John Cuthber

Covid deaths re oscillating between about 30 and about 300 There may have only been 30 today, But there were 90 on the day that article was published. Since he said "it was behind us" the number has risen as far as 300. Nobody said that anyone was calling road deaths a pandemic. So your point there is a straw man. There is no mechanism for this pandemic to "end", any more than we can eliminate the common cold. So, his claim that it's over is clearly wrong. The question of whether he's a liar or an idiot remains unresolved. Since his claim that it's behind us is factually wrong, he should not be using it as the basis for policy, should he? Because we have a stupid electoral system. At least the Americans have the sense to have just two significant parties. Our "First past the post" system almost ensures a dictatorship by a minority. More people voted against Johnson than for him, but his party won a huge majority.

Glad you are making progress. Do you now understand that the union doesn't negotiate with the government? (The government refuses to negotiate because they have a mandate from a minority of the voters.) Lucky them. (I doubt it's true, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-fired-misconduct-incompetence-1.4746602 but that's another matter). Meanwhile, here with the topic in the UK. https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2022/05/13/slashing-91000-civil-service-jobs-perfectly-reasonable-says-rees-mogg/ His "justification" is that "With the pandemic now behind us..." He's lying; it's not behind us, it is killing about 100 people a day. For comparison, only about half that many get killed in road accidents and nobody is saying that "road accidents are behind us".

I didn't see the post that said "Tell us you don't know what performance related pay means" without saying "I don't know what performance related pay means". Not understanding the difference between different jobs and different levels of performance within a job is fairly dumb. But your chosen comparison is even dumber. It's hypothetically possible to have a really great brain surgeon who is a wheelchair user and would struggle as a binman.

Maybe... Good question. Most people are probably thinking in terms of politician's competence. I gather a recent poll showed that more people in the UK believe that the earth is flat than believe that Truss will be a good PM. But the real problem that employers- including politicians- have with competence based pay is that it takes control of the playbill out of their hands. If there's a clear set of goals to meet, people will meet them. To take a stupid example, if one of the competencies you get paid for is knowing how to format a business letter with the address and date etc in the right places and yours sincerely or yours faithfully at the bottom as appropriate then after a very short while, everyone makes sure they know how to do it- even if they have to make themselves an "aide memoire" of some sort. So, after a short while, all the letters sent out are in the right format and this should make the employer happy. And, of course, the same goes for all the other "tests". It's important to distinguish between "competency" and "performance". There is a difference between "I know how to send a reply letter and I know the target is to do so within 3 days of receipt" which is competence and "I send out replies within 3 days" which is performance. I'm responsible for the first; it's my job to learn. But I may not be responsible for the second. If the guy who should buy stamps fails, then my performance suffer, through no fault of mine. (please don't waste time saying it should be my job to buy stamps; these are "mickey mouse" examples.) That's why the Unions like competence based pay. It puts the responsibility for what I get paid into my hands- not my boss' or colleagues'. And, of course, it's why bad mangers hate competence based pay. After a short while, everyone is doing a great job. And they expect to get paid full rates for doing it. So the managers can no longer exploit them.

OK, as you say the buyer has more power. The seller has less power. And, in the employment market- where Unions get involved- and thus the only market which is relevant to the thread- the seller is the employee. I sell my time + skills to an employer. But they set the price. If they don't like the price I charge, they won't buy. So, as I said, the situation is one of unequal power. The employer is "in charge" in every sense. And sometimes, the only way to stop them abusing that power is concerted action like a strike..

In the real world, I'm over 50 but that's slightly beside the point. You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy. Put up with what the job currently pays or find another job. Is there some reason why you exclude the idea of negotiating with the boss for more pay? Don't you understand that bargaining between two parties is as old as trade. You seem to focus on the fact that it's a trade without understanding how prices are set. It's decided by negotiation, just like all other prices. And that's why it makes sense for me (and my colleagues) to get together negotiate a better deal. You seem to not understand that it's pretty rare for a business to depend critically one one worker. So sacking one guy because you don't like his taste in music will probably not close the company down. But that decision is pretty devastating for the one guy. And that's the reason why the management are the ones with power. Their livelihood does not depend on your whim, but yours does depend on theirs. On the other hand, any credible manager will understand that, if all of his workforce leave, then he is in trouble. And that's the reason why collective bargaining restores the balance of power. There's another aspect to it.You say " well the worker can always try his luck elsewhere". Don't you see that is equally true of the factory owner? If he cuts wagers to a point where all his employees walk away, he still has a factory and stock and he's free to employ new staff. As you say: but it's not something they do every day, is it? One company did recently do it. Even though it's illegal, and they are now being widely boycotted as a consequence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%26O_sacking_controversy P&O is still going. The sacked men and women are probably mainly still on the dole. Do you still think that's "equal"?

And the union which I'm in has spent the last 10 years or so trying to get the employer to introduce competence based pay. But they don't like it. It depends on your definition of "employed by". Does it mean the one who sets my pay rise or the one who tells me what work to do. In the case of most public sector employees, those are not the same. I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you.

Imagine not realising that most of those benefits were bargained for- typically as an alternative to a pay rise. Imagine not understanding that maternity pay is government mandated. Imagine not realising that, when the company loses money, they can lay off staff. Imagine thinking that you get paid for doing nothing while on strike. Oh; I see you don't need to.

