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

[longfingernails]

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.

She's landed gentry.

Landed gentry? Do me a favour - since when do the landed gentry have long fingernails - that's absolutely not a rural thing?

''How the hell does a cleaner in a hospital defend themselves against a HA bent on sacking the entire housekeeping team and making them reapply for the jobs. On lower wages, with less holiday?

Get their solicitor onto it I suppose? hmm''

that is not hypothetical, it happened and the consequences are still felt today

look also at the care homes, where workers are often employed on a monthly basis or from agencies very low wages and easily got rid of, if for instance they dare to talk about bad practice, it happens everyday
but of course that is the private sector so terms and conditions don't count

If you accept her cyber persona then LFN is a very spiteful and thoroughly nasty person. She wants management to have total power over the employees with no recourse of any kind. Wants to ban strikes on the Tube but never says how the "workers" will protect themselves from exploitation by the management.

Typical frothing at the mouth Tory, beyond obnoxious.

I work as a senior-ish manager in a medium-size private sector company in London. It has nothing to do with politics, journalism, PR, or anything else directly connected with politics in any way. I am not going to say more than that.

I am certainly not landed gentry. I grew up sharing a room with my sister in a noisy flat above a shop, and I am from an immigrant background. My parents were Labour voters, before Thatcher. After that they became staunch working-class Tories.

I have long said that Cameron's biggest electoral problem is that he just doesn't instinctively "get" the "strivers" in the same way that Thatcher did. Fortunately for him, Ed Miliband seems to be even more totally out of tune with the aspirational working class, and rather clueless generally.

Ordinary American workers have on the whole absolutely minimal employment rights. They can be fired at will (no reason given, no notice) often have very minimal contracts and are dependent on their employees not just for the wages but their family's healthcare too. Health and Safety provisions are also very weak. Except for some select industries unions play a very small part in American life, but where they have power it seems they have a lot of it. But only in those industries, otherwise you'd see similar workers rights as in most of Europe. Historically one of the differences is that bosses had the option of bringing in new immigrants to bust strikes, and did so on a relatively frequent basis. Of course as with all things to do with the US a lot of this varies from state to state.

We lived in the States for a while and people were really very nervous about their jobs and put up with frankly terrible treatment because they felt they had no recourse. It's really not a good model.

Of course sometimes unions act in counterproductive and reactionary ways, and some are more progressive than others. I also think that sometimes people exclude professional associations when they are thinking about unions. In my experience the most powerful and effective union is the BMA but I doubt that lfn would be wishing to make professional associations illegal too.

LFN, what was it in your upbringing you do think made you start to hate people in general?

I mean, for example, you seem to think support to for employment rights that unions provide is a bad thing. In fact, you seem to think that any support for people is a bad thing.

Thatcher was never for anyone but the rich. Cameron will never be for anyone but the rich. They couldn't give a stuff the middle or working classes because they, like you, loathe anyone who isn't minted. They couldn't care less about the "strivers", as you put it.

I think you have a very very uneducated and limited view on the world given the bull you constantly trot out on here.

Oh well when your 'medium sized private company' gets sold off to the highest bidder and they want to shaft you by demolishing your terms and conditions perhaps you'll look again at how useful the unions are.

Good luck with that.

The article talks common sense about the huge dficits and debts that many states and local municipalities have in the US. The Muni bond market (where public authorities borrow money) in the US is in chaos as states and municipalities teeter on the edge of bankruptcy. Someting has to e done about local authority deficts and spiraling costs of wages and benefits.

To put it simply, every level of Govt in the US needs to cut costs. The pay and benefits of many state employees are beyond gross - in particular those already retired.

However, private sector employment is equally bad the other way. The whole business of losing ealtcare if you lose yor job is just something I cannot get my head round. I watch US TV a lot and listen to US politicians and business people talking and frankly I just cannot understand how they think it is OK for anyone to go without healthcare. No wonder so many people in teh US decidet to work for Govt - at least your job is pretty safe and your healthcare and pension is covered.

There needs to be a balance. Public sector unions in the UK and US are far far too powerful and the pubic sector has to cut costs but in the private sector it is equally bad with employees having far too little protection.

Do you think maternity leave should be done away with, LFN?

Longfingernails. I don't think you hate the general public. In fact you post some very interesting points on here.

Cameron also does not hate the working class. I think as do many that some people should get off their arses and stop moaning and expect the state to keep them. I have a few in my own family! Who think that the dole is better than working.

As far as the unions are concerned the train drivers are always striking and yet they are some of the best paid in the country.

So keep trotting out your posts!

LFN I don't necessarily agree with your points but I think you are responding with dignity and clarity to posters who are simply vile to you.
Just because someone has a different view point does not make them a loon and just because you are left wing it does not mean you have the moral highground.

LFN. Agree about Milliband he is generally 'clueless' (thank goodness) he is 'heaven sent' to the Tories!

Why people question your upbringing heaven knows! They shoud question Milliband and Co, his family do not have a clue about ordinary people, having been raisedby by the political intelligensia of Primrose Hill! He looked out over million pound houses and green parkland, unlike your 'over the shop' experience!

I agree with susie100.

