BS: union busters

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 01:10 PM

Thatcher didn't set out to smash the unions because they of anything they were doing wrong. She set out to smash thjem because she hated unions, and she'd grown up hating them, something she'd learned from her father, who had a bust of Adolf Hitler on his mantelpiece at one time.

Anything that a union did that was over the top or could be made to look that way by a press controlled by her cronies was just what she and they wanted.

And the first moral of that is that we all need to make sure we are members of our union, and keep control of it, so that it helps us fight and win the battles we want it to fight, as and when necessary, and takes care of what needs doing in between. And the second moral is that you can never rely on the mass media to tell the truth - and with the internet, there are now other and better ways of getting the word out, if we get our act together.

But I really don't envy the naive people who think that you don't need a union these days because the nice kind boss is on your side, and we're all partners and colleagues. When push come to shove the nice kind boss is probably going to have his neck on the line himself, if he doesn't do what his boss tells him and turn as nasty as need be.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 09:52 AM

Unfortunately, whether it is the dogs fault or not, it is the dog that gets put down when it bites someone.

I guess the analogy still stands in that the unions bit the government. The government did not even ask who controled them but administered the lethal injection anyway.

And the unions were also very useful creatures when they fought for the miners rights to carry respirators and the rights of mill workers to have decent breaks. Perhaps they only became rabid when they in turn were bitten by the bitch that is called money....

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 09:39 AM

I offer a question.. Lately, many manufacturing jobs have "gone south" to Mexico. Caterpillar, Briggs & Stratton etc. In Mexico they get those things put together for a fraction of what it used to cost here in the USA. Yet, the price of a new tractor or lawn mower has not decreased at all. This adds a lot of profit to the stock holders of these companies. The question is: What is the cause of all this? Is it high labor costs, or corporate greed? Both? I realize we are headed for a world economy, but, what about the poor schmuck who thought he would be taken care of by Generous Motors as long as he did his job well, and stuck himself with a $150,000 mortgage? From $20.00 an hour to minimum wage is quite a drop.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 08:02 AM

A lot of thtat's true Dave - but the real blame when things get out of hand like that isn't the "left wing militants", it's the people who sit back and don't bother to ploay an active part in something they own. To use aniother analogy, if you have a dog and it attacks passers by, or fouls the pavement, you can't just blame the dog, and say it's a nothing to do with you. And dogs are very useful creatures.

And in my experience the people who pull those kind of tricks in unions very often aren't particularly political at all. They are thinking in terms of making the most of an opportunity to maximise short term returns. Typical bloody market economy caopuitalists in fact. No wonder so many of them found it so easy to adjust to New Labour's Thatcherism-with-a human-face.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 07:37 AM

Thank you, George. A very gracious apology and nice turn of argument.

I do believe we are still seeing the effects of union greed but let me offer my reasons.

By allowing themselves to be be seen as greedy and as using big brother or bullying tactics to get their own way the unions paved the way for, what I believe, was the most damaging western government of recent times. The conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher.

The unions handed the right wing press, on a plate, the monster they could use to damage the Labour party. The press used the tales of union harrasment, mis-management and greed to stir up anti-labour feelings to such an extent that the the tory party landslide victory was inevitable.

We then suffered years of tory mis-management and almost complete erosion of workers rights. Everyone became so frightened of loosing their jobs that they no longer had the means, or nerve, to fight back.

It haunts us still and the proof of that is currently in office at Westminster. The left wing labour of old with the likes of Tony Benn, Denis Skinner and even Michael Foot is now a thing to be feared and reviled. Even the labour party has admitted this - Why else choose the phrase 'New Labour' and then change their policies to such an extent that there seems to be little difference between left and right?

Had the left wing militants not given the right wing militants the perfect opportunity to gain such power we would still have full workers rights. We would still have genuine choice in who we vote for and we would still lead the world in enlightened democratic government.

So, did the unions near ruin the economy? Yes, by allowing the Thatcher regime to come to power. Are we still suffering the consequences? Yes, we no loger have democratic choice.

QED!

You can of course argue that it was the greedy employers that caused the unions to behave in such a way in the first place but, as I said, there are two sides to every argument. Nothing is in perfect back and white and there are more shades of grey now than ever before.

I must away now - my employers are one of the new enlightened breed but I don't want to push it too far;-)

Hope you found this more enjoyable than an off-hand dismissal and that you may now, at least, tell me I am talking crap because you know my genuine views.

