| |
|
I'm sorry but the fact that Thatcher cut down on military strength in the falklands does not mean she was primarily responsible for the falklands war, that was the military dictatorship of argentina.
I was about to ask if you were a fan of Neville Chamberlain too, then I realized that gave Thatcher too much credit. Chamberlain thought Britain underarmed and unprepared for war, so at least in part was seeking to buy time. Thatcher was simply looking to save money, and oblivious to the consequences. The idea that this showed her to be ‘strong’ is absurd, it showed her to be a spending skinflint until re-election neared...
Lucid Frenzy said
"Working for someone else is like pulling a cart with a horse in it."
I dont realy know what you mean by that
I mean it’s pointless to work for someone else, rather than with them. Every place I have ever worked has blathered on about the importance of ‘teamwork’. Okay, let’s take that to its logical conclusion...
However these things take time and in the short run many costs are "fixed and immutable" (how long this is is up for deabate probably between 9 - 15 months) labour is realy the only thing that business can change.
You are really arguing against yourself here. If what you say is true, then businesses will always be trying to cut wages or headcount because they have no other options. In the example you gave earlier, why not employ just the fifty workers and pocket the rest? In fact, why employ fifty? By laying so many off, you’ll be creating ‘incentives to work’.
(Of course this is pretty much what normally happens now. I wonder how many businesses are shedding staff beyond what the recession actually necessitates, in short using it as a handy excuse?)
You are also arguing against known history. There’s no evidence that Thatcher kept down pay demands.
I think it probably is valid to say that unions are underpowered, yes.
I presume then that what you see is an ‘over correction’. All I can say is the assaults on organised labour have had all sorts of negative effects both inside and outside the workplace. ‘Public order’ legislation in Britain is now absurdly draconian, in de facto terms there is no right to peaceful protest. That largely comes from a sea chance in policing during the Miners Strike. In short, if this is the solution I prefer the problem.
The fundamental problem with overly powerful unions is that it only operates on behalf of its members which causes unemployment.
If you dropped the last three words there, I would concede you had a point. Trade Unionism as is (or at least was in the Seventies) encourages a sectional mentality among workers. This can result in things like leapfrogging pay claims, or a willingness to cross picket lines if it is not ‘your’ struggle. Most famously, trade unionism in Britain was something of a boy’s club which employers circumvented by employing more and more women. (Who they had no interest in recruiting to become ‘brothers’.) In such ways trade unionism impedes working class collective consciousness. What we need is cross-trade unionism.
In short the problem with trade unionism isn’t that it’s too far to the left, but that it’s too far to the right. |
|
|
