I've been predicting it for a couple of years now, but the main event of the "recession" is about to get under way. Strikes, chaos and disorder are already taking a grip in Europe - especially France - and here the coalition is about to announce the scale of the cuts to public sector spending as they attempt to get to grips with the debt monster created by the stupidity and profligacy of Blair, Brown and New Labour.
The non-existent recovery is stuttering to a halt while the banks and foreign companies feast on the entrails of our dying industry like vultures devouring a once proud lion that still breathes, but no longer has the strength to fight off the beaks and claws that tear at its flesh.
The unions are on the rise once more - boosted by membership from the bloated non-productive public sector of people in non-jobs - and are belligerent and confident once more. What is more they are now armed with a tactic - the repeated one or two day strike - which causes the most harm and disruption to the employers and the public with the least inconvenience to themselves and their members.
Our armed forces will soon be no longer fit for the purpose of defending the nation - although I'm not convinced that they have been for twenty years - but it doesn't matter. We've sold our nation to the EU anyway and the only thing our soldiers are likely to be doing in the next ten years is putting down internal insurrection and civil chaos. They won't need tanks, planes or aircraft carriers to do that.
And all this as a result of spending cuts that will do nothing to stop the inevitable. This isn't the end of the cuts, the chaos and disruption - this is merely the beginning.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
And this helps how, exactly?
To be honest, I don't know the details of the dispute between Birmingham council and the unions over equal pay for women. It's something to do with bonuses being paid to "men" which were denied to "women".
It doesn't sound quite right to me, because, as far as I can make out the bonuses were paid to people doing different jobs - for example, refuse collectors got a big bonus while care workers didn't.
I don't actually see what that has to do with equal pay for genders myself. After all, there are plenty of men working in social care and they didn't get the big bonuses either - and there is nothing to stop women working on bin collections which means they could have got big bonuses if they'd decided to do that job - but hey, I've given up trying to make sense of the equal pay rubbish (I can't make sense of it, because there is no sense to it).
What I do wonder is who has actually benefited from this court case. As I understand it, Birmingham City Council have stopped paying bonuses to people doing "man's" work - so they lose out. The women who are supposed to have lost out will get a couple of grand each maybe - but they've probably all lost their jobs by now or seen them transferred to a private care company who will give them even worse pay and conditions and Birmingham City Council don't actually have any money other than that they take off the taxpayer.
So the men working for Birmingham City Council lose out, the women working for Birmingham City Council lose out and the people of Birmingham City lose out. As far as I can see, the only people to benefit from this are the lawyers who now see an opportunity to milk councils up and down Britain for more cash.
And all this at a time when we are facing the biggest cuts since the nineteen seventies according to some think tank.
It's a bit like handing a glass of water to a drowning man.
It doesn't sound quite right to me, because, as far as I can make out the bonuses were paid to people doing different jobs - for example, refuse collectors got a big bonus while care workers didn't.
I don't actually see what that has to do with equal pay for genders myself. After all, there are plenty of men working in social care and they didn't get the big bonuses either - and there is nothing to stop women working on bin collections which means they could have got big bonuses if they'd decided to do that job - but hey, I've given up trying to make sense of the equal pay rubbish (I can't make sense of it, because there is no sense to it).
What I do wonder is who has actually benefited from this court case. As I understand it, Birmingham City Council have stopped paying bonuses to people doing "man's" work - so they lose out. The women who are supposed to have lost out will get a couple of grand each maybe - but they've probably all lost their jobs by now or seen them transferred to a private care company who will give them even worse pay and conditions and Birmingham City Council don't actually have any money other than that they take off the taxpayer.
So the men working for Birmingham City Council lose out, the women working for Birmingham City Council lose out and the people of Birmingham City lose out. As far as I can see, the only people to benefit from this are the lawyers who now see an opportunity to milk councils up and down Britain for more cash.
And all this at a time when we are facing the biggest cuts since the nineteen seventies according to some think tank.
It's a bit like handing a glass of water to a drowning man.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
The real bigots in our schools
Thanks to one of the commenters on this site - Larry - I hear that the teaching unions are trying to ban BNP members from being teachers or governors.
