What a load of complete cobblers.

Of course it's part of the cost of living. Frankly, only an idiot would claim otherwise.

And if the cost of keeping a roof over your head (a pretty basic cost of living, for goodness sake) has gone up so much (which I have provided evidence for) and the cost of wages has not risen that much (which I provided evidence for), then of course the percentage of income being spent on accommodation has risen, and this is clear evidence of my initial assertion.

Do you have a Phd in swerving? Or are you simply a financier who is quite happy to screw others as long as he is comfortable? You seem entirely happy with the status quo. Thatcher's children syndrome really is vile.

Minty you know i love you

Yes. Damn those lazy, work-shy, inefficient Germans and Eastern Europeans.

I haven't the time to wade through a dozen pages of posts so if it has already been mentioned my apologies, but on the subject of house prices professor Robert Shiller of Yale University pretty much busted the myth of houses being a cast iron certainty in terms of long-term investment in the US (and - he claims - most of Europe).

Using a colossal data set covering all US mortgages since 1890 he concluded that barring a couple of (very) short term bubbles (amounting to around 4% of the 110+ year period) there was little evidence to suggest that house prices had risen in real terms. You can find a summary of his evidence [url=http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/Fig2-1.xlshere (excel spreadsheet)[/url or check out his site at [url=http://www.irrationalexuberance.com/www.irrationalexuberance.com[/url (or buy the book - which comprehensively analyses the relationship between debt, credit bubbles and economic depression).

Out of interest, when was the last time [uanyone[/u saw a serious show on prime-time television or a piece on national radio which portrayed trade unions as a force for positive social reform (as they have unquestionably demonstrated at various points in British history) whilst refraining from painting individual members as stereotypical shifty, self-interested Trotskyite rabble-rousers hell bent on squeezing every last drop of lolly out of fair-minded, well-meaning trans-national corporations (where - presumably - "self interest" is a dirty word)?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that corporations are uniformly beatified by all sections of the media - but the "successful businessman" has never been short of copious admiration, praise - even worship within the industry. And the trend is most certainly upward. I mean, prior to the eighties corporate CEOs were just about unknown to the public (with the exception of yer Victor Kiams and Jack Welsh's). Now they are treated like celebrities, sex symbols - deified (look at shows like Dragon's Den). The media hangs upon their every word at product launches where they swagger onto the stage amid deafening applause like rock stars (with accompanying rock music) to hawk some piece of fetishised S.E. Asian sweatshop circuitry for a hundred times production cost.

Meanwhile the head of your average trade union and individual members still cannot escape a media stereotype which was never the truth thirty years ago and is so hopelessly out of date now anyone who repeats it in debate (the usual suspects in this thread) only demonstrate how stupendously ignorant they are.

Given the overwhelmingly disproportionate level of positive media coverage (and endless legislative bashings by successive governments since Thatcher) current Union membership levels really must speak for themselves or else be explained away as a miracle.

Interesting but completely flawed analysis - without the CEO's/wealth generators you dont need parasitic union bosses. If the union bosses are so good and they are so much more valuable than the CEO let them demonstrate it by starting their own businesses and showing us all how to do it?

It is easy to sit on the sideline and critisise - especially when it is not your livelehood or money you are risking, much harder to stick your head above the parapet!!. The reason union bosses get little credit is because they don't add enough value to earn it. Brendon Barber is a prime example - he has never had a job outside of the closeted union environment yet he lecture businesses on how to best manage their labour. If he had actually demonstrated his abilities in a risk situation then maybe you could take him more seriously.

Union membership is in the minority - which demonstrates that the vast majority of workers are more than capable of happily agreeing their T&C's with their employer. There is legislation in place and sanctions to ensure H&S standards etc. The idea that unions provide collective bargaining is a myth, employers decide a cost of living increase that is applied to 99% of their workforce.

Very well said.


We generally only get to see or hear Union leaders on the news when there is an unresolved dispute, hence the negative image.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times that I've seen business(wo)men who have made their money from buying and selling in the domestic market (who only see employees as a cost to be reduced and have little knowledge outside of the confines of their business), being worshipped as the oracle whilst telling us about how Europe is the devil strangling his/her business with red tape.
That'll be why Germany is so poor, I guess.

Where did the legislation come from ... did the business leaders demand it?
No, it came from governments who were slightly to the left.


What is this "cost of living increase" you mention?
Most companies these days look at the market rate and take that into account with whatever attrition rate they feel is appropriate.

