Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unions
Options
Comments
-
You're missing the point. People in that position see the public sector unions moaning about pay cuts and other measures that are a reality of every day life for most of the workers in the country. They are not in touch with reality and their unwillingness to be in any way flexible is costing the tax payer billions as we don't have the money to pay for the current public service that we have.
Jack O'Connor et al, don't speak for me, but every decision they make effect the entire country. These guys were the chief architects of causing the public sector to become bloated and for introducing the worst economic pay agreement ever to be written. Benchmarking caused wages to spiral out of control and did nothing to encourage any kind of ingenuity in the public sector. I should know, I was there, briefly. In all the jobs I have worked the civil service is by far the least efficient and has the least motivated staff! Can you blame them? Person A can work their ass off to achieve better results and person B can sit on their ass and do nothing and guess what, their increments for the same position are the same regardless of their contrasting value to the position!
I also find it funny that benchmarking only works in one direction......
I'm not missing the point! The OP reckons we need to break the unions. I'm a union member which is my constitutional right. Obviously it doesn't
suit the self employed etc. to be union members as they can look after their own working conditions and with unions in the way employers can't exploit workers. I'm a tradesman (Not public service, as the poster above seems to think only public sector workers are union members.) and I can tell you during the 80's unions were needed as employers with a "Never let a good recession go to waste" attitude treated me and many other workers, in my opinion, like crap. Things improved obviously in the last 15 years or so thanks to mine and many other workers hard work which got this country back on its feet again. I've never received more than the going rate for my work so got no thanks from the bosses I've worked for all my efforts.
I don't own property (except my house which I'm still paying for) I don't have shares etc. I don't have savings or a well off Mammy & Daddy to back me up financially.
the only source of income I have is my job and I want my rights protected by a Union.
Now another recession comes around and the bosses, self employed and upper middle class students brainwashed by Rich Daddy are at it all over again with their "Make the PAYE worker pay" attitude.
You better believe unions are needed.
The majority of employers are fine but there are still some self serving gits out there.
One thing I've learned over the years is if you give an employer an inch he will take a yard.
I don't have much time for the union leadership but why should ordinary working people have employers attempting to strip them of rights or representation.0 -
erictheviking wrote: »I'm not missing the point! The OP reckons we need to break the unions. I'm a union member which is my constitutional right. Obviously it doesn't
suit the self employed etc. to be union members as they can look after their own working conditions and with unions in the way employers can't exploit workers. I'm a tradesman (Not public service, as the poster above seems to think only public sector workers are union members.) and I can tell you during the 80's unions were needed as employers with a "Never let a good recession go to waste" attitude treated me and many other workers, in my opinion, like crap. Things improved obviously in the last 15 years or so thanks to mine and many other workers hard work which got this country back on its feet again. I've never received more than the going rate for my work so got no thanks from the bosses I've worked for all my efforts.
I don't own property (except my house which I'm still paying for) I don't have shares etc. I don't have savings or a well off Mammy & Daddy to back me up financially.
the only source of income I have is my job and I want my rights protected by a Union.
Now another recession comes around and the bosses, self employed and upper middle class students brainwashed by Rich Daddy are at it all over again with their "Make the PAYE worker pay" attitude.
You better believe unions are needed.
I don't have much time for the union leadership but why should ordinary working people haveemployers attempting to strip them of rights or representation.
I am not represented by a union, I work for a multinational. I negotiate my pay and conditions with the company. If I don't like it I know where the door is. The difference is pay in my area is based on performance and not on union agreement. If you make yourself valuable to your employer, you should have no issues. Savings are made by releasing dead wood. The problem is that unions don't allow dead wood to be removed. In fact due to unions stance some jobs have been lost because they have forced stressed businesses to go to the wall because of wage agreements that they cannot be negotiated on.0 -
Indeed,P. Breathnach wrote: »To me, it is such a self-evident truth that it should need no explanation. Were the Gama workers well-treated? What about the mushroom producer (I forget the name) that paid workers piece-rates so low that it was impossible for them to reach even the minimum wage? Do you know the working conditions of the crews on Irish Ferries? I know of one employer in Dublin that paid workers €50 for 12-hour shifts with no breaks, lunch taken at the desk (a case I reported to the labour inspectorate myself -- I don't know if it ever entered the public domain). You can regularly read reports of wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal cases being brought to the Labour Court. We frequently hear of bullying in the workplace.
There are lots of bad employers.