Or do you.....?

Cheers

Dave the philosophical Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 07:02 AM

"Do you really want to delegate what you do and how much you earn for doing it to somebody else?" says MarkS - and I think the implication is that the expected answer is a strasight "no" in both cases, and that this means unions are a drag.

As for wanting to delegate what I do, for me when I was a social worker, the union I belonged to was my best protection against being forced by management to do things which I felt were wrong and prevented from doing things I felt were right, from mthe point of view of the peopkle I was working for (who were not my empolyers, but the people on my caseload).

And as for how much I earned - I'd have hated to have to go along and argue an individal case for getting paid more than or as much of a colleague. If we'd done that I am sure we'd all have ended up getting less than we needed to stay in the job, and anyway who wants to waste time on that crap.

I don'ty accept that there has to be an employing class and a working class. There are differenmt people doing different jobs, and some are employed as managers and administrators, and some lend money which has been deposited with them by other people to manage on tgheir behalf and so on.

Of copurse it's wrong that people who control some bottleneck should make huge personal profits and impose their will at the expense of everyone else. There are occasions when that is done by people lower down the system, and it's seen as unions exploiting the system - but most of the time its the people up the top in the boardrooms who pull that kind of scam, routinely stealing inflated rewards that they pretend they have earned. And if anyone's pointing the finger at people who disrupted and destroyed the economy, and caused untold damage, that's where it should be pointing.

It wasn't the unions who wrecked British Rail, or failed to invest in all kinds of industry, or sunk the Herald of Free Enterprise (and got clean away with murder.)

Unions are their membership. If people don't control them, they can go bad like any other human institution. But most of the time, you've got a lot more chance of controlling your union and keeping it on the right tracks than you do most other human institutions.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: GeorgeH
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 06:17 AM

Dave . . saying that what you wrote was crap is not a personal attack - sorry that you saw it that way, I stand by the judgement, but do regret any offence I caused you.

Funny, my position is the opposite of yours . . I was in a union for about 4 of the 18 years I spent teaching - for reasons not dissimilar to yours; to my mind the motivation of the unions in that profession were, and remain, self-centred, self-serving and anti-professional; the inter-union rivalries assisited various Governments in their distruction of much of the best in the UK education system . . . and I'd still call myself a Socialist . .

As for one or other of us being wrong - I don't see much disagreement between us in the details of what I wrote. However your piece offered two conclusions for which you provided no evidence; firstly that the unions "near ruined the economy" - I think that's wrong but at least arguable - and secondly that "we're still suffering the consequences of Union greed" - which I find so far wide of the mark as to be offensive, unless you refer to the long chain of cause and effect which led to the destruction of the UK trades unions and a far lower level of workers' protections than other leading European nations.

As for there being two sides to every argument . . well, it's a nice idea, but some things are plain right or plain wrong . . .

But, as I said earlier, I do sincerly apologise for any offence my robust reply caused.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 05:41 AM

I didn't join a union at my current workplace, but I am now starting to wish I had. Thank the Lord for the CAB!!

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 05:34 AM

Thanks Jon - And I did!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: GUEST,Kernow Jon
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 03:52 PM

Dave
You just earned a whole lotta respect.
Enjoy Manchester
KJ

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 02:14 PM

George H. Whether I agree with you or not matters little. I will not however begin an argument with a personal attack no matter how badly provoked.

At no point in my message did I give the impression I was for or against unions. My words were a mere warning that it is too much power, and not one side or another, that causes problems. At the end of my message I state quite clearly that I do not know whether the greed of the unions or the greed of the employers was worse. I have now come to the conclusion that it is neither.

It is the attitude that some people take, and I assure you that I do not include you here because I do not even know you, thet they are right and whatever anyone else says is to be dismissed out of hand.

For the record I was a socialist and union member. I worked for the local council (Salford) between 1970 and 1975. When the shop steward told us we could not go and fix the heating in the old folks home because we were in dispute with the council over a 2 pound pay rise I agreed. When they told us that all employers were out to screw the workers I belived them. When I saw the union convenor driving away in his brand new 2.5 litre Rover I knew that had to be good.

It was only when I finaly grew up I realised that there were two sides to any argument.

I am still commited to workers rights and equality for all, but it is now tempered with the wisdom to see that there is a right and a wrong way to do things. At least I hope I can.