I've no doubt that these same people are the sort who were up in arms the other day when the shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said that B&B owners should have the right to refuse entry to homosexuals.
Personally, I think he is right. Furthermore, I think the NUT is quite within its rights to refuse membership from anyone who is a BNP member. I also think it's quite right for a club to refuse entry to someone who doesn't meet their dress code or a bank to reject an application for an overdraft from someone who doesn't have any money.
My point is this - everybody, every business and every organisation should have the right to decide who they allow in. There should not be any laws restricting you on who you can turn away - regardless of the reason.
Why is there such a big furore over a tiny B&B refusing to admit a homosexual couple and yet no concern at all by the establishment at the blatant discrimination by liberal progressives towards BNP members? They are not doing anything illegal by being members of the BNP. It isn't against the law (yet) to be a member of the BNP and yet the NUT are not just clamouring for a ban from their organisation for BNP members - they are trying to bully the government into blatant discrimination.
Like I said - if the NUT want to ban BNP members from being part of their bigoted, fascist group then that is up to them. If I were a teacher and a member of the BNP I would not want to belong to such a disgusting extremist organisation as the NUT - but it is none of their business who schools employ or have as governors.
Once again we see the blatant hypocrisy and bigotry of the liberal establishment. They do not stand for "equality". They do not stand for "fairness". They stand for shoving their sick social agenda down the throats of the British people.
They are vicious nasty bigots and they think nobody notices. They are wrong.
I've no doubt that these same people are the sort who were up in arms the other day when the shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said that B&B owners should have the right to refuse entry to homosexuals.
Personally, I think he is right. Furthermore, I think the NUT is quite within its rights to refuse membership from anyone who is a BNP member. I also think it's quite right for a club to refuse entry to someone who doesn't meet their dress code or a bank to reject an application for an overdraft from someone who doesn't have any money.
My point is this - everybody, every business and every organisation should have the right to decide who they allow in. There should not be any laws restricting you on who you can turn away - regardless of the reason.
Why is there such a big furore over a tiny B&B refusing to admit a homosexual couple and yet no concern at all by the establishment at the blatant discrimination by liberal progressives towards BNP members? They are not doing anything illegal by being members of the BNP. It isn't against the law (yet) to be a member of the BNP and yet the NUT are not just clamouring for a ban from their organisation for BNP members - they are trying to bully the government into blatant discrimination.
Like I said - if the NUT want to ban BNP members from being part of their bigoted, fascist group then that is up to them. If I were a teacher and a member of the BNP I would not want to belong to such a disgusting extremist organisation as the NUT - but it is none of their business who schools employ or have as governors.
Once again we see the blatant hypocrisy and bigotry of the liberal establishment. They do not stand for "equality". They do not stand for "fairness". They stand for shoving their sick social agenda down the throats of the British people.
They are vicious nasty bigots and they think nobody notices. They are wrong.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Not a budget for Britain
The last Labour budget before the General Election has been about as much of a damp squib as it is possible for a pre-election budget to be - but I have a feeling that it has done enough to placate Labour voters to ensure that the next budget will not be delivered by George Osborne.
Given that the Labour Party is taking direction from the Unite union which in turn is taking direction from the Communist Party it was the kind of "bash the rich" budget we've come to expect from Labour while in office, but without the large bribes they would normally offer at the same time.
However, perhaps the biggest indication of just how much Labour are under the influence of the unions is the total lack of commitment to cut spending. Instead, the public sector share of the economy is expected to rise from 54% this year to 75% in 2014/2015.
We've seen it already with the unexpected announcement that unemployment has fallen. It didn't really fall - the number of people employed in the productive private sector continues to drop substantially. All that is happening is that the state is employing more and more people in non-productive public sector jobs and this rampant rise in the client state is taking up the shortfall in private enterprise employment.
The budget, to be quite frank, is a total fudge. Darling has failed to take the necessary steps to curb the public sector and has simply done the obvious thing of putting up tax. He's demonstrated no interest in repairing the economy - only in shoring up Labour's shaky credentials with its biggest financiers and disillusioned supporters.