However I think the point being made is that Unions aren't needed as the labour laws are so good/strict since our joining of the EU. The Employee has so many laws looking after their interests that one would wonder why the Union is needed at all.
From my point of view, all I have see are Unions stopping progress in the workplace, making it very difficult to introduce new technology and practices, introducing a "Them Versus Us" attitude and a complete disregard (in the long term) for their members.
The collective bargaining (which I believe FG want to enshrine more in law) used by the Unions, does nothing to improve the services that there members give.
There is also a very very big effort withing Unions to STOP any form of performance monitoring or appraisal.
What I generally see Unions do, is help out the most useless of people/complainers/moaners and layabouts keep in a job, which is totally ridiculous in my opinion.
Unions are big business however and you'll not find their leaders or the members most protected by them budging easily.
Unions generally work in the public sector SOLELY because the employer is not a standard employer.
In general, if an employer cannot afford to pay staff and has to let them go, no amount of striking will make them change their mind or back down..
Sorry, I have generalised Unions, it's purely my experience and I am sure there are some good ones out there.
Just remember before you speak in their defence, that almost every board of every public sector organisation (and indeed some private) usually has a Union member sitting on it, to watch out for workers rights. Me Bollix.0 -
Excellent summation there kippy about the flaws in many of the current unions, which is different to what unions could be. It's not the principle of them that annoys - it's the implementation. The staunchest union supporters I know happen also to be the least productive.
Without union interference, I'm sure we could have had some good PS/CS reform and rightly rewarded effeciency and good work rather than a "one size fits all" mentality that currently exists.0 -
erictheviking wrote: »Let me guess!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
A large property owning, HAS to be self employed, BMW driver who thinks the working class are peasants :mad:!
Some posters can be read like a book!:)
It's actually a Porsche
My Own Company
& Lots of property
Some of my best friends are Peasants0 -
Advertisement
-
If that was what they were doing, we would support them (to a degree).. but how can they support teachers... 50k a year... short work week.. 9 months uncertified sick leave.... and we ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..
How can O'Connor claim these guys are 'ordinary workers'???
National average wage = 32k
Public sector average wage = 50k(ish)
How can a self proclaimed socialist call these guys 'ordinary workers'???
And what job do you do? I wish to make some sweeping generalizations about it and cast it and thus you in an exceedingly bad light.
I wish to employ "average" figures (but the average of what I hear you ask) to denigrate your occupation.
You have a good point (to a degree) but the way you make it needs attention.
But we all know that.0 -
And what job do you do? I wish to make some sweeping generalizations about it and cast it and thus you in an exceedingly bad light.
I wish to employ "average" figures (but the average of what I hear you ask) to denigrate your occupation.
You have a good point (to a degree) but the way you make it needs attention.
But we all know that.
I'm an engineer (Telecoms).
Do your worst!0 -
I'm an engineer (Telecoms).
Do your worst!
I didn't actually expect you to furnish me with a truthful answer (at least it seems to be). Very decent of you.
O.K. if I'm going to discredit your occupation by using half truths, massaging statistics and extending possible bad experiences I have had with a minority of telecoms engineers to include all telecoms engineers then you have to give me some time to do it properly.0 -
Anyone hear the union rep on Matt Cooper today trying to discredit the ESRI (a public sector body) report finding that the equivalent jobs in the public sector were paid 25% more than the private sector jobs? It was embarrassing. He wasn't though. Neck like a jockey's b****x0
-
There digging there own graves0
-
Advertisement
-
I didn't actually expect you to furnish me with a truthful answer (at least it seems to be). Very decent of you.
O.K. if I'm going to discredit your occupation by using half truths, massaging statistics and extending possible bad experiences I have had with a minority of telecoms engineers to include all telecoms engineers then you have to give me some time to do it properly.
Jack O'Connor is not a minority of u nion workers... he is their loud, petulant and obtuse mouth!
As for bad experience with network planners/engineers like me... keep digging.. all of the bad ones I have known are either gone, or moved to useless, menial, low paying jobs.. the way the Public Sector should work.
Do you deny that the unions protect the lazy, useless 'minority' in the Public Sector?.. Or even in the 'Private' sector they represent.. like tradesmen?
Had to laugh at the 'Rich Daddy' crap spouted earlier by another 'poster' here. Like if I don't use power tools, I'm a capitalist pig... My Daddy wasn't rich at all...