It's more complex than you seem to think I work for the government, but the government is not my employer. My employer is part of a government department but they are "middle men". The actual budget is set by the treasury. So the negotiations are about how to share about the money that the government has already capped and announced the cap. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-pay-remit-guidance-202122 The pay remit is set (pretty much "in stone" before formal pay talks begin. Most of the people involved in those pay talks are not employees of the union, but of the department. There's some flexibility in trying to get the department to go to treasury to plead for more money. So like I said Did it not occur to you to find out how public sector pay works before trying to tell us what's wrong with it? Well, they usually work for these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_services_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_fire_and_rescue_services And I suspect the negotiation arrangements are similar to those where I work with something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire_Fire_and_Rescue acting as the employer and one or more of the local authorities setting pay.

OK. I'm a TU member and a representative. And I work for the government. And the Union of which I'm a member, and for which I'm a rep does not negotiate with government even though most of the members work for the government. I'm fairly sure that's true of the other unions that represent staff in the public sector. You may remember recent criticism of Grant Shapps for his refusal to get involved in negotiations. Why are you trying to argue about something of which you are clearly ignorant? A while ago, there fire service went on strike for more pay. The government (not their employer, btw), rather stupidly, pointed out that for every job in the fire service they typically have 10 applicants or some such, so the people looking for that work clearly think it's well enough paid already. Anyone with a brain pointed out that, if that's the criterion, then the MPS should get a pay cut. But the point remains; the jobs are seriously oversubscribed. If there are a lot more applicants than jobs then you will certainly need "something extra" to get you in. But that's nothing to do with Union membership, is it? So your observation is irrelevant. It's also true that the fire service has very high levels of union membership. But you seem to miss something. That's because they choose to join a union. They aren't forced to, it's just sensible for them to do so. If you believe that illegal activity is taking place you should report it to the relevant enforcing authority.

What?

OK. One guy says "Unions do [some action]." I point out unions don't do [some of the actions they are widely said to do]. You say that means I don't think that unions do [ some third thing], even though I pretty much said that they do. Fundamentally, Unions choose member, they don't choose employers. So, no, they don't target the government as a "cash cow" because- guess what- the government doesn't pay unions. Unions will target angry workers. If governments want to make life difficult for unions, all they have to do is treat their staff well.

Would you take on a job based on that contract? In particular, would you do it given that the employer is known to want to cut your wages and remove employment rights?

Yes and no. You can't sack them for striking. But, if that strike leads to customers taking their business elsewhere then you can lay off staff because you no longer have work for them. That also applies if you want to shed staff for other reasons. If, for example, the postal workers are on strike, that doesn't mean that other courier companies like TNT or FedEx are unable to do the work. In what way do you think that unions are "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"? Re.

And once again... All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. In most countries, the government is the biggest single employer. Of course it has an advantage in the labour market. Even more so in some situations, for example the NHS is by far the biggest employer of doctors and nursing staff. Did I? Where?

In Germany the business owners listen to the unions before there's a strike . In the UK they wait until afterwards. The difference isn't the Unions.

That's not the truth is it? It wasn't the miners who picked the fight; it was the government. And they did it because they wanted to deprive workers of any means to resist their dictatorship. "You can't fight city hall". The miners were doomed when Maggie decided she didn't want them. As Bob Crow pointed out, "If you fight you won't always win. But if you don't fight you will always lose".

The other, much more common, form of self harm is the one where management give too much money to themselves and the shareholders. This obviously undermines the company. For the good of the companies, the workers have to prevent this. They do so via unions and, if needs be, strikes. It is sometimes necessary to remind managers that, without the workforce, nothing happens. That's a fine argument, right up until you realise that the people profiteering from work are generally wealthy enough to avoid paying taxes. Do you understand that the majority of the public actually support better pay for public sector workers? https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-public-support-for-nursing-staff-going-on-strike-builds-210722 You say that as if it's somehow a problem. Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. Do you see this; Many people are not good negotiators doctors and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. in the same light? A union will do well if the people they represent do well. Bankrupting an employer will not meet that goal. The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

You do realise, don't you that: A Union doesn't go on strike A Union does not call for a strike A Union doesn't get a pay rise? The Union is the means by which the workers may organise do those things.

They can. Businesses make people redundant every day. They also sack them for other reason. Go and ask your boss for a 10% pay rise. Then you will find out who is in a position of power. I presume you can't answer my previous question. The train operating companies wish to get their staff to work essentially longer hours at a worse rate of pay. The government is spinning this as "they want more money". The actual issue is that the travelling public will be less safe because those running the system will be more tired (and, in the slightly longer run, the job will be done by people who weren't able to get a better job; pay peanuts; get monkeys...). So the strikers are defending themselves against savage wage cuts and preserving safety of the travelling public so... are they using strikes against the public? But , because of inflation, they no longer have the same real-terms income. Why do you think they should accept a reduction in their standard of living? In particular, why should they accept it when the people "running" the businesses are typically getting paid huge bonuses? Do you not realise that's the asymmetry of power I mentioned earlier? How many of those are still going? here's a hint "All forms of closed shops in the UK are illegal following the introduction of the Employment Act 1990. They were further curtailed under section 137(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52)[5] passed by the Conservative government at the time. " From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop#United_Kingdom

A bit of careful googling will let you know quite a lot about the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT#Preparation

Why do you want to increase the extent to which essential workers are exploited? To address the fundamental inequality of the "employer/ employee" relationship. If you think there are no consequences then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it. No; it's common sense. In what ways?

Not nearly as concerned as we should be about a government that's seeking to provoke it.

Wiki disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral#/media/File:Six_Quadrilaterals.svg.

OK, show us how.