Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[Terry - Somerset]

Conversely none of that social progres would have been possible without the wealth created by capitalist entrepreneurs many of whom were, and are, keen to dispose of their profits in altruistic ways.
Truth is Left and Right depend on each other.
Brian

Not just wealth, but leadership, intellect, brains, skill, and a willingness to take risks.

 

[Jacob]

Not just wealth, but leadership, intellect, brains, skill, and a willingness to take risks.

Running a union takes leadership, intellect, brains, skill, and a willingness to take risks.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Unless the workers have the sense to form or join a union. Then they can dictate terms on a fair and equal footing.

The 1970-1983 period stands out as dominated by strike action - the ultimate union weapon - before Thatcher introduced legislation. This was the period of strikes in mining, car building, steel, refuse collection, gravediggers etc. The UK was better known as the sick man of Europe.

Unions simply use the power of labour to get that which they want. Just as employers use the control of capital and wealth to achieve their goals.

At worst both are as contemptible as each other - unions selfishly pursuing their members interests without regard for long term security of employment or income, and employers single-mindedly pursuing profit wholly at the expense of employee welfare.

Fortunately most employers and (I would hope) most unions have both a moral and practical appreciation of that which provides a long term sustainable benefit to all. It is not always evident.

 

[ey_tony]

Running a union takes leadership, intellect, brains, skill, and a willingness to take risks.

Well that definitely rules out socialists!

 

[niemeyjt]

I think the unions will play an extremely valuable role in next few years . . . negotiating redundancy terms for the workers who lose their jobs to cheaper countries as a result of the forthcoming laws.

 

[Jacob]

Well that definitely rules out socialists!

tories more like. Remember brexit? The biggest losing policy by far, and for a generation or more.
Rwanda looks relatively trivial in comparison, even though astonishingly stupid and ridiculously expensive.

 

[Fergie 307]

Dumping it in the river made it a focus of discussion. That was the whole idea.
It's a great pity they didn't leave the brilliant Jen Reid replacement in situ, to stimulate further discussion.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...e-colston-jen-reid-black-lives-matter-bristol
I've never read such a complacent whitewashing of slavery as the rest of your post! Whatever next, the holocaust; not as bad as it's cracked up to be?

Perhaps you could point out where in my post I have sought to whitewash slavery?
Slavery is an issue that has blighted humanity for probably our entire existence. Every ancient civilisation used slaves, indeed the practice was so widespread that you would have to conclude it was an ingrained characteristic, one of the most unpleasant of our species.
My observation was more than it is quite unfair to stand in judgement of anyone on the basis of the views and values we hold today, when those views and values were not held in their time. Nor should anyone be judged or defined on the basis of one thing.
You are quite right, many figures who made enormous amounts of money either directly or indirectly through slavery did indeed use it to build themselves country houses and so forth. Many made fortunes that made Colston's look like pocket change.
Do we remember their names?
Could the public in general name any one of them?
The reason that Colston became known was precisely because, unlike your stereotypical representation of the wealthy businessman, he chose to spend vast amounts of his wealth on projects intended to help the very disadvantaged people that you always claim to champion. So much so that the locals chose to erect a statue to his memory.
Perhaps the people who tipped his statue in the harbour shouldn't have stopped there. What about all the public buildings he paid for with money made from slavery, ought they not to be pulled down, rather than simply renamed?
This is our history. Some of it does not show us in a good light at all. But cancelling it is not the answer.
What is needed is for people to be presented with the unvarnished facts, good and bad so they can then weight them up and form an opinion.
In other words education rather than indoctrination.
You often quote all the bad things done by this country over the years, whether it be slavery, human rights or various other pet subjects of yours.
You rarely, if indeed ever, make the point that we were also in many cases the first people to recognise the error of our ways, and often led the world in abolishing these practices, slavery being a very obvious example.
Your observation about slave owners being compensated is a classic example of the sort of disingenuous nonsense that is often a feature of your posts.
The simple fact is that this was, in a practical sense, the only way that abolition was going to be achieved at the time. If this hadn't been done the reality is that the necessary legislation would have been delayed, possibly for years, and the suffering of the slaves would have continued.
I doubt that you are so ignorant that you are not perfectly well aware of this, and yet you choose not to qualify your ranting with any explanation of the difficulties encountered at the time in getting the legislation through, and the compromises necessary in order to do so.
I am quite sure many at the time found the idea of compensating slave owners extremely distasteful, but it was a necessary evil in order to accomplish the end of this vile practice.

