On Aug 20, 9:25 am, MIG wrote:
I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.

British union leaders traditionally behaved like Crow. Understandably,
companies sought to replace their workforce with machines, foreigners
employed abroad, and foreigners employed here. As a result of that,
although plenty of British-designed goods are still manufactured, many
by British companies and quite a few in the UK, manufacturing
employment is at its lowest since the Industrial Revolution.

German union leaders traditionally behaved like the guys you accuse of
'chasing a knighthood', working co-operatively with companies to
maximise efficiency and share the benefits. As a result, Germany still
has a great deal of highly skilled domestic manufacturing industry
employing a great many people.

Fast forward to now.

If I were in charge of long-term strategic transport planning in
London, the fact that the unions are entirely uncooperative despite
transport workers' high wages and good job conditions would lead me to
eliminate as many highly-skilled manual jobs as possible from the
network, using as much automation as possible.

It would also encourage me to ensure that any network expansion plans
were handled separately from LU, relying on private-sector employers
who're slightly less under the thumb (both inherently, and because if
each line is run by a separate private sector organisation then only
that company's staff can go on strike over a particular dispute).

While it would take a long time for these changes to work through (the
peak of striking in UK industry was 1973 I think, with the trough in
2005), the end result would be to render Crow's men completely
obsolete, destroying a set of well-paid working class jobs that - if
he weren't such an obstreferous tool - both sides of the dispute would
sooner they continued to exist.

I'm not in charge of long-term strategic transport planning in London.
However, the people who are have decided to eliminate as many highly-
skilled manual jobs as possible from the network, using as much
automation as possible, and have ensured that all network expansion
plans (since 1987, with the exception of JLE and T5) are handled
separately from LU relying on discrete private sector organisations.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Aug 20, 10:57*am, John B wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:25 am, MIG wrote:

I'd be interested to know what the arguments against Bob Crow's
position on supporting his members might be, but no such reasoned
argument seems to be forthcoming.

British union leaders traditionally behaved like Crow. Understandably,
companies sought to replace their workforce with machines, foreigners
employed abroad, and foreigners employed here. As a result of that,
although plenty of British-designed goods are still manufactured, many
by British companies and quite a few in the UK, manufacturing
employment is at its lowest since the Industrial Revolution.

Thanks (for making an argument).

We obviously see it a bit differently. From your point of view, the
decline (or destruction) of British industry is due to outdated and
unreasonable demands of the unions that forced helpless companies to
look elsewhere.

From my point of view, British industry continues to be deliberately
destroyed by governments (from Thatcher onwards most spectacularly) to
remove any bargaining power from those resisting the unbridled greed
of multinational companies.

On the face of it, neither of us can easily prove our case (and there
might be various amounts of truth in both), but the evidence might be
found by looking at where the wealth and power really is.

On 20 Aug, 12:07, MIG wrote:
From my point of view, British industry continues to be deliberately
destroyed by governments (from Thatcher onwards most spectacularly) to
remove any bargaining power from those resisting the unbridled greed
of multinational companies.

Really? I think you'll find governments in the past have bailed out a
lot of british industry including British leyland despite the unions
being bloody minded sods with constant strikes, work to rule and ****
poor quality of product. I'll be generous and assume Red Robbo thought
he was doing his workers a favour. In the end though all he did was
cause our main car manufaturer to have a 30 year slide into oblivion.

Also ask yourself why Thatcher so hated the coal miners. Was it their
holding the country to ransom in the 70s? I remember the power cuts
because of them. The *******s had it coming.

B2003

On Aug 21, 7:52*pm, Boltar wrote:
On 20 Aug, 12:07, MIG wrote:

From my point of view, British industry continues to be deliberately
destroyed by governments (from Thatcher onwards most spectacularly) to
remove any bargaining power from those resisting the unbridled greed
of multinational companies.

Really? I think you'll find governments in the past have bailed out a
lot of british industry including British leyland despite the unions
being bloody minded sods with constant strikes, work to rule and ****
poor quality of product. I'll be generous and assume Red Robbo thought
he was doing his workers a favour. In the end though all he did was
cause our main car manufaturer to have a 30 year slide into oblivion.

Funny that when Ford wanted to cut its workforce in Europe a few years
ago, it sacked the ones in Dagenham rather than the ones in Germany.

This wasn't because of efficiency, because the Dagenham workers were
more efficient.

It was because the unions were weaker in the UK and there was less
legal protection.

When they want to sack workers, they don't care how good they are,
they just care how easy they are to sack, and the weaker the unions
are, the more the multinational companies will wreck communities
wherever they feel like it.

Big business isn't interested in "the country", it has far wider
interests, and governments are only interested in sucking up to big
business (and many ministers see their role as a long job interview).