Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
OnlyMe

Tuc - A Type Of Cheesy Biscuit

Recommended Posts

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birmin...-name_page.html

TUC: Pay off workers whose jobs go abroad

Aug 25 2006

The TUC wants the Government to set up a fund that would pay workers up to 70 per cent of their lost income if their jobs are moved overseas.

Expect more of this insanity as the TUC Conference approaches in early September. Usually it could be ignored, but the unions are now the ones pulling Tony & Gordons purse strings.

Private donations to NuLabour have all but dried up in wake of Blair/Levy cash-for-peerages affair, leaving only the CoOp/Unity Trust Banks to bail them out.

Unity Trust is Now inder FSA investigation for loaning a near bankrupt Labour party with no visible assets, or income stream over a quarter of it's capital base

Labour is in dire financial trouble, if it were a business the lawyers would be warning the directors that they were in danger of trading whilst insolvent. In that situation directors become personally liable for a company’s debts, risking the confiscation of director’s assets and criminal prosecution for failing to observe a director’s fiduciary duty. In this time of desperate need they have sought bank financing, primarily from the Cooperative Bank and Unity Trust Bank. The financially strong Co-Op has of course a long history of supporting the Labour party and also owns 26.66% of the small Unity Trust Bank. The remaining 73.23% of the total equity capital of Unity Trust Bank plc is owned by the trade unions and they control the bank's board*. Total equity capital at 31 December 2005 was £16,429,301.

A £4 million pound loan is therefore quite a large risk for a small operation like Unity to make to a near insolvent organisation like Labour. It represents nearly a quarter of shareholders funds in the event of a default. That is not sound business practise. Guido has a few questions for Ian Morrison, Director of Credit Risk & Compliance at Unity:

What security has he obtained for the trade union members and charities who have their funds at risk?

Has a third-party guaranteed the loan? If so, who?

Are they comfortably within the guidelines for capital adequacy? If so, by what margin?

How does he evaluate the enterprise risk of such a relatively large** and risky loan?

Beer and sandwiches at No11 anyone?

Im having a 70's flashback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect more of this insanity as the TUC Conference approaches in early September. Usually it could be ignored, but the unions are now the ones pulling Tony & Gordons purse strings.

Private donations to NuLabour have all but dried up in wake of Blair/Levy cash-for-peerages affair, leaving only the CoOp/Unity Trust Banks to bail them out.

Unity Trust is Now inder FSA investigation for loaning a near bankrupt Labour party with no visible assets, or income stream over a quarter of it's capital base

Beer and sandwiches at No11 anyone?

Im having a 70's flashback!

I am flashing back to the Winter of Discontent. Nu Labour will have to return to that which they came from. No wonder TB can't fire Two Jags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do not exist to benefit the general public, the country, the nation, whatever. They exist to benefit their members exclusively.

They are as partisan as big business in asking for favours: however their demands and requests are wrapped up in the talk of the common good but their aim is for their members to profit at the expense of everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with 'planned economies' (which is now what the Uk has become, to all intents and purposes) is that the people doing the planning are unlikely to be as 'smart' or as 'good' as the people they are competing against in the global economy.

To elucidate - the people in charge of planned economies tend to get to that position because they are good at 'politicking'. The people who make money tend to be good at ... making money.

Rare indeed is the commissar who can also make money...

Put 2 jags in a business environment and he'd probably be out manouevered by 22 year old business grads. Or the office cat.

Nothing rude intended by this - its just a facet of the human phsyche - people who acheive eminence in public life almost by definition tend to have a poor understanding of their own limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do not exist to benefit the general public, the country, the nation, whatever. They exist to benefit their members exclusively.

They are as partisan as big business in asking for favours: however their demands and requests are wrapped up in the talk of the common good but their aim is for their members to profit at the expense of everybody else.

They have rather a lot of member though - isn't it something like half the working population or more? They represent our interests a great deal more than big business ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have rather a lot of member though - isn't it something like half the working population or more?

If so, that's primarily because of the government employee unions. But the figures I've read for union membership in the UK are far lower than that.

They represent our interests a great deal more than big business ever will.