It may be enough to keep Labour in power, but it's not going to save this nation from financial collapse. Once again we see where this government's priorities lie - and Britain and the British people come last.
Given that the Labour Party is taking direction from the Unite union which in turn is taking direction from the Communist Party it was the kind of "bash the rich" budget we've come to expect from Labour while in office, but without the large bribes they would normally offer at the same time.
However, perhaps the biggest indication of just how much Labour are under the influence of the unions is the total lack of commitment to cut spending. Instead, the public sector share of the economy is expected to rise from 54% this year to 75% in 2014/2015.
We've seen it already with the unexpected announcement that unemployment has fallen. It didn't really fall - the number of people employed in the productive private sector continues to drop substantially. All that is happening is that the state is employing more and more people in non-productive public sector jobs and this rampant rise in the client state is taking up the shortfall in private enterprise employment.
The budget, to be quite frank, is a total fudge. Darling has failed to take the necessary steps to curb the public sector and has simply done the obvious thing of putting up tax. He's demonstrated no interest in repairing the economy - only in shoring up Labour's shaky credentials with its biggest financiers and disillusioned supporters.
It may be enough to keep Labour in power, but it's not going to save this nation from financial collapse. Once again we see where this government's priorities lie - and Britain and the British people come last.
Friday, March 19, 2010
English Airways
To be honest, I don't have much sympathy with BA over the planned strike by cabin crew. Not because I support the unions position - I don't. As far as I can see, this strike will probably result in a lot more of them losing their jobs and having to take pay cuts as it will probably be the final nail in the airlines coffin - but if they want to destroy the company that pays their wages then good luck to them.
I don't care about BA because they've spent the last 10-20 years trying to divest themselves of the "stigma" of the word "British" in their name. The only time they ever refer to themselves as "British Airways" is when it suits them to - like when they want something from the government or the people of Britain. The rest of the time they stick to "BA" and pretend they're nothing to do with Britain.
Personally, I think the management and staff of BA deserve each other.
Perhaps, when the company is finally dead and buried, we can have a national airline that is proud to carry the name of our country.
I don't care about BA because they've spent the last 10-20 years trying to divest themselves of the "stigma" of the word "British" in their name. The only time they ever refer to themselves as "British Airways" is when it suits them to - like when they want something from the government or the people of Britain. The rest of the time they stick to "BA" and pretend they're nothing to do with Britain.
Personally, I think the management and staff of BA deserve each other.
Perhaps, when the company is finally dead and buried, we can have a national airline that is proud to carry the name of our country.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Quarter of a million workers go on strike ......
.... and hardly anyone notices.
Let's see ..... the average wage for a public sector worker is around £25K a year which is about £70 a day. They're striking for 2 days for which they'll get no pay saving us, the taxpayer, around £30 million roughly.
Shame it's just two days. Do you think they might extend it a little ..... say, a couple of years?
Let's see ..... the average wage for a public sector worker is around £25K a year which is about £70 a day. They're striking for 2 days for which they'll get no pay saving us, the taxpayer, around £30 million roughly.
Shame it's just two days. Do you think they might extend it a little ..... say, a couple of years?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Suicide cult
The planned Christmas strike by BA cabin crew reminds us again that the problems which beset British industry in the seventies haven't gone away and that the biggest problem of all retains its capability to be self destructive.
The problems I refer to are, of course, industrial relations and the reason they remain so bad is predominantly down to the attitude of unions who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of the past and the role that they played in the demise of British industry.
Let me say, first of all, that I am not opposed to unions. They are, in theory, a good idea - but far too often they are led by militant and, to be quite frank, lunatic left wingers who still believe that capitalism is the enemy that must be slain. Let me also point out that I don't believe that the management of BA is free of culpability either - whenever there is an economic downturn it is the usual response of a business to cut pay, bonuses and jobs even if the business remains buoyant.
If business was more honest in the way it did these things rather than always looking for any old excuse to bash their own employees then maybe the unions would be less aggressive back - but business in Britain is incapable of thinking much beyond anything other than the current share price or the short term. However, this style of management is not a uniquely British thing whereas unions hell bent on destroying the industry their members work for is.