If the unions weren't so childish about the successful, people may take them seriously... but jealousy does not help their cause.0 -
crap spouted earlier by another half-wit here
Please limit the attacks to the post, not the poster.0 -
-
Ok so how much are the top dogs in the Unions on they are only in it for the money , Make no mistake the more people join there Union the longer they have a job [self preservation society]0
-
Jack O'Connor is not a minority of union workers... he is their loud, petulant and obtuse mouth!
Relax opto! I didnt attempt to defend Jack O'Connor at all so no need to drag me into an aspect of the discussion/debate I didn't engage with.As for bad experience with network planners/engineers like me... keep digging.. all of the bad ones I have known are either gone, or moved to useless, menial, low paying jobs.. the way the Public Sector should work.
I'm too busy to be digging up dirt on telecoms engineers, that wasnt the thrust of my argument at all. my point was that you made an all encompassing statement about a occupation that you couldn't possibly prove or back up and I believe it was unfair having worked as one. My point was that making such statements was easy as anyone can denigrate an occupation because they have a chip on their shoulder.
eg: Telecoms engineers, We all know they are just a bunch of useless layabouts that cant use unix properly and wouldnt know a fibre optic cable or how one works if it was crammed up their asshole, hardly fair or true but see below for a similar ridiculous statement you madewe ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..
Really! we all know this do we? I actually had quite a number of very good teachers in primary and secondary school. (and it isnt that long since Ive left education) I also worked with many decent teachers in the past in three separate secondary schools. I also met a couple of complete tools (but I believe if you look really hard you will find some complete tools in your occupation in life also and youll also find some) I suspect you have a narrow view of education and if you had to teach in the context some teachers teach in you would have a different view.Do you deny that the unions protect the lazy, useless 'minority' in the Public Sector?.. Or even in the 'Private' sector they represent.. like tradesmen?
Check my posts, can you see me denying this in any of them? Yes they can and do have this effect, does the way they operate need to be amended? do they have too much power in certain areas?....my answer is yes to both.....are they all bad? most certainly not. Any organisation will work to protect itself and its reason for existence. Do you have a telecoms engineers representative organisation? perhaps you should look into setting one up? what do you thinks such an organisation would do? recommend that telecoms engineers are overpaid...would you pay dues to such an organisation? are you going to tell me you wouldnt like an organisation working on your behalf to improve your working standards?Had to laugh at the 'Rich Daddy' crap spouted earlier by another 'poster' here. Like if I don't use power tools, I'm a capitalist pig... My Daddy wasn't rich at all...
Incoming transmission.....I said nothing whatsoever about your daddy..... or yo mama for that matter. Direct this at the poster who did. Try not to lump everyone who disagrees with your point of view into one group and respond to them as one. I objected in the main to one single part of your post, this should have been abundantly clear from my posts...you are a telecoms engineer....communication should be part of your skillset, not just the theory but also the practice.If the unions weren't so childish about the successful, people may take them seriously... but jealousy does not help their cause.
Im not sure what you mean here so Im not sure how to respond. Some of your posts and the way you make your points seem childish.
Are you saying that unions are jealous of wages of successful people in the private sector?0 -
Unions are something I look at in two ways;
They protect people who need it.
They rape our economy.
Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.
Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.
The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.0 -
anonymous_joe wrote: »Unions are something I look at in two ways;
They protect people who need it.
They rape our economy.
Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.
Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.
The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.
Tks, its actually nice to see at least some balance. Theres not much point in having a debate/discussion with people whose views are so entrenched, one dimensional and confrontational that everything degenerates into a slagging match eventually.
BTW I do realise you could apply the terms entrenched, one dimensional and confrontational to many a trade union leader/member but its amazing how people complain about union leaders and then proceed to outdo the worst excesses of these union leaders in the belligerent, ignorant and just plain insulting stakes themselves. At least the union leaders are able to massage statistics to suit their own ends or be evasive etc...as slimy as it is, it takes more intelligence than spewing insults around the place and it can be debated against.
If I criticise a person for doing something distasteful and then turn around afterwards and proceed to do worse than that person...then I am nothing more than a hypocrite.
I also find it amazing that some of the very ones that are screaming blue murder about unions and the public service are completely unable to make even minor concessions to an opposing viewpoint but have no problems taking their personal experience/shoulder chips and using them tar entire professions/occupations with such unreasonable vitriolic hatred that they end up damaging even their own arguments in the end.
If their points are good surely they can back it up with evidence.
If they dont want to spend ages backing up their claims then perhaps they can be more reasonable in the way they make their claims and file away the more offensive ones in a folder marked bile somewhere in the lizard/reptilian part of their brains for their own private amusement when they are sitting at home with this months copy of guns n'ammo.0 -
anonymous_joe wrote: »Unions are something I look at in two ways;
They protect people who need it.