Are people unable to engage in a debate without insulting someone? It's pathetic. And ignorant.

Totally agree with above two posts. I think what grameracy and susie 100 miss is this;
Some people (not all) will use a form of bullying to stop posters having their say, particularly if they are not left wing. So they insult them, again and again and hope 'they' will win an argument and the poster will 'go away' totally pathetic I know.
That is unfortunately the nature of this site. I have seen far worse thrown at posters, particulary around the last election.

Agreed. It seems impossible to have a balanced debate about how to reform public sector pay/benefits without being accused of hating the public sector.

I dont hate the public sector, I just want it to be reformed so the nation can afford good public services.

Incidentally, I equally dont think support that Govt gave and is still giving to failed/natinalised banks is right either and also needs reform. Some of their employees at the top are being paid huge unwarranted bonuses and pensions. I have never worked in the public sector but I did work in the City and I dont support the largesse being given out to it and I dont care how important the City is.

Public money belongs to taxpayers and needs spending wisely.

LFN, not clear how recent an immigrant you are, or if it was your parents, but are you simply not aware that if it wasn't for unions so many of the rights we take for granted we wouldn't have?

You're a manager in a company. From your name, you're also a woman. Other women (and men) fought long and hard so you could have a jb,and have the same rights as men and not be paid less for the same work.

I can't see how you can take all that for granted unless it is just ignorance based on poor knowledge of recent British labour history.

It is silly not to belong in a union when you work in a school. Many parents are completely off their trolley and want to make an easy buck.

For example some children regularly make false allegations against staff. These allegations have to be investigated properly. Schools have to treat staff as gulity until proven inoccent. A union will support staff through such a difficult time.

Longfingernails, I belong to a union because it gives me free legal representation. Its an insurance policy.

If kids didn't have so many "rights" then maybe union membership would not be necessary.

There have been relatively few insults on this thread. It's quite civilised as things go.

LFN's posts are quite inflammatory and are therefore going to invite angry responses.

This thread, for example, starts with the assertion that "public sector unions should be made illegal".

I have learnt to live with the abuse.

I believe in sound public finances. I believe in a low tax economy. I believe that being in control of your own destiny is better than relying on others - worst of all, the State. I believe that attracting business and wealth to Britain is good for Britain. I believe that individuals make better spending choices than the State. I believe the State is too intrusive and bossy. I believe it is the duty of the State to enable long-term wealth creation, job creation and self-reliance - not to keep poor people poor by incentivising a welfare lifestyle.

Somehow, those on the left question the motives of people with these beliefs. Socialists have this disgusting sense of moral superiority - that what they are doing is right, and anything they do can be excused, simply because of who they are.

I am used to it by now. Sadly, many others will just give up.

I'm deeply concerned about the ignorant place some of the anti-unionists come from here. The reason that individuals are able to bargain more strongly with employers now than in the past is because of the complex and supportive employment law environment we have, that includes legal protections placed on tribunals, disciplinary processes, and retirement and redundancy practices. That complex and supportive employment law environment would not be in place if it weren't for unions building it up and negotiating hard. Sensible management practices like letting an employee know of any performance concerns and allowing an adjustment period (rather than just firing someone who thought, reasonably, that they were doing their job effectively, but didn't know management were unhappy) were not taken up by managers, despite their clear effectiveness, until unions challeged them in the courts.

Organisations that have strong union presence have far better retention, recruitment, positive staff development policies, and management practices than competitors do in the same markets .. and this translates to better performances.

Where you have poorly performing companies with strong union presence, this is largely where management practices are significantly behind current good practice thinking, normally (as is the case in the NHS, network Rail, London Underground) where promotion into management is largely through longievity rather than ability or where management is seen as a purely academic discipline (eg HE, civil service, local councils etc).

It is important also to recognise that where industries like the motor industry are failing here, where union activity is relatively weak in the UK, competitors eg in Germany, france and spain who are consistently out performing us, have strong union input into decision making that is written into legislation and taken account of by parliament.

In a world where we need team functioning to outperform others, having management who won't listen to front-line feedback (often because their public school background won't allow them to take criticism from the lower orders) won't help - sure it will help that class to cream off the income, but it won't help the organisations to perform..

what is really concerning is that some here have posted that 'businesses need to get rid of bad employees' without ever considering that some of those bad employees can be managers.. and that is where unions can often most help large organisations in revealing poor management practice that is hidden upwards but very obvious downwards.

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

Teachers?
Doctors?
Nurses?

LFN, please keep posting- you are drumming up more support for the Labour party than Red Ed will in his entire lifetime

Yes, I think nurses, teachers and doctors are all better employed by private companies or non-profit organisations than by the State. Education and healthcare should be funded by the State, but not provided by it.

That is why I am a strong supporter of Free Schools - though it would be better if Free Schools could make profits. And a "State pays, patient chooses private provider" model works well in other countries.

If the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, why hasn't a single other country in the world copied it?

But what you describe is the dismantling of the public sector, not workers 'moving out of the public sector and into the private sector'. Your statement implied workers moving to the private sector by choice. Which would leave those who cannot afford to pay for services in a dire situation.

Could you clarify what you meant by this statement please?