The British car industry was destroyed by militant unionism. It wasn't that long ago that the last major British car manufacturer shuffled into the pages of history when the unions hammered the last nail into Rover's coffin. Now it appears Unite (a daft name for a union if ever there was one) is determined to do the same to BA.
BA has made a massive loss. It's going to get even worse. No ifs buts or maybes - it is on its last legs. They really do need to reduce costs or the company will collapse. When that happens, the BA cabin crew won't just have lower pay - they won't have any pay which is exactly what happened to the employees of Rover the vast majority of which now work in call centres for a fraction of the money or claim the dole. Great job protecting the workers there!
I've got no doubt that once Unite have smashed BA into the ground they will then demand that the government step in to save the company - which won't happen. What would be the point? It didn't help the nationalised car industry or the nationalised coal industry or the nationalised steel industry.
And that's another point worth mentioning. Even though I am a right winger who believes in the capitalist economic system, I believe that nationalising an industry is sometimes both right and necessary. It wasn't nationalisation that destroyed our coal, car and steel industries - it was militant unions. Of course, it wasn't helped by some of the government decisions taken along the way - such as joining the "Common Market" which is now having a similarly ruinous effect on one of our last nationalised industries; the Post Office.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century it was militant unionism that was largely responsible for destroying British industry. It seems they are determined to keep doing the same today. I don't think they'll ever stop until the last major British industry is consigned to history, but at least then we won't have to worry about militant unionism any more.
The problems I refer to are, of course, industrial relations and the reason they remain so bad is predominantly down to the attitude of unions who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of the past and the role that they played in the demise of British industry.
Let me say, first of all, that I am not opposed to unions. They are, in theory, a good idea - but far too often they are led by militant and, to be quite frank, lunatic left wingers who still believe that capitalism is the enemy that must be slain. Let me also point out that I don't believe that the management of BA is free of culpability either - whenever there is an economic downturn it is the usual response of a business to cut pay, bonuses and jobs even if the business remains buoyant.
If business was more honest in the way it did these things rather than always looking for any old excuse to bash their own employees then maybe the unions would be less aggressive back - but business in Britain is incapable of thinking much beyond anything other than the current share price or the short term. However, this style of management is not a uniquely British thing whereas unions hell bent on destroying the industry their members work for is.
The British car industry was destroyed by militant unionism. It wasn't that long ago that the last major British car manufacturer shuffled into the pages of history when the unions hammered the last nail into Rover's coffin. Now it appears Unite (a daft name for a union if ever there was one) is determined to do the same to BA.
BA has made a massive loss. It's going to get even worse. No ifs buts or maybes - it is on its last legs. They really do need to reduce costs or the company will collapse. When that happens, the BA cabin crew won't just have lower pay - they won't have any pay which is exactly what happened to the employees of Rover the vast majority of which now work in call centres for a fraction of the money or claim the dole. Great job protecting the workers there!
I've got no doubt that once Unite have smashed BA into the ground they will then demand that the government step in to save the company - which won't happen. What would be the point? It didn't help the nationalised car industry or the nationalised coal industry or the nationalised steel industry.
And that's another point worth mentioning. Even though I am a right winger who believes in the capitalist economic system, I believe that nationalising an industry is sometimes both right and necessary. It wasn't nationalisation that destroyed our coal, car and steel industries - it was militant unions. Of course, it wasn't helped by some of the government decisions taken along the way - such as joining the "Common Market" which is now having a similarly ruinous effect on one of our last nationalised industries; the Post Office.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century it was militant unionism that was largely responsible for destroying British industry. It seems they are determined to keep doing the same today. I don't think they'll ever stop until the last major British industry is consigned to history, but at least then we won't have to worry about militant unionism any more.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Different standards apply
Driving home very late last night I finally gave up on the CD and switched on the radio and tuned in to Radio Five Live - which turned out to be a big mistake.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
The radio show playing at the time was a "debate" about whether is is right to ban BNP members from being teachers. I put debate in quotes because it was nothing of the sort - anyone who dared to oppose the idea of banning BNP members from teaching was shouted down by various participants while anyone supporting the ban was given ample opportunity to rant and rave no matter how ridiculous their proposition.
For example, one idiot kept ranting about whether we'd allow paedophiles to teach. Well, judging by the frequent and numerous incidents of teachers having sexual relations with their underage pupils I'd say it is pretty apparent that we already do - but what the hell is this equating being a member of a legitimate political party with kiddy fiddling?
The moderator - or whatever he was - allowed this on the basis that the BNP is "openly racist". Racism, apparently, is actually a crime according to the people on the show. I actually thought the crime was racial discrimination, racial harassment or incitement to racial hatred rather than just expressing or thinking racist views or thoughts - but what do I know. After all Ron Atkinson was sacked for casting aspersions on a black footballers commitment, but he wasn't actually convicted of any crime - I guess things have moved on from those days.
Anyway, the assertion was that anyone who is a member of the BNP must be racist - a sweeping generalisation which wouldn't be allowed in any other situation. For that reason, the panel decided that it was right to ban BNP members from being teachers as they would treat non-white children as inferior.
But hang on a second - if that is the assumption then we should also ban members of the Labour Party from being teachers as you could equally claim that they are just as likely to treat children of bankers, accountants, company directors etc as inferior. And you should ban Conservatives from teaching as they would be inclined to treat children of miners (if we had any), factory workers (ditto) and union activists as inferior.
Likewise you should ban Green Party members from teaching as they would treat meat eating children, those that arrive at school in 4x4s and just about any kid who isn't a tree hugging nut nibbler as inferior. Actually, we ought to just ban Green Party members. And what about Moslems - particularly those who go for the full Moslem garb? There you have a radical Moslem teacher who may be treating non-Moslem children as inferior - and may even be putting pressure on moderate Moslem children and their families to adopt the full regalia! Why don't we ban Moslems from teaching, then?
And as someone pointed out - to universal silence - we should ban feminists and gays from teaching as they may be inclined to treat boys or straight children (huh?) as inferior. If you take the proposition to its natural conclusion - nobody should be allowed to teach.
But of course that is ridiculous. The fact is that teachers have to obey stringent rules in the way they treat children - both national laws and local school rules - no matter what their political affiliation or particular world view is. If any teacher breaks those rules they can be disciplined and even sacked - whether they are BNP members or members of the NUT (and the vast majority who have been disciplined or sacked have been members of the latter rather than the former).
What is being suggested here is that different rules should be made for BNP members purely on the basis that those who make the rules don't like them. That is bigotry, discrimination and intolerance on a grand scale.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Implied acceptance
I'm no expert on law - as you've probably worked out by now! - but I think that there ought to be a degree of common sense applied to law or, to be more precise, how the law is applied.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
As usual this summer as with every summer, the RMT and their obnoxious leader, Bob Crow, have a grievance. I'm not entirely sure what this grievance is nor do I care - as I understand it they've been offered an decent pay rise while most of us in the private sector are making do with nothing or an actual cut, but Crow and his cronies want guaranteed jobs for life - which is ridiculous.
What I do know, though, is that unions have adopted this tactic over the last decade of having short disruptive strikes rather than indefinite strikes until the grievance is addressed. It's obvious why they do this - it means minimal disruptance to the lives of the union members while maximising disruptance to the employers and, in the case of the tube, the general public.
Now I'm all for the right to withdraw you labour if you feel you have a genuine grievance, but my argument would be that should you decide to return to work for any reason then that implies acceptance of the conditions offered. Otherwise why would you return to work?
I don't know what the best way of encoding that in law would be - I would suggest that it should be made illegal to strike more than once over any issue thereby making it impossible for anyone to have a number of strikes of fixed length.
What is certain is that these tactics of short disruptive strikes repeated over weeks or months have become more common in the public sector. It's time they were stopped. They can strike until some agreement is reached or they can go back to work and accept the conditions offered - they should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The wolves are gathering
Teachers from the NUT have voted for a 10% pay increase.
Activists insisted they would take "no lessons in morality" from ministers who fit their homes with "sinks from Habitat" - an attack on Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.
No? But the rest of us are supposed to? How about they take a "lesson in morality" from us - the taxpayers. No - teachers are not taxpayers - their pay comes out of private sector taxes. They are tax recyclers and consume more than they recover.
So, the private sector is shedding jobs and taking wage cuts to cope with this recession - how about the teachers do the same?
Activists insisted they would take "no lessons in morality" from ministers who fit their homes with "sinks from Habitat" - an attack on Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.
No? But the rest of us are supposed to? How about they take a "lesson in morality" from us - the taxpayers. No - teachers are not taxpayers - their pay comes out of private sector taxes. They are tax recyclers and consume more than they recover.
So, the private sector is shedding jobs and taking wage cuts to cope with this recession - how about the teachers do the same?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Then and now
Anyone as old as me will remember the strife that hit our car makers back in the seventies - just as it is today - but what a difference thirty years has made!
Back in the seventies the car makers were our own and were desperately trying to bring working practices, production techniques and quality control up to the standards of foreign competition - but were thwarted at every turn by militant unions.
The irony of all this was that the union militancy ensured that those car manufacturers would close down and thousands of jobs would be lost, but it was all about "solidarity" back then - one out all out.
If management had dared to suggest that they were going to shut the plant down for 4 months, lay off hundreds of workers or reduce their pay by 10% that would have been it - a long and bitter strike, picketing, secondary picketing and accusations of "scab" would have abounded.
Today, the workers at the foreign car plants that just happen to be located in Britain (for now) accept the decisions of their Japanese masters meekly and compliantly. They have to. They know only too well what will happen if they don't because they remember what happened in the seventies - and even more recently with MG Rover where a perfectly viable and last British major car manufacturer was brought to its knees once more by union intransigence.
Like most sensible people, I want "British jobs for British workers" - but I also want them working for British companies. I only hope that, should this ever actually happen, the unions will behave in much the same way they do for Toyota, Honda and Nissan and not the way they did for Triumph, Austin and Hillman.
Back in the seventies the car makers were our own and were desperately trying to bring working practices, production techniques and quality control up to the standards of foreign competition - but were thwarted at every turn by militant unions.
The irony of all this was that the union militancy ensured that those car manufacturers would close down and thousands of jobs would be lost, but it was all about "solidarity" back then - one out all out.
If management had dared to suggest that they were going to shut the plant down for 4 months, lay off hundreds of workers or reduce their pay by 10% that would have been it - a long and bitter strike, picketing, secondary picketing and accusations of "scab" would have abounded.
Today, the workers at the foreign car plants that just happen to be located in Britain (for now) accept the decisions of their Japanese masters meekly and compliantly. They have to. They know only too well what will happen if they don't because they remember what happened in the seventies - and even more recently with MG Rover where a perfectly viable and last British major car manufacturer was brought to its knees once more by union intransigence.
Like most sensible people, I want "British jobs for British workers" - but I also want them working for British companies. I only hope that, should this ever actually happen, the unions will behave in much the same way they do for Toyota, Honda and Nissan and not the way they did for Triumph, Austin and Hillman.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
In denial
"It's not about foreign workers, it's about solving the issues".
This (or something very close to it) is what Derek Simpson of the Unite union said on BBC Breakfast this morning regarding the series of strikes that have plagued Britain over the last few days.
Simpson was keen to blame the BNP for making political capital out of this situation, but given his comments who could blame them or any of the members of his union who turn to the BNP? Being a fully paid up left winger, Simpson is more concerned about being politically correct and supporting the main strategies of global socialism - i.e. mass immigration, internationalism and corporatism - than he is in dealing with the issues of the members of the organisation he is paid to represent.
Let's get one thing straight here. The foreign workers who are at the centre of this row and the company that employs them have done nothing illegal. They have used the laws of our government - the European Union - to their own benefit and to the detriment of British workers and companies. That isn't their fault, but nor is it the fault of the men who are striking.
The fault lies with the EU and the various governments of Britain - Tory and Labour - who have signed away our sovereignty and control over our laws, borders and nation to an unelected body of bureaucrats for whom democracy is just an occasional annoyance (like when a nation's people reject their diktats in refereda).
The EU is the problem, but no major political party and no major union will admit that. They support our membership regardless of what harm it does to the livelihood of British people and British interests.
That's why halfwits like Simpson can't bring himself to articulate what the "issues" are on this matter. It is about foreign workers taking the jobs of British workers in Britain at the expense of British people.
This (or something very close to it) is what Derek Simpson of the Unite union said on BBC Breakfast this morning regarding the series of strikes that have plagued Britain over the last few days.
Simpson was keen to blame the BNP for making political capital out of this situation, but given his comments who could blame them or any of the members of his union who turn to the BNP? Being a fully paid up left winger, Simpson is more concerned about being politically correct and supporting the main strategies of global socialism - i.e. mass immigration, internationalism and corporatism - than he is in dealing with the issues of the members of the organisation he is paid to represent.
Let's get one thing straight here. The foreign workers who are at the centre of this row and the company that employs them have done nothing illegal. They have used the laws of our government - the European Union - to their own benefit and to the detriment of British workers and companies. That isn't their fault, but nor is it the fault of the men who are striking.
The fault lies with the EU and the various governments of Britain - Tory and Labour - who have signed away our sovereignty and control over our laws, borders and nation to an unelected body of bureaucrats for whom democracy is just an occasional annoyance (like when a nation's people reject their diktats in refereda).
The EU is the problem, but no major political party and no major union will admit that. They support our membership regardless of what harm it does to the livelihood of British people and British interests.
That's why halfwits like Simpson can't bring himself to articulate what the "issues" are on this matter. It is about foreign workers taking the jobs of British workers in Britain at the expense of British people.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Return to Life On Mars
In the TV show, Life On Mars, DCI Sam Tyler spends his entire time trying to wake himself from the coma so as to escape from 1973 back to the present. When he eventually succeeds, though, he finds the modern world so superficial and banal he takes his own life in an attempt to return back to 1973 - which he does.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Life on Mars revisited
And so it begins.
Just as predicted, the unions are beginning to flex their muscles.
Trade Unions are to hand Gordon Brown a list of 130 demands as they increase the pressure on the Prime Minister to bow to more left wing policies.
While Labour was riding the economic stability inherited from Thatcher's reforms and a world wide boom (thanks largely to Reagan's reforms in the USA) they've been able to hold off these demands. They also bought off pressure by massively increasing the public sector to the delight of the unions.
Now that their economic mismanagement is being exposed to the cold hard light of recession the unions are set to up the ante.
Stagflation. Union power. Strikes. Oil crisis. Rising unemployment ...... we're heading back to the seventies .
Except the music won't be as good.
Just as predicted, the unions are beginning to flex their muscles.
Trade Unions are to hand Gordon Brown a list of 130 demands as they increase the pressure on the Prime Minister to bow to more left wing policies.
While Labour was riding the economic stability inherited from Thatcher's reforms and a world wide boom (thanks largely to Reagan's reforms in the USA) they've been able to hold off these demands. They also bought off pressure by massively increasing the public sector to the delight of the unions.
Now that their economic mismanagement is being exposed to the cold hard light of recession the unions are set to up the ante.
Stagflation. Union power. Strikes. Oil crisis. Rising unemployment ...... we're heading back to the seventies .
Except the music won't be as good.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The TUC - fighting for the right to shirk
As a survey reveals that taking "sickies" is costing the economy some £1.6 billion a year, the TUC - a once proud organisation that fought for the right to work - now defends the workers right to shirk.
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said that most people who took time off sick were genuinely ill.
Staff often came into work when sick because of the "unsympathetic" attitude of bosses to people phoning in sick, he said.
And yet ....
Last year, the Amicus union was involved in a row with employers after it was accused of advising people how to take sickies to watch the World Cup.
On its website, the union said it was "difficult to prove someone is not really sick" and offered a line of defence to workers who are caught out.
As a "boss" - albeit a rather lowly middle manager - I frequently suspect that some of my staff are not genuinely ill when they call in sick. This morning - as usual after the Easter break - I have staff off "ill". As it was such a pleasant weekend and the good weather seems set to continue, I have rather more off than usual. It's the same people every time who seem more susceptible, while the more resilient - or perhaps that should be diligent - staff are the ones who have to take on the work.
Perhaps the TUC should think about that. When someone throws a "sickie" somebody else has to do their job. Is that fair?
To the surprise of nobody, the problem is worse in the public sector - some 44% worse. As I'm in the private sector, I can redress the balance a little when it comes to pay review time. I know who the workers are and who the shirkers are - and I'll recommend pay rises accordingly. This doesn't tend to happen in the public sector where everyone - particularly in unionised industries - tends to get the same increase.
And it is the slackers in the public sector who get promoted as they can be spared from the department, while the reliable workers - the ones who turn up at Christmas and Easter - become so vital to the organisation that they have to be held back or the department will crumble.
I have every sympathy for a union or the TUC genuinely fighting for workers rights. I despise the way so many companies are off shoring jobs without any consideration for the harm this does to local communities and the economy in general. But when the TUC defends the workers right to shirk it makes it harder to put that case forward. Why shouldn't a company send production to some country where they know staff will turn up, will work hard and will take pride in what they are doing?
The unions and the TUC did a pretty good job of destroying Britain in the seventies and it seems they still haven't learned their lesson. The only way Britain can remain an economic force - and the only way we can win back jobs from overseas - is by demonstrating that we can do things better. Not be demonstrating our right to "throw a sickie" every time the sun shines or England play a World Cup match.
Independence requires the ability to produce and manufacture. Just like the government the TUC are supporting and promoting the dependency culture that is seeping into the people of Britain. A nation that makes nothing is nothing.
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said that most people who took time off sick were genuinely ill.
Staff often came into work when sick because of the "unsympathetic" attitude of bosses to people phoning in sick, he said.
And yet ....
Last year, the Amicus union was involved in a row with employers after it was accused of advising people how to take sickies to watch the World Cup.
On its website, the union said it was "difficult to prove someone is not really sick" and offered a line of defence to workers who are caught out.
As a "boss" - albeit a rather lowly middle manager - I frequently suspect that some of my staff are not genuinely ill when they call in sick. This morning - as usual after the Easter break - I have staff off "ill". As it was such a pleasant weekend and the good weather seems set to continue, I have rather more off than usual. It's the same people every time who seem more susceptible, while the more resilient - or perhaps that should be diligent - staff are the ones who have to take on the work.
Perhaps the TUC should think about that. When someone throws a "sickie" somebody else has to do their job. Is that fair?
To the surprise of nobody, the problem is worse in the public sector - some 44% worse. As I'm in the private sector, I can redress the balance a little when it comes to pay review time. I know who the workers are and who the shirkers are - and I'll recommend pay rises accordingly. This doesn't tend to happen in the public sector where everyone - particularly in unionised industries - tends to get the same increase.
And it is the slackers in the public sector who get promoted as they can be spared from the department, while the reliable workers - the ones who turn up at Christmas and Easter - become so vital to the organisation that they have to be held back or the department will crumble.
I have every sympathy for a union or the TUC genuinely fighting for workers rights. I despise the way so many companies are off shoring jobs without any consideration for the harm this does to local communities and the economy in general. But when the TUC defends the workers right to shirk it makes it harder to put that case forward. Why shouldn't a company send production to some country where they know staff will turn up, will work hard and will take pride in what they are doing?
The unions and the TUC did a pretty good job of destroying Britain in the seventies and it seems they still haven't learned their lesson. The only way Britain can remain an economic force - and the only way we can win back jobs from overseas - is by demonstrating that we can do things better. Not be demonstrating our right to "throw a sickie" every time the sun shines or England play a World Cup match.
Independence requires the ability to produce and manufacture. Just like the government the TUC are supporting and promoting the dependency culture that is seeping into the people of Britain. A nation that makes nothing is nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)