They rape our economy.
Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.
Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.
The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.
Where's the evidence? British industry took a nosedive cause it had **** standards and couldn't keep up with Asian imports. Blaming the unions for this can't change history.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »Where's the evidence? British industry took a nosedive cause it had **** standards and couldn't keep up with Asian imports. Blaming the unions for this can't change history.
Ah I know, but it made them slow, bloated and unable to change rapidly. Would you deny that?
It's not a case of the Unions being the reason for the collapse (that was, as you pointed out, Asian imports) merely that they slowed down any attempted recovery/reaction.0 -
anonymous_joe wrote: »Ah I know, but it made them slow, bloated and unable to change rapidly. Would you deny that?
It's not a case of the Unions being the reason for the collapse (that was, as you pointed out, Asian imports) merely that they slowed down any attempted recovery/reaction.
Firstly yes I would disagree with your position and secondly that is completely different to the earlier statement that 'its unions destroyed its industry'. This sort of nonsense is being spouted over and over again on this forum without any evidence and in your case with the prior knowledge that you were wrong. There's a ranting and raving forum for a reason. Why not use that for this sort of 'debate'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian - would you disagree that in the good times, unions demand wage increases and other bonuses for their members? This being justified on the basis of sharing the wealth? Or needing to keep workers pay ahead of inflation...
And in the bad times, the unions demand their members wages and conditions be protected, on the basis that the most vulnerable must be protected during the hard times. And that its not their fault.
With the resulting effect that unions are in effect a monopoly or cartel, with the destructive effects that has on the wider economy?
Unions are consumed with the "**** them before they **** you!" style socialism. Thats their idealogy and game plan. Now, if it comes down to us, the taxpayers, versus them, the unions....I choose us. We cannot carry these bloated parasites any longer. One of the biggest dangers in rescuing a drowning man is that he panicks and struggles with you, dragging you down with him. The unions are panicking.
If the unions want to come to the table with some serious suggestions on how the gaping hole called out budget deficit can be plugged, great. But all they have is soundbites, some **** about painless cuts - look at the deficit and tell me how the cuts will be painless? The december budget is going to break either the state or the unions...for all our sakes, even the sakes of union members, it had best be the unions that are broken.0 -
Yes I disagree with your position Sand, I doubt you expected otherwise. What the unions are a monopoly on is unclear, and why you have to create an artificial taxpayer versus unionised taxpayer division is also unclear. But what you've said is mostly an opinionated attack on trade unions and not an objective discussion of their role in the next budget or future budgets, so its a bit much to expect real debate.0
-
I am, no im not ,I would have been insenced by your comments but I can only assume your from a very privilaged backround and a complete arsehole, it seems to me you have never worked a day in your very upper-class life and you dont give a **** how anyone thinks of you, bar your fecking friends, both of them and some underling female who is trying to get into your well aired boxers, you ablosute prick.Everyone in a job today is treated well... European law protects the worker more than ever in the history of man.
The myth that employers don't take care of their good workers is total crap, spread by the "unemployable f*cking headbangers" in the unions.
Malcontents in the modern workforce.. tend to be bad workers...
Today... all the unions do, is hold up progress and success, by protecting the deadwood in their sectors!!!
More harm than good!
The ****ing cheek of you, you wouldnt know work if it hit you in the face, now go and tell daddy what I said, but dont bother mama shes busy ****ing the tennis coach..........0 -
Brian, do you disagree that in social partnership the unions consistently demanded unrealistic wage increases? And received them to blatantly unsustainable levels?
Do you disagree that when the sheer unsustainability of those wage increases became apparent that unions switched tack to defending those unsustainable wages and conditions - rejecting completely out of hand any realistic solutions to regaining a somewhat balanced budget?
Do you disagree that unions have no responsibility whatsoever to anyone outside their membership?
Do you disagree that there are taxpayers outside union membership?
Do you disagree that given unions demand unsustainable support from taxpayers, that taxpayers work like donkeys to sustain a parasitic public sector, that unions cannot be considered to have taxpayers interests at heart?
Given that do you disagree that it comes down to who is more important? Taxpayers or unions?
Do you disagree that if there is no ****ing money, the most important principle is not fairness, but that there is no ****ing money?
Do you disagree that unions have offered no realistic and honest recognition of the unsustainable bugetary demands produced by social partnership?
Do you disagree that social partnership only broke down when the unions were faced with a round of talks where they would not have some wage increases to take back to their members?
