I never thought I'd ever agree with Teresa May but if the PCS strike it will be shameful

[Hassled]

Story is here.

I get that they're unhappy about threats to 8500 jobs and I sympathise, I really do. But don't fucking strike on a day that will cause massive disruption (how they can say it won't is beyond me) to people coming from other countries who did nothing to deserve it. Just let the Olympics happen.

I never thought I'd agree with Theresa May either. Oh, I still don't.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I feel strongly about union action and agree with ponders.

ttosca

ttosca

"A minority of top bankers do, yes. The majority of the public who work in banking and finance aren't paid anything like those at the top."

I was being tongue in cheek with my remark but the fact remains that banking is a hugely popular career choice and is largely de-unionised. Incidentally, I'm glad you concede that not all bankers eat the poor for breakfast - I've tried defending the banking minions on here before and been slammed for my views.

"Those who are either highly skilled or have skills which are in high demand will always be able to command a higher salary"

The unions represent those without particularly high skill sets and hold the country to ransom for a higher salary. I don't think that's particularly fair.

"[unions] exist to fight for the rights and wages of employees, public sector or private sector."

This is hardly true considering the private sector has largely abandoned the union movement. As I said earlier, the only reason they still hold sway in the public sector is because the public sector isn't exposed to the economic realities of profit and loss and can simply keep tapping up the taxpayer for ever more money. The unions haven't managed to kill the golden goose yet like the unions did for so much of Britain?s heavy engineering. The north of Britain is still coming to terms with that loss.

"Ah yes, firing people and making fewer people work harder for less. That's a recipe for success and prosperity."

You really don't understand economics at all do you! It isn't a question of making people work harder for less, it's about making people produce more for less and it's the basis for all of the wealth in the world. Some time ago (as recently as the mid 18th century) nearly everyone worked on the land producing just enough food to keep themselves alive. Along came the enclosure acts (which you would probably have been against) and fewer people were able to produce more food. Over time, more innovations have been invented so that today, instead of around 99% of people working the land, across Europe, only 2% of the population are farmers. They produce more food, under easier conditions, and can feed many more people than would have been possible prior to the enclosures. This freed up labour can now concentrate on making everything else from pins to running websites where people can come together from across the political divide to thrash out ideas. Incidentally, this is the driver of China's prosperity. A generation or so ago they were subsistence rice farmers, today they make iPods and are getting richer.

As for your table of figures, Norway features so highly because of its oil fields and low population whilst Luxembourg is a tax haven - Rock on Comrade!

The Olympics are here because of a minority
The current government are in because of a minority
The tube drivers strike every year because of a minority

Seems to me that the minority that wins is the one that is most vocal and that doesn't always mean that what happens is for the best.

MrJudgey, I think you'll find the BMA is a union. And there's another union for consultants that is affiliated to the TUC. There's the RCN, the CPVHA, Unison, the headteacher's union, there's also the First Division Assocation for senior civil servants, whatever the MSF is part of now... don't be so ruddy snobby, unions represent some very skilled people indeed.

edam Did you support the BMA's strike action earlier this year? If so, what did you do to show your support?

I wrote "The unions represent those without particularly high skill sets and hold the country to ransom for a higher salary."

In this case, I accept I over generalised and there are some unions that represent skilled people.

I would, therefore, like to clarify the point I was trying to make by saying "The unions mostly represent those without a particularly high skill set and, not being in industries which are subject to commercial pressures, are able to hold the country to ransom for a higher salary / better conditions safe in the knowledge that most governments will buckle sooner or later and pass the bill on to the taxpayer."

Is that any more acceptable?

flatpack : Some examples - our traditions of tolerance and liberty (before Labour smashed them), our high-tech manufacturing, the superb quality of our produce, our environment, the extremely high standards of living in the UK, and the fact that we're prepared to put up with whining Trots instead of shooting them in the face like they deserve.

Shooting people in the face? This is one of the most disgusting sentiments I've ever read on MN. Are you Jeremy Clarkson?

No, I didn't support the BMA action, I thought it was foolish as they would have no public support. Which turned out to be the case.

