On May 29, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:
Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Agreed, and there are some people on this group who do believe that,
and they're wrong.

However, there is surely a reasonable case to be made that LU, which
is a public sector operation not an evil den of fatcattery, is closer
to Extreme 1 than Extreme 2. If that's true, then legislation that
shifted the balance slightly closer towards Extreme 2 wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing.

My wider perspective is that unions are overly powerful in the public
sector and insufficiently powerful in the private sector, presumably
reflecting the fact that in the public sector the chances of everyone
being thrown out of a job due to bankruptcy if you impose unrealistic
demands are somewhere between low and zero. Not *completely* zero
though: the UK would still have a coal mining industry today had
Scargill taken the 'nuclear' scenario seriously...

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