Unions are a cartel. They need to be broken. Unions have moved beyond protecting their members, to feeding off the taxpayer like some blood sucking vampire.
As a taxpayer, I want to apologise to the trade unions. I am sorry. I am sorry I can no longer support you in the style to which you and your buddies in FAS have become accustomed. I am sorry I can no longer support David Beggs salary and expenses on the Central Bank board. I am sorry I can no longer support a health service where I pay incredible sums of money, for no real improvements since the mid 1990s. I am sorry I can no longer support your expense budgets. I am sorry I can no longer support your bloated staffing.. I am sorry I can no longer support your wages which are inexplicably 25% higher on average.
I am truly sorry. I have failed you. We, the taxpayers, have failed you. We are all truly sorry. But there is no ****ing money. Now, man up, and deal with it. Theres going to be a reckoning. And if the unions are not with us, then they are against us. And we will have to break them. If its them, or us, I choose us.0 -
Brian, do you disagree that in social partnership the unions consistently demanded unrealistic wage increases? And received them to blatantly unsustainable levels?
Do you disagree that when the sheer unsustainability of those wage increases became apparent that unions switched tack to defending those unsustainable wages and conditions - rejecting completely out of hand any realistic solutions to regaining a somewhat balanced budget?
Do you disagree that unions have no responsibility whatsoever to anyone outside their membership?
Do you disagree that there are taxpayers outside union membership?
Do you disagree that given unions demand unsustainable support from taxpayers, that taxpayers work like donkeys to sustain a parasitic public sector, that unions cannot be considered to have taxpayers interests at heart?
Given that do you disagree that it comes down to who is more important? Taxpayers or unions?
Do you disagree that if there is no ****ing money, the most important principle is not fairness, but that there is no ****ing money?
Do you disagree that unions have offered no realistic and honest recognition of the unsustainable bugetary demands produced by social partnership?
Do you disagree that social partnership only broke down when the unions were faced with a round of talks where they would not have some wage increases to take back to their members?
Unions are a cartel. They need to be broken. Unions have moved beyond protecting their members, to feeding off the taxpayer like some blood sucking vampire.
As a taxpayer, I want to apologise to the trade unions. I am sorry. I am sorry I can no longer support you in the style to which you and your buddies in FAS have become accustomed. I am sorry I can no longer support David Beggs salary and expenses on the Central Bank board. I am sorry I can no longer support a health service where I pay incredible sums of money, for no real improvements since the mid 1990s. I am sorry I can no longer support your expense budgets. I am sorry I can no longer support your bloated staffing.. I am sorry I can no longer support your wages which are inexplicably 25% higher on average.
I am truly sorry. I have failed you. We, the taxpayers, have failed you. We are all truly sorry. But there is no ****ing money. Now, man up, and deal with it. Theres going to be a reckoning. And if the unions are not with us, then they are against us. And we will have to break them. If its them, or us, I choose us.
re we living in the real world here, so all the bail outs, all the problems, all the greed came from the unions, health service or lack of it down to the unions are you for real, the social partnership broke down when the aurgrument between the goverment and the unions was broke, by who not the unions. When the bankers shouted they had no more money, the goverment jumped, and the bankers said how fecking high>>>>
Get off your high horse and be at one with the downturn and who caused it, all the posts on here will not give the clowns who got us into this absloution.
By the way, unions are only the people sticking together and is what this country was built on......... Power to the people who get off their arse and fight for what we know is right and for what we belive in. If the weak had any future in our country, I think they know its gone now, we will not be lead by clowns or clons.
And you people think they will make it alright, fools , fools, they left us their celtic tiger dead0 -
It's unions didn't destroy its industry; that occurred with a worldwide move away from heavy industry and a general British inability to keep up with the world economy. The same thing could be seen in other European countries; Wallonia (southern Belgium for example), with or without the trade unions. We've certainly never had a strong trade union movement and our economy was in the doldrums for years.anonymous_joe wrote: »Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.
Add in the fact that the quality of British goods was pretty ****e. Motorbikes for example; pretty notorious for falling to pieces pretty quickly as well as being ridiculously expensive. As Brian pointed out, Asian imports (cheaper and better quality) played a far bigger role.
You do realise that the unions aren't a homogenous entity right?anonymous_joe wrote: »The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.