The last thing I need is a union demanding that I get paid the same amount as everyone else in my business. Unions make sense for unskilled labour which can be easily replaced, but even then they're often taken over by political ideologues more concerned about their own politics than their members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do not exist to benefit the general public, the country, the nation, whatever. They exist to benefit their members exclusively.

They are as partisan as big business in asking for favours: however their demands and requests are wrapped up in the talk of the common good but their aim is for their members to profit at the expense of everybody else.

The unions are working people who have organised to improve pay and conditions against big business continual efforts to attack them.

Am I exaggerating? look for your self, wages driven down, job security weakened, pensions cut, welfare being cut, public services being cut, people having to get into debt just to make ends meet, have to mortgage their lives for shelter.

Whatever concessions unions manage to negotiate, non members benefit along side with members and working people in general.

In a neo liberal world there is no room for collective, organisation for working people, it is

a dog eat dog marketplace. But it is OK to have organisations such as the CBI, OECD, IMF

and multinationals to look after capitals interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The unions are working people who have organised to improve pay and conditions against big business continual efforts to attack them.

'Improved pay and conditions' which will be paid for by their neighbours when they buy the company's products.

Personally I'm pretty ambivalent about unions, but claiming that they benefit the majority is silly: they exist to benefit their members, no matter the cost to the rest of the country (and they demonstrated how high that cost could be when they pretty much destroyed British manufacturing in the 70s).

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they demanding compensation of 70% of what the employees would have earnt between now and their retirement age? Or 70% of a year's salary?

I think any worker laid off by heartless, scum, outsourcing, capitalist b@stard employers should have a statue (of them) in Parliament Square and a government pension for life (like a Prime Minister gets for just a few years 'service').

Any company that oursources operations to a foreign country (including, particularly, EU members) should have its directors put up against a wall and shot as traitors.

I hate British Telecom.

'Improved pay and conditions' which will be paid for by their neighbours when they buy the company's products.

Personally I'm pretty ambivalent about unions, but claiming that they benefit the majority is silly: they exist to benefit their members, no matter the cost to the rest of the country (and they demonstrated how high that cost could be when they pretty much destroyed British manufacturing in the 70s).

Having lived through the power cuts of the 60s and the 3 day week of the 70s and the Winter of Discontent in 1979 - I too am ambivalent about unions.

Apart from the fact that I observe that since the power of the unions was broken by Madgaret Thatcher, the lot of the 'average working man' has got worse. The wage deals and working conditions the unions negotiated used to spill over into the wider economy - so other people did benefit.

Now the unions have no power - we are all exposed to the ruthlessness of capitalism with no checks in place. Once the unions would have stood up and stopped outsourcing overseas. Which, on the whole, I think would be good for the country. Now anything goes and lots of standards are slipping.

I hate British Telecom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they demanding compensation of 70% of what the employees would have earnt between now and their retirement age? Or 70% of a year's salary?

It looks like two years, a bit like th Rover payoff, short term income gap filling, does nothing to resolve the real issue. Suppose it gives time for people to start up centres of excellence, poodle parlours, learn how to say "would you like fries with that?" or retrain as metabolic balance coaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were correct Mark - In 2003, union membership in Britain, estimated from the Labour Force Survey, was 7.42 million. The proportion of all employees who were union members was 29.1%. These are the overall figures but union membership varies enormously by industry and by the types of jobs that people do. So they're in decline along with the manufacturing sector I suppose.

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Improved pay and conditions' which will be paid for by their neighbours when they buy the company's products.

Personally I'm pretty ambivalent about unions, but claiming that they benefit the majority is silly: they exist to benefit their members, no matter the cost to the rest of the country (and they demonstrated how high that cost could be when they pretty much destroyed British manufacturing in the 70s).

The vast majority of people in this country are working class, yes yes I know they told you

that you was middle class now, but they was just pulling your pisser.

The pay and conditions you have today are a result of labour struggle, the bosses never gave anything away they didnt have to, it is like getting blood from a stone, and as soon as you

ease up they try and take the hard won concessions back.

I dont know what sort of job you have, you are no doubt on the right side of the fence at present. But once they have driven down pay and conditions for the unskilled, they will turn their attentions to the semi skilled, then the skilled, knowledge workers etc.

If big business carry on as they are, the only people earning a decent wage will be those

core workers essential in keeping the deformed capitalist system going. The rest will be treated like the people in third world countries, left to die out.