However, they do have a point - the government is attacking doctors' pensions to make it easier to privatise the NHS. Private companies can't afford to take over hospitals and employ doctors because they'd have to obey TUPE and the pension obligations are beyond what private companies want to pay.

No, doctor's pensions are being cut, as are many other public sector staff's.

I know some people prefer to think that the Tories have some secret conspiracy going on the plunder our nation and line their own offshore accounts but there's absolutely no evidence of that.

What there is plenty of evidence of though is a pension timebomb and a massive budget deficit.

So you can choose to believe in economic black helicopters or look at the evidence to hand and ask yourself if we don't have the money, what do we choose to cut?

JudgeyPants-

In this case, I accept I over generalised and there are some unions that represent skilled people.

You overgeneralised to the point of making a false statement. Can you even show that the majority of people in unions are 'unskilled'?

Here is a list of UK unions from Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trade_unions#Current_Unions_4

What percentage of workers in those unions are 'unskilled'? Do you mean to include nurses, teachers, engineers, the police, fire brigade, journalists, and radiographers, to name but a few?

I would, therefore, like to clarify the point I was trying to make by saying "The unions mostly represent those without a particularly high skill set and, not being in industries which are subject to commercial pressures, are able to hold the country to ransom for a higher salary / better conditions safe in the knowledge that most governments will buckle sooner or later and pass the bill on to the taxpayer."

Is that any more acceptable?

It's simply false.

First of all, unions also represent skilled and highly skilled people.

Secondly, unions exist in the private sector as well as public sector.

The reason union membership has declined in the UK is because of the relentless attacks by various governments on trade union rights and powers, in the name of neo-liberal ideology.

The end result, of course, is a huge increase in wealth inequality, suppressed wages, 0-hour contracts, etc.

The BMA was supporting their colleagues in Unison - frontline healthcare workers who are not paid nearly as much as drs but without whom the service could not run. Good for the BMA.

I supported their action, and took part in the Unison action.

And I previously worked in an private sector industry which was systematically de-unionised and which is now suffering as a result.

And FGS union membership is not full of lower skilled people. Ask the universities

niceguy

No, doctor's pensions are being cut, as are many other public sector staff's.

Anyone who has to work for a living, basically.

I know some people prefer to think that the Tories have some secret conspiracy going on the plunder our nation and line their own offshore accounts but there's absolutely no evidence of that.

It's not a secret or a conspiracy. It's part of their ideology to deregulate Capitalism, lower taxes for the wealthiest, and privitise public services. This results in a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the richest.

What there is plenty of evidence of though is a pension timebomb and a massive budget deficit.

The budget deficit is caused by the recession. The deficit crisis, is in effect, a revenue crisis.

So you can choose to believe in economic black helicopters or look at the evidence to hand and ask yourself if we don't have the money, what do we choose to cut?

How putting in an effort to start collecting your share of the £13 Trillion in offshore tax havens. This is equivalent to the US and Japanese econonomy combined.

www.democraticunderground.com/1014173038

Instead of making poor and vulnerable people homeless, we should start collecting this tax.

Judgey-

"A minority of top bankers do, yes. The majority of the public who work in banking and finance aren't paid anything like those at the top."

I was being tongue in cheek with my remark but the fact remains that banking is a hugely popular career choice and is largely de-unionised.

It's not hugely popular. There are many people who work in finance in the UK because it is a large part of the economy. I'm not sure if they're heavily unionised or what - who cares?

Incidentally, I'm glad you concede that not all bankers eat the poor for breakfast - I've tried defending the banking minions on here before and been slammed for my views.

Probably because you weren't defending the poor bank clerk on £18K per year but the people who make executive decisions which impoverish millions.

"Those who are either highly skilled or have skills which are in high demand will always be able to command a higher salary"

The unions represent those without particularly high skill sets and hold the country to ransom for a higher salary. I don't think that's particularly fair.

Firstly, your first statement is false.

Secondly, go complain about top CEOs of banks and the banks themselves which threaten to go oversease if they're not given multi-million pound bonuses and tax exemptions.

Do you think that is also: 'holding the country to ransom'? Or is it 'merely Capitalism' - or is it both?