Off to the White Lion now to join the Manchester Mudcat gathering so I will not be around (mentaly anyway!) for a while. I hope you believe me when I say I respect your viewpoint, George. And I hope that you will do the same for me.

Cheers, fellow workers, one and all

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: kendall
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:26 PM

BIW has given in to pressure apparently, and, they will pay the promised bonus to the 200 people who were "laid off" permanently. Now, they say they will hire 1400 more workers in the spring, but, none of the Union strikers will be re hired.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: MarkS
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:20 PM

Amergin - Without the employing class the working class would not have very much to do.
But perhaps a more cogent comment. Do you really want to delegate what you do and how much you earn for doing it to somebody else?
MarkS

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: GUEST,Kernow Jon
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 07:48 PM

If you want an example of trade unionism look no further than Big Mick. Read back on some of the unselfish acts of that guy.
A lot of people in the UK at the time of the miners strike ridiculed Arthur Scargill, but first Maggie renaged on the breakaway miners union and closed most of their pits and then proceeded to make all of Arthurs prophecies come true by virtually destroying the rest of the industry.
Same thing happened to the Cornish tin mining industry(they didn't strike) but still got no investment from government or mine owners at the time of easy profitability .
Sorry to hear the news Kendall KJ

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:18 PM

And Christmas is just around the bend.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:30 PM

Phew, gettin' warm here!
Uncle Jaque seems to have hit it. For better or worse we live in a society that can't live up to the Wobblies' ideals of breaking down the separation of labour and capital. Thus employers are necessary and so are unions. Neither is "evil", and each should be capable of flexibility for the sake of the commonweatlh.
I've been active in a union and now I'm an employer, and I've no regrets about either.
At the end of the day, if all employers were paragons we wouldn't need unions. But they're not, so we do.
As an employer I'd like to think that anyone working for me is free to join a trades union - but nevertheless I know I'd be mightily pissed off if staff walked out because their union had instructed them to do so in sympathy over a totally unrelated dispute with another employer.
That was one of the bad things about the unions in the UK in the Seventies. Unfortunately the outcome was one of those classic medical situations when Thatcher set out to "reform" industrial relations - "The operation was a complete success, but the patient died." Slowly, tentatively, trades unionism in the UK is coming back out of the shelters and ceasing to be a dirty word, and that's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:21 PM

Without a union you're on your own when the shit hits the fan. It might be something "small" like getting bullied at work, it might be some major restructuring that wipes a workplace out of existence, or stops you providing a valuable service to the publioc.

If people don't join their union and make sure it stays under their control it can go bad, because there are always predators out there who are out there to grab any bit of power they can.

But I was a shop steward for years in my union, and I had lots of things I'd far sooner have been doing with my time, like playing music. I never got anything personally out of it, and nor did any of the people I knew who were doing the same - other than knowing that if we didn't do it, it wouldn't get done, and we'd have noone to turn to when things went wrong.

I get tired of people who never do anything to help or get involved in any way, except when they want to get help because something's wrong, and next week they're maybe ignoring a picket line set up because someone else was in trouble or at risk.

What would you think of someone who didn't ever bother to tune their guitar, and then blamed the guitar because it didn't play in tune?

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:14 PM

Boy a whole thread about union-busting and nobody has mentioned Ronnie Ray-gun, King of the Union Busters and Foe to Working Men and Women Everywhere.

Alex
O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Troll
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:17 AM

And this in a state that went for Gore and during a Democratic administration.If the Republicans were in power they'ed probably close the plant.
And before anyone gets on their high horse, I've been a union member for over 25 years.Layoffs are hell.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: JedMarum
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 09:49 AM

When I worked at for a food distribution union shop years ago, an impending ugly strike had created a very very difficult work environment. The management pushed the new guys hard to produce and the union guys let us know very carefully, and very surely that if we did we would have our legs broken - or worse. In deed during the strike, later on, one of the managers was murdered while 'strike breaking' - and driving a company truck. This sort of union environment really turned me off to unions, on the whole.

Years later when I worked for Southwest Airlines, I had a very very different experience with unions. I was in the computer systems department, and we were among the 15% of the company that was not union. That company had great employee relations, strong union participation and great cooperation all around. That environment was an example, to me of how unions can be a truly important part of a company's success.

I have since come to realize that my first experience was not typical, and that extreme situations should not taint my judgement of the whole issue. Management/employee relations are vital to any company's success. Unions can be a very effective force in that relationship, and assist, rather then hinder - a company's growth. The relationship need not be adversarial.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: GeorgeH
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 07:37 AM

Dave the gnome - in short, your contention is crap!