 

[ey_tony]

tories more like. Remember brexit? The biggest losing policy by far, and for a generation or more.
Rwanda looks relatively trivial in comparison, even though astonishingly stupid and ridiculously expensive.

If you're into short termism and place more value on short term monetary gain and convenience at the expense of giving up the country's sovereignty which would be inevitable if the UK had stayed within the EU with its ambition of a Federal Europe, then yes I can see that Brexit wouldn't be for you!
On the other hand.....

 

[Jacob]

If you're into short termism and place more value on short term monetary gain and convenience at the expense of giving up the country's sovereignty

If this was on the cards (it wasn't) we could have postponed leaving until that point.

which would be inevitable if the UK had stayed within the EU with its ambition of a Federal Europe,

Not inevitable at all and we would have a voice on the EU council if we were still involved

.....
On the other hand.....

..try to wake up? Maybe a cold shower? You must know by now that it is a disaster, why pretend otherwise?

 

[HOJ]

And yes of course I've been affected by their actions just like everybody else. Who has not been affected?

To what degree?

Perhaps the post from @Terry - Somerset will help me to clarify my attitude towards "Unions", which I do accept are historic, but have had a lasting effect on me and my attitude:

The 1970-1983 period stands out as dominated by strike action - the ultimate union weapon - before Thatcher introduced legislation. This was the period of strikes in mining, car building, steel,

I was working in all these industries in this period from 1977 and well into the 90's, as well as British Shipbuilding yards, Royal Mail/Post office/BT, Local Authorities, and a few other's as well, that I can't mention, travelling across the whole of the UK and NI.

We had a terrible time with being delayed, obstructed, intimidated, abused and threatened, to the point where on some projects we were locked in to able to work (it was very specialist work, at the time).

In today's climate I could probably claim for PTSD...

 

[Jacob]

To what degree?

Perhaps the post from @Terry - Somerset will help me to clarify my attitude towards "Unions", which I do accept are historic, but have had a lasting effect on me and my attitude:


I was working in all these industries in this period from 1977 and well into the 90's, as well as British Shipbuilding yards, Royal Mail/Post office/BT, Local Authorities, and a few other's as well, that I can't mention, travelling across the whole of the UK and NI.

We had a terrible time with being delayed, obstructed, intimidated, abused and threatened, to the point where on some projects we were locked in to able to work (it was very specialist work, at the time).

In today's climate I could probably claim for PTSD...

I blame the governments. Thatcher achieved no particular advantage from attacking the unions and set off a long period of decline. Labour was just feeble and didn't rise to the various challenges.

 

[Diver Fred]

tories more like. Remember brexit? The biggest losing policy by far, and for a generation or more.
Rwanda looks relatively trivial in comparison, even though astonishingly stupid and ridiculously expensive.

And who was the cause of Brexit? Was it the selfish politician wannabe president of Europe?
Cameron had to call the referendum but he wasn't the cause of Brexit. Many recognise it was the result of Tory Blair's immigration policies for the new eight (to the EU) countries. Just the same as every Labour politician who will do anything to maintain a grip on political power. Starmer is no better - taking about 16 YO's, immigrants before they are registered and prisoners getting the vote.

 

[mg123]

Politics and religion, 2 topics better left alone.....

 

[ey_tony]

If this was on the cards (it wasn't) we could have postponed leaving until that point.

Not inevitable at all and we would have a voice on the EU council if we were still involved

..try to wake up? Maybe a cold shower? You must know by now that it is a disaster, why pretend otherwise?

It was a nightmare extricating the UK from the EU's net as it was...imagine just how horrendous it would have been further down the line.

I've always cherished the fact that I was my own boss and in control of my own destiny, seems like you boys don't care as long as you've got jam today! Not for me I'm afraid.
The only disaster was the negotiations...the UK was in a strong bargaining position to negotiate favourable terms and they capitulated and threw it away. I guess they were Remainers at heart.
The numpties in charge couldn't have run a bath let alone organise negotiations.