Why is it that when workers fight for decent wages it is 'holding the country to ransom', but when CEOs demand millions in bonuses or they will leave the country, it is 'the free market'?

"[unions] exist to fight for the rights and wages of employees, public sector or private sector."

This is hardly true considering the private sector has largely abandoned the union movement. As I said earlier, the only reason they still hold sway in the public sector is because the public sector isn't exposed to the economic realities of profit and loss and can simply keep tapping up the taxpayer for ever more money. The unions haven't managed to kill the golden goose yet like the unions did for so much of Britain?s heavy engineering. The north of Britain is still coming to terms with that loss.

Union membership in the private sector has declined because unions themselves have been attacked and disempowered. This is the result of neo-liberal ideology and mainly occurred during the Thatcher years but continues today.

"Ah yes, firing people and making fewer people work harder for less. That's a recipe for success and prosperity."

You really don't understand economics at all do you! It isn't a question of making people work harder for less, it's about making people produce more for less and it's the basis for all of the wealth in the world.

I'm afraid you don't understand economics. Technological innovation is quite a different thing from suppression of wages. Of course technology has made mankind more productive. So what? How is that a defence of paying people as little money as possible to produce as much as possible at their jobs?

What actually happens when you do this, as Henry Ford made clear in his principle: "Pay people enough wage to buy the products they produce", is that Capital accummulates, but people don't have any money to buy anything, so the economy stalls:

--------------

In 1914 Henry Ford shocked the business community. He doubled the wages of his workers. His company prospered. Fourteen years later in 1926, he did it again.

He cut the work week from 6 days a week to 5 days a week. He maintained the pay for his workers the same as it was for 6 days. Mr. Ford?s company prospered. There were driving principles that lead to Mr. Ford?s actions. They were good for business, and good for America. Over the last few decades, American companies have ignored those principles and government policies have supported those decisions. The American economy is now paying the price.

Read more at Suite101: The Wisdom of Henry Ford: The Economic Crisis and its Origins | Suite101.com suite101.com/article/the-wisdom-of-henry-ford-a72661#ixzz21R6W0TWc

suite101.com/article/the-wisdom-of-henry-ford-a72661

--------------

[snip history]

As for your table of figures, Norway features so highly because of its oil fields and low population whilst Luxembourg is a tax haven - Rock on Comrade!

Yeah, great comeback. The principle remains. Socialist countries can and are highly productive - some moreso than supposedly 'free-market' economies.

ttosca You might be interested to know that Henry Ford raised his staff's wages for purely capitalist reasons - if ever there was a man far removed from the socialist cause, Ford was that man! His company had been reliant on casual staff. An internal Ford study showed that the constant cost of training and re-training new staff meant that his training costs were high, turnover of manpower was high and that his production line was running sub-optimally. His company worked out that a more regular workforce would increase production and, therefore, on the back of this - AND ONLY ON THE BACK OF THIS BUSINESS CASE - did Ford raise his workers? pay to $5 per day. That his workers could now afford to own cars was a happy coincidence.

Before you go claiming Comrade Ford as a doyen of the left please take five minutes to read his Wikipedia entry - from strike breaking to anti-Semitism, Pro-Nazism to micromanaging his employee's lives Henry Ford makes The Simpson's Mr Burns look like a genial old chap! Even I, an Über-Capitalist laissez-faire libertarian cannot defend him and some of his actions!

Yes, I know, MrJudgeyPants.

Capitalism is full of contradictions. I am arguing that, apart from anything else, constantly suppressing workers wages fails even on its own terms.

One of the main problems we're experiencing with Capitalist economy now is lack of demand. There is no demand because people don't have enough money to spend.

After decades of suppressing wages, Capitalists hope to have their cake and eat it too buy offering cheap credit to consumers to make up for lack of wages. Now that the the whole dodgy pyramind scheme has fallen, consumers are thousand of pounds in debt, have no access to credit, and barely enough wages to make a living.