Or, a little more constructively, it's a highly simplistic view of a complex situation. Yes, certain of the unions did seek to abuse their power, and too many employers were not prepared to stand up to them . . but there's a lot more to it than that, and the suggestion of "near ruining the economy" is nonsense. As is the idea that we are still suffering the consequnces.

What we do suffer from is a long, long history of poor and incompetent management, one aspect of which is the failure to engage in any attempt to build good "labour relations", or recognition of the importance of "the workers" to the success of any business. The brief period where "union abuse of power" was a genuine problem, but in the context of British (labour) history it was unsurprising. And the right-wing backlash which it was used to justify has done Britain, and all those who have the dubious priviledge of being employed here, immensely more harm than "powerful trade unions" ever did.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:39 AM

Be vary careful of how much power the unions get. Over here in the UK during the 60's and early 70's the unions became more powerful than the employers and very near ruined the economy. We are still suffering the consequences of union greed as opposed to employer greed and I don't know which is worse!

Cheers

D the G

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:17 AM

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Preamble of the IWW Constitution

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:59 AM

That is troubling news, Kendall. Where are these laid-off workers going to go? There's not much more in heavy industry in Maine, I don't think. I passed by the Iron Works on my trip to Maine last June (I didn't know of you then, Kendall, next time we'll have to meet) and I just didn't see alot of industry in that part of the state. This is obviously catastrophic for the workers and their families. People tend to think that unions are universally accepted as part of the fabric of American life, but something like this happens to remind us that we can't take those past victories for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: union
From: GUEST,Uncle Jaque
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:41 AM

Having a long track record as one who has very limited tolerance for systematic greed, abuse of power, illegitimate or incompetent authority, violation of trust, and the exploitation of the vunerable, I have been through too many "jobs" to keep count of, and about a dozen abortive "careers", not to mention having been in trouble most of my life. Considering the way I am and pretty much have been all of my life, it is nothing short of miraculous that I have lived to be as old as I am. I've worked open shops, closed shops, Union and non; public sector, private sector, independant small business (will never try that again!) and etc.. mostly in the "Human Services" until body, mind, and soul were so thouroughly broken and burned out that I was good for little or nothing. Currently, I make "things" and just try to endure from one day to the next. I've seen greed, ruthless lust for power, and exploitations run rampant in "labor" and "management" alike, and for all the trouble I got myself into for advocating for the manipulated and abused, the Unions never did me much good of substance that I could determine. I entertain little trust for Company goon or union thug, and avoid as much as possible the company of either. As long as the human heart is susceptable to sin (alienation from Creator and others / the rejection of Love), evil in one form or another will permiate every institution of every civilization we might conceivably come up with. Always has, and until Christ comes back to kick arse, take names, and judge the quick and the dead... prob'ly shall ever be so.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Harold W
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:53 AM

How does United Aorlines, an employee owned business, stay in business when the employees are going on strike?

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:06 PM

Abraham Lincoln, was once asked which is more important, labor or capital. He said "capital is the result of labor, therefore, labor is more important." Mark S, its the way the bastards went about it, cant you see that? Unions were formed to protect the workers from the greedy robber barons who exploited them. It's been that way for many years. GREED GREED and more greed.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:15 PM

G'day,

A employer and a union are balanced, potential evils. Without one, the other is an uncontrolled evil.

Bob Bolton

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: MarkS
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:24 PM

The very existence of unions presupposes the existence of an employer. Absent an employer, your union business agent is not going to do diddly squat for you.

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:14 PM

It's only the beginning folks..

Subject: RE: BS: union busters
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:08 PM

The real goons have always worn suits. They just hired others- Pinkertons, etc.- to do the heavy lifting.

George Baer, President, Reading Railroad, 1902
On the UMW Strike in the Anthracite Coal Fields:

"The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for, not by the labor agitators, but by Christian men to whom God, in his infinite wisdom, has given control of the property interests of this country."

Sound familiar?

Best, Greg

Subject: union busters
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:59 PM

They are at it again. Bath Iron Works had a strike. It was settled, one of the things the company agreed to was a re- signing bonus. Today, they announced that 200 of the pipe fitters are to be laid off permanently, and, they wont be getting the bonus. The goons are now wearing suits.