 

[Billy_wizz]

Unless the workers have the sense to form or join a union. Then they can dictate terms on a fair and equal footing.

Or all loose there jobs together as production gets moved somewhere cheaper/easier! To be fair some of the union activities I've read about (think it was one/some of the Nordic countries) are actually quite good where it's both parties that work together for the betterment of the company! An example was that if you thought a co worker wasn't pulling there weight your first port of call would be your union rep who would try to sort it first and then help with removal of said person if true and improvements didn't happen as the individual was affecting everyone who was employed by the company!
It was often the case that the business owners had a smaller percentage but more in real terms!

 

[Fergie 307]

I blame the governments. Thatcher achieved no particular advantage from attacking the unions and set off a long period of decline. Labour was just feeble and didn't rise to the various challenges.

Of course Thatcher introduced some ghastly, undemocratic, union bashing legislation. Like the idea that ballots should be properly organised and anonymous, rather than a show of hands in a field, and a host of other dreadful stuff.
Cannot for the life of me imagine why she thought it would be a good idea to prevent, for example, striking miners throwing bricks at their working "comrades", clearly just a bit of high jinks. And clearly completely mis interpreted the sort of behaviour experienced by my own mother, who worked through several Post Office strikes. Poor deluded woman though that she was working in a public service that ought to be maintained. The Union were kind enough to bus in "comrades" from elsewhere to enlighten her. One of them even threw still warm urine over her, it was a cold day so this was presumably in an effort to warm her up, a wonderfully altruistic gesture. These people were unaware of her name so just referred to her using that well known term of endearment "scab".
And Labour, when they got into power, seemed to have forgotten how awful these measures were and so compounded the injustice by failing to immediately reverse them all.
Truly shocking Jacob, I'm not surprised it gets your dander up.

 

[AJB Temple]

I am an employer. Now small used to be medium sized. Employers will adopt a risk averse approach until they see how the land lies. I do believe in a decent living wage but there is no chance of me employing anyone else if I can't easily get rid of them during the probation period. Nor am I willing to create any jobs based on flexible contracts and working from home, as I wan full visibility and supervision at least during a training period of 3 years. We have no need to be UK based.

But all of this and the union aspects are a side show for most employers and these policies will not help grow the economy. Entrepreneurs, investors and risk takers need to be encouraged.

That said my main point is I feel strongly that successive political regimes have allowed global companies such as river shop, the bay of e's, oogly, faceybooky, ETsy, buckstars and such like to dominate the retail market to the detriment of local jobs, shops, wages, competition etc whilst paying virtually no UK tax as profits are readily offshored via brand licence fees, imported operating recharges and similar means. We don't need to be scavenged by these firms. We should not havesleep walked into exporting lots of jobs to PRC either.

 

[Jacob]

Why do you need to ask?
Not particularly interesting but I've been a member of Unite for many years but as self employed it's a bit of a token gesture. Was a member of Labour party.
And yes of course I've been affected by their actions just like everybody else. Who has not been affected?

Unite in the news:
"The head of Unite, Sharon Graham, has already been applying pressure on the government to change its fiscal rules so it can borrow more to invest in infrastructure and public services.
The union leader told Reeves that people “haven’t got time to wait for growth” after Labour put boosting economic output at the heart of its plans to repair the country’s finances."

Spot on Sharon!

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ctor-workers-set-for-above-inflation-pay-rise

 

[flying haggis]

There's every reason for unions to get their act together. They have always been a major force in improving conditions of workers and society as a whole.

And a major force in decimating theit own industries and employment. Wonder how much money scargill and the like lost whilst ordering the sheep ( sorry members) to go on strike therefore not get paid??

 

[Yorkieguy]

Unite in the news:
"The head of Unite, Sharon Graham, has already been applying pressure on the government to change its fiscal rules…

Spot on Sharon!

Is ‘spot on’ a typo - ‘dream on’ perhaps?

She just saying what her members expect her to say - more in hope than expectation. It isn’t going to happen. The government mantra is not longer ‘tax and spend’ but ‘wealth creation’. We know it’s true - they told us so.

As most of us were taught at our mother’s knee “I want, I want” doesn’t get.