Comparing the union members of Mandate to those of the FDA is pretty bizarre.0 -
re we living in the real world here, so all the bail outs, all the problems, all the greed came from the unions, health service or lack of it down to the unions are you for real, the social partnership broke down when the aurgrument between the goverment and the unions was broke, by who not the unions. When the bankers shouted they had no more money, the goverment jumped, and the bankers said how fecking high>>>>
Get off your high horse and be at one with the downturn and who caused it, all the posts on here will not give the clowns who got us into this absloution.
By the way, unions are only the people sticking together and is what this country was built on......... Power to the people who get off their arse and fight for what we know is right and for what we belive in. If the weak had any future in our country, I think they know its gone now, we will not be lead by clowns or clons.
And you people think they will make it alright, fools , fools, they left us their celtic tiger dead
funny how so many ps workers claim they are on average much better educated than thier average private sector counterpart yet at the same time some of them cant even spell0 -
PMSL0
-
It's hardly nonsense.brianthebard wrote: »Firstly yes I would disagree with your position and secondly that is completely different to the earlier statement that 'its unions destroyed its industry'. This sort of nonsense is being spouted over and over again on this forum without any evidence and in your case with the prior knowledge that you were wrong. There's a ranting and raving forum for a reason. Why not use that for this sort of 'debate'?
For Christ's sake, I didn't even attack unions. I pointed out there's good and bad about them.
Unions interfere with the speed with which an economy can act. That's a bad bad bad thing. Right now, for example, the pay deals the unions gained in the past are excessive. Realistically, they need to be reduced. (As do all wages in this country, many already have done) to restore a degree of parity and to reduce the general wage bills in this country.
A shift that was not total. Yes the amount of industry was falling, but the UK as an example is the only large first world country without a car manufacturer. Why do Germany, France, Italy, Spain, all nations of similar size have them?kickoutthejams wrote: »It's unions didn't destroy its industry; that occurred with a worldwide move away from heavy industry and a general British inability to keep up with the world economy. The same thing could be seen in other European countries; Wallonia (southern Belgium for example), with or without the trade unions. We've certainly never had a strong trade union movement and our economy was in the doldrums for years.
Wallonia's always been the much poorer part of the Belgian economy though.
Our economy's problems in the past had a lot to do with being a small country with no natural resources who engaged in an economic war with our only trade partner.
Some were. Some weren't.Add in the fact that the quality of British goods was pretty ****e. Motorbikes for example; pretty notorious for falling to pieces pretty quickly as well as being ridiculously expensive. As Brian pointed out, Asian imports (cheaper and better quality) played a far bigger role.
Many of the best car manufacturers in the world were hugely damaged by the shoddy work practices of the union dominated companies that took over them, and the near constant industrial disputes.
Of course I realise that.You do realise that the unions aren't a homogenous entity right?
Comparing the union members of Mandate to those of the FDA is pretty bizarre.0 -
Advertisement
-
Britain had car industries; ever hear of Jaguars and Landrovers?anonymous_joe wrote: »A shift that was not total. Yes the amount of industry was falling, but the UK as an example is the only large first world country without a car manufacturer. Why do Germany, France, Italy, Spain, all nations of similar size have them?
Rovers were made fairly near my old house anyway.
Their problem was that while high quality cars existed, there were not enough affordable/reliable models to compete with the flood of cheap models from the far east.
Completely untrue.anonymous_joe wrote: »Wallonia's always been the much poorer part of the Belgian economy though.
The Walloons were the Belgian aristocracy whereas the Flemish tended to be peasant farmers; French was the language of the leaders, businessmen, church officials etc. Flemish was the language of factory workers, farmers and so on who came to work in Walloon industry. A shocking cause of Belgian soldier deaths in world wars was that orders were given in French (as that's where the moneyed officers came from) so many Flemish soldiers were unable to understand, misunderstood orders and walked into massacres.
This is one of the reasons that many Flemish are still so antiWalloon; the memory of Walloon dominance and their ill treatment of their Flemish workers is very recent.
The "trade war" was between the Free State and Britain, Ireland quickly realised that it needed British trade and the trade war was ended after a few years.anonymous_joe wrote: »Our economy's problems in the past had a lot to do with being a small country with no natural resources who engaged in an economic war with our only trade partner.
A free trade agreement was signed into force under Lemass as well.
Source please.anonymous_joe wrote: »Some were. Some weren't.
Many of the best car manufacturers in the world were hugely damaged by the shoddy work practices of the union dominated companies that took over them, and the near constant industrial disputes.
Then stop talking about "the unions".anonymous_joe wrote: »Of course I realise that.
Work out which unions you are complaining about and then post away.0
Advertisement