Of course there will be a lack of demand. It will continue to be this way until people are allowed to keep more of the wealth they produce.

ttosca Capitalism is, by far, the best proven method for making poor people rich. All of the wealth of the western world was produced under capitalism. By the mid-seventies, after donkey's years of madness, China adopted capitalism. In 1976, the Chinese had the same GDP per person as the English did in 1650 - today China has the same GDP per person as England had in 1950. In 35 years, they have made 300 year?s worth of progress. Before I kick the bucket, I expect to find that China will have moved to parity with much of Europe, North America and Japan in terms of GDP / person.

We should be very careful that in reforming capitalism, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Entrepreneurs need to make a profit but should that profit be capped? I rather think not. In a free and fair market (arguably far from where we find ourselves today) through competition, the price and quality of goods establishes itself quite well and with the minimum of interference. In any case, this system is vastly more flexible and suitable to mankind?s needs than a planned economy could ever be.

The question, as ever, is where does humanity fit into this? Your suggestion would be to allow the people to keep more of the wealth they create - presumably made up from the slice of the pie formerly taken by the entrepreneur. I believe this will result in a scarcity of entrepreneurs and the evidence from history is on my side. Without entrepreneurs there is no innovation; without innovation there is stagnation.

My solution to the problem would be for the government to stop taking so much wealth off people in the first place - both in absolute terms from us all but with special consideration for the poor. That the difference between minimum wage and the living wage is the amount of tax that those on minimum wage pay should be enough to shame this country out of its complacency. Once this is madness is fixed, so much of the need for redistributive taxation goes away.

This leads back to your original point, that we don't have enough money to spend. We pay almost 50% of our wealth to a government which in recent times has spent £25Bn on killing Johnny Foreigner in Iraq and Afghanistan, £37Bn on the Eurofighter Typhoon (which doesn't work very well and is already scheduled to be replaced), £12.4Bn on an NHS IT system which never worked, another £4-5Bn on two aircraft carriers we don't really want and it will soon be spending at the rate of OVER HALF A BILLION POUNDS A DAY on a sixteen day sports jamboree in East London.

I know these figures alone don't really make that much difference to the bottom line but, if by abandoning some of our more egregious pissing money up the wall spending habits we can help lift the poor out of taxation completely, I would consider that money well spent.

I believe that the best way to allow people to keep more of the wealth that they create is to confiscate less from them in the first place.

Judgey,
I agree with the some of your last post, but it strikes me that there is an inherant contradiction in your arguement. You argue for progressive taxation (to help the poor) but rail against progressive taxation when it is applied to what you call 'entrepreneurs', as this caps their profits, takes away their desire and ultimately causes stagnation.
Everyone in every strata of society would like to pay less taxation, but there are some services that the state must provide that are essential for a civilised society. Some of these services, that we generally take for granted, give entrepreneurs the freedom to innovate.

ElBurroSinNombre There is no contradiction in my opinion. In my last post I wrote "stop taking so much wealth off people in the first place - both in absolute terms from us all but with special consideration for the poor".

The overall tax take has increased by a substantial percentage since the last Tory government of John Major. Throughout that time, the burden for paying for large government has gradually been placed more and more on the poorer of our society. A straightforward example of this would be the proportion of the population who were 40% taxpayers back in the mid-1990's compared to today. Fiscal drag has made the poorer end of society pick up a larger proportion of the bill.

What I would love to see for our society is for the personal allowance to be raised to whatever the minimum wage rate is for a 40 hour week, worked out over 52 weeks - current figure would be £12646.40. In other words, all citizens can earn up to that figure tax and National Insurance free. In a stroke you could scrap many working benefits / tax credits and solve a lot of financial poverty. We could then move on to a flat tax system, simplifying things by dragging in any form of personal income (earned, from dividends, from interest, from rent etc.) and abolish half of the loopholes in the current tax system in one stroke too.

Were there to be any shortfall in the government?s coffers we would need to make a choice. Whether to add complexity and further disincentives into an already overcomplicated taxation system and try and tax the rich more, or to take a long hard rational look at government spending and accept that there is plenty of room for savings to be made.

At the risk of really upsetting people, I believe how you feel about that last question defines whether you are left or right wing by instinct.