But maybe thats a good thing, survival of the fittest and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The vast majority of people in this country are working class

There's a huge difference between 'working class' and unskilled: unskilled workers benefit from unions, skilled workers see no benefit from tying themselves to the less productive members of their profession.

And, as I've said before, we really no longer have a working class. We have a welfare class, a rich class, and, by definition, a middle class in the middle, who are often poorer than either of the others.

The pay and conditions you have today are a result of labour struggle

No, they're down to having skills that companies need, rather than the ability to turn up on time and press a button or pull a lever in a factory when a light flashes. The latter job can be done by billions of people, the former is far more difficult to fill unless you're willing to pay a decent amount and provide decent working conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between 'working class' and unskilled: unskilled workers benefit from unions, skilled workers see no benefit from tying themselves to the less productive members of their profession.

And, as I've said before, we really no longer have a working class. We have a welfare class, a rich class, and, by definition, a middle class in the middle, who are often poorer than either of the others.

No, they're down to having skills that companies need, rather than the ability to turn up on time and press a button or pull a lever in a factory when a light flashes. The latter job can be done by billions of people, the former is far more difficult to fill unless you're willing to pay a decent amount and provide decent working conditions.

There are many white collar unions now, probably the majority and in all areas.

I think some airline pilots are threatening strike action at moment.

Although union membership is in the minority as most people just want to keep their heads down due to fear of losing their jobs.

A poor middle class, sounds like pretentious working class to me.

Marx considered a skilled worker to be someone, that due to training could be as productive as say 12 unskilled workers. In the past and something that is returning called Mcdonaldisation or deskilling, is just the division of labour broken down into simple tasks that anyone can do.

So it depends which is cheaper for business to do - break a task down into 12 simple steps and pay 12 unskilled workers minimum wage or hire one skilled person who can perform all 12 tasks and pay him more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions do not exist to benefit the general public, the country, the nation, whatever. They exist to benefit their members exclusively.

They are as partisan as big business in asking for favours: however their demands and requests are wrapped up in the talk of the common good but their aim is for their members to profit at the expense of everybody else.

They are worse than that. Historically they have tended to benefit only their leaderships. Because unionised industries and companies decline, they have actually disbenefited their memberships in the long run. Hence declining union memberships around the world. Now that gov'ts are much better at regulating things like workplace safety it is difficult to see any benign role for unions at all and as other posters say frightening that they will once again be in control of the Labour party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of people in this country are working class, yes yes I know they told you

that you was middle class now, but they was just pulling your pisser.

The pay and conditions you have today are a result of labour struggle, the bosses never gave anything away they didnt have to, it is like getting blood from a stone, and as soon as you

ease up they try and take the hard won concessions back.

I dont know what sort of job you have, you are no doubt on the right side of the fence at present. But once they have driven down pay and conditions for the unskilled, they will turn their attentions to the semi skilled, then the skilled, knowledge workers etc.

If big business carry on as they are, the only people earning a decent wage will be those

core workers essential in keeping the deformed capitalist system going. The rest will be treated like the people in third world countries, left to die out.

But maybe thats a good thing, survival of the fittest and all that.

good to see communisms still alive

"what about the workers! "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good to see communisms still alive

"what about the workers! "

workers of the world unite

you have nothing to lose, but your house!

What you can't afford a house, 100 years on, all this wealth created and you still can't afford a house. Never mind ae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any worker laid off by heartless, scum, outsourcing, capitalist b@stard employers should have a statue (of them) in Parliament Square and a government pension for life (like a Prime Minister gets for just a few years 'service').

Any company that oursources operations to a foreign country (including, particularly, EU members) should have its directors put up against a wall and shot as traitors.

I hate British Telecom.

How does broadband at £100 a month sound, 35 p a minute phone calls to local numbers, £300 for a pair of trainers and £10,000 for a new computer, £2.50 for a loaf of bread anyone?

Thought so. Ideals are all well and good until it hits you in the pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.

Wrote Adam Smith. Nothing changes, and hence unionisation.

Having those who lose their jobs to offshoring recieve some amount to keep them whilst they retrain seems reasonable to me. Better than that than leave them unemployed and resentful.

Edited by Ted D. Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.