and which successfuly fought back on what were considered unreasonable potential contractual changes.

I have been far, far happier in companies with a strong union presence than I have been in companies which have none.

And the companies which had a union were, generally, more successful and better run.

huddspur · 13/12/2010 23:13

I admit I'm not a member of a union and never have been nor am I old enough to remember the 1970s when trade union militancy crippled the country but I still think that the protection that union membership gives you is worth it.

Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 23:09

Legislation gives more than enough security. There is already too much red tape in our labour laws, much of it from Brussels.

Unions are used as an excuse not to be able to fire bad employeers.

The worst cases are on the Tube (the RMT is a public sector union in all but name). Bob Crowe is always going on about "safety concerns", but is happy to go on strike trying to keep the jobs of Tube drivers who open the doors on the wrong side, or commit violence against other Tube workers or the public.

OP posts:
huddspur · 13/12/2010 23:03

I agree that there are far too many public sector employees and that there does need to be a reduction but trade union membership does give you security against serious maltreatment in the workplace.

Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 22:58

huddspur Why should public sector job security be a priority for taxpayers, instead of public sector value for money? The more people who move out of the public sector and into the private sector, the better.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 22:52

As long as Labour keeps thinking of Tory voters as being "nasty", they will be nowhere.

It's pretty obvious why Labour voters vote Labour.

It's obvious why people vote SNP, or Plaid, or BNP, or Green, or UKIP.

The reasons people vote Lib Dem are a bit fuzzy, in comparison.

But the reasons why people vote Tory is something which, perplexingly, tribal Labour supporters just don't seem to understand.

OP posts:
huddspur · 13/12/2010 22:49

Whilst I deplore the actions of many of the union leaders, the idea that employees are better of outside of the unions is ridiculous

newwave · 13/12/2010 22:43

LFN you really are a nasty little Tory drone.

Original poster
longfingernails · 13/12/2010 22:38

claig The "employer" (as well as the "shareholder") is the taxpayer. I would say that taxpayers are the "customers" as well, but increasingly under Labour, the customers of public services are tax non-payers.

If we feel that the managers (the Government, in whichever guise) are being too harsh on the employees we get the chance to periodically sack them.

There are plenty of checks and balances.

I don't believe in collective pay bargaining. Highly motivated, highly skilled people are worth more.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread