Oh, and on a labor note:
Only 16% of US citizens know which party Tony Blair belongs to
To be fair, I don't know who's in power in Belgium either.
To be fair, Tony is so conservative, most Britons don't know which party he's in either!
Tony Blair is, of course, in the Labour party. They used to be bankrolled by the Trades Union Congress (that's right, screw you, craft unions!) who in 1979 provided 92% of labour's funding, now they provide less than half. Similarly, unions used to be big in the Democratic Party, but now lawyers like Edwards are more important, in funding terms. 59% of British workers were in unions once, but now its only 29%: I think the high-point was 30% in the US, but now its only 19%. France has 29%, but their dues are only 1% so they depend on a little dirigisme from the government to help.
Michael Moore Joke: Tony Blair is americanising the labour party so much that he's making it labor- by taking U out of it!
Originally posted by VILmausoleumSince labor is always right and management is always wrong, unions are absolutely essential. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a management stooge, a contemptible scab, or simply doesn't know what they're talking about.
In honour of a previous post about homosexual union, I would like to discuss employment unions.
Originally posted by VILmausoleumJust for info, the TUC isn't affiliated to the labour party, and doesn't give any monet to the labour party. Never has been. Individual unions are affiliated, though thankfully some are starting to see sense these days and support parties they actually agree with.
Tony Blair is, of course, in the Labour party. They used to be bankrolled by the Trades Union Congress (that's right, screw you, craft unions!) who in 1979 provided 92% of labour's funding, now they provide less than half.
Also, what do you mean about craft unions? They're in the TUC like everyone else.
I'd regard myself as left-wing. In many ways very Old Labour in fact. But I've never really been able to get very excited by unions. They've undoubtedly played a very important role in the history of the UK and many other parts of the world, but I can't romanticise them in the way some people do. I see unions as just pressure groups - and so as inherently selfish in their aims as any other pressure group, whether it be on the behalf of the tobacco indudstry, oil industry etc. Admittedly, they tend to benefit many people to a moderate extent rather than a few people to a large extent, but their purpose remains to benefit their own members, rather than to benefit others.
Sometimes the interests of a union can be in the interest of the country as a whole, but often not. The mining unions were, I believe, resistant to restrictions on the sulphur content of coal because of the effects they knew the regulations would have on miners' jobs - ignoring the benefits of the regulations to the environment.
I would hope the unions will eventually become redundant as we develop increasingly effective employment legislation that provides proper protection for workers' rights. The European Social Chapter was a good step in this regard, as was the introduction of the UK's minimum wage. And neither have done Britain's economy any harm at all.
Rich.
Originally posted by rwingett<grin>
Since labor is always right and management is always wrong, unions are absolutely essential. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a management stooge, a contemptible scab, or simply doesn't know what they're talking about.
How are you Rob?
Your job and "party activities" going ok?
Say hi for me at the next meeting. I just can't quite figure you. You are too young for the SDS. What "secret society" does a gentle crafter of art like yer'sef allow to ruin his reason? Surely not the Mob? errr.... sorry. AFL/CIO?
Originally posted by richhoeyUnder capitalism, unions will always be needed.
I'd regard myself as left-wing. In many ways very Old Labour in fact. But I've never really been able to get very excited by unions. They've undoubtedly played a very important role in the history of the UK and many other parts of the world, but I can't romanticise them in the way some people do. I see unions as just pressure groups - and so as inherent ...[text shortened]... on of the UK's minimum wage. And neither have done Britain's economy any harm at all.
Rich.
Afterwards, who knows - a big theoretical question.
With capitalism, the interests of the employer and the employees are always different. While labour is a cost to the employer, disagreement and confilct are inevitable. They'll seek to reduce costs, we'll resist and seek to improve things.
In fact, some people argue that unions reduce the level of conflict - or at least allow the employer to manage it.
Originally posted by RedmikeSure, I accept all this, but I'm arguing that in a social democratic model of society, Government wouldn't have to take the side of big business or the workers, but could act as an intermediary between the two. It's putting quite a lot of faith in getting the legislation right I admit, but we're getting there.
Under capitalism, unions will always be needed.
Afterwards, who knows - a big theoretical question.
With capitalism, the interests of the employer and the employees are always different. While labour is a cost to the employer, disagreement and confilct are inevitable. They'll seek to reduce costs, we'll resist and seek to improve things.
In fact, some p ...[text shortened]... e argue that unions reduce the level of conflict - or at least allow the employer to manage it.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyI understand exactly where you're coming from - I just don't agree.
Sure, I accept all this, but I'm arguing that in a social democratic model of society, Government wouldn't have to take the side of big business or the workers, but could act as an intermediary between the two. It's putting quite a lot of faith in getting the legislation right I admit, but we're getting there.
Rich.
State-inspired mechanisms to mediate between workers and employers sometimes keep the lid on unrest, depending on the prevelant economic situation, but the conflict is still there. For example, you get a move to natioanl bargaining rather than local bargaining - because national officials are supposed to be more responsible than local stewards.
Everything depends on the relative strength of workers and bosses - when unemployment's low and class-consciousness high, you're going to have conflict no matter what.
Basically, what I'm saying, is that conflict is endemic to the economic system. Sometimes this social democratic model you describe will keep things under control, sometimes not.
Look, for example, at the late Barabara Castle's 'In Place of Strife' reforms in teh 1960's (or was it early 70s?)