Not so - political change is almost always a result of grass roots activism applying pressure like a tourniquet. Politicians are usually protectors of the business class (and the status quo) before the people and switch sides when the straw breaks the camel's back. Unfortunately, history rarely recognises the role of grass roots activism and mostly attributes change to the "heroic" actions of noble politicians.

You have still yet to explain why German manufacturing companies can succeed in a highly unionised environment. Do you think it's because German union organisers are different, or could there possibly be a difference in the mindset of British company CEOs and owners?

Look at the German [url=http://www.economist.com/node/21535175Mittelstand[/url companies. Organisations that prefer to retain family control, as opposed to selling out to the first vulture capitalist that comes along. Where the CEO is quite at ease rubbing shoulders with the workforce. These are companies that appreciate the assets of the workforce and work with them to ensure a sustainable future for all, not just a quick return for institutional investors.

But don't you realise you poor bitter twisted parasitic trades unionist apologist. Sal is talking about the real world. You know, where minimum-wage carers have expense accounts.

If this is so how do you explain the fact that many businesses and unions share mutually beneficial relationships? If business is ALWAYS better placed to make decisions then surely there is no point in engaging. Better to bust the unions and run the show from the boardroom. Clearly THEY seem to think unions serve a valuable purpose. Which leaves your argument on rocky ground.



I agree. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the (often bloody and sometimes deadly) battles unions have fought to secure many of the benefits workers today take for granted. Yes, it's tough to run a successful business and sticking your head above the parapet can be risky. But throughout history there are innumerable examples of workers sticking their heads above the parapet to fight for their rights and having them beaten to a bloody mess.



I'm willing to bet that what you know about Brendon Barber (I'm talking facts - not speculation, accusations etc.) wouldn't fill a sheet of A4.



Evidence please.



Evidence please.

Is this the same world where I advised against buying bananas?

Well indeed. He wouldn't know that, for instance, between school and university, Barber spent a year with VSO teaching in the Volta Region of Ghana – but, as anyone will tell you, that's not "the real world" (© Sal). He also apparently time as a researcher for the Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products Industry Training Board, based in Harrow. The last time I checked, that wasn't a "closeted union environment" either.

But then again, Sal isn't interested in "evidence" – in fact, when anyone provides him with some, he runs away, fingers in his ears, shouting about it not being "the real world" so that he won't have to acknowledge that he repeatedly does what he accuses others of.

And of course, his argument is utterly stupid anyone – unless he opens it up to say the same about the bankers and financiers and corporate bosses who have no clue what it is like to live in "the real world" and simply make decisions, as Coddy said, for short-term gain, regardless of the human costs. But then, as we have seen, Sal lives in a world where human beings don't really matter – well at least not unless they're corporate bigwigs. The rest are simply fodder for their profits.

It would seem that Sal is one of those who are not capable of thinking past the most basic anti-union propaganda, which makes his little knee jerk almost orgasmically. He constantly refuses to acknowledge the examples that Cod'ead provides of Germany, just as he constantly refuses to acknowledge that there are sh*tty bosses out there.

A piece of rocket-science 'research', released yesterday, showed that losing one's job is a rising fear. Oh what a joy this neo-liberal little world is, eh? With unions that have been put in their place by that magnificent Thatcher woman, the working majority now so scared for their livelihoods that they won't object when they're told to bend over for a kicking, working longer than in the days before the unions were handbagged – albeit while producing lower GDP. Take that you damnable Froggies! And that's without looking at all the unpaid, undocumented overtime that people do because, if they don't, they're afraid they'll lose their jobs (but all bosses are utterly fair and utterly nice and utterly considerate of each individual worker, remember).

And getting a job is easy if you so wish?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16143326Well indeed. And anyone who cannot simply walk into a job is a feckless, workshy scrounger[/url.

I take your point about grass roots but don't quite agree about politicians.
History is littered with politicians who had the cojones to do what they felt was right, from Thomas Fowell Buxton through Ramsay Macdonald to Dennis Skinner.

I don't dispute that a minority of politicians had the stones to take a stand on some issue or another and they should be applauded. But the impetus to take such action didn't appear to them as an apparition like Saul on the road to Damascus. It was grass roots activism - letters, petitions, demonstrations etc. - by regular people which made the difference. Take Wilberforce for instance. Today he is widely acclaimed and honoured for the stand he took on the issue of slavery - but he and others only did so because they were being put under ENORMOUS pressure by church activists, dissidents etc. Yet THESE people are rarely mentioned in the great book of history.

Small to mid-sized businesses - where upper management and those clinging on to the bottom rung share the same building - generally aren't in the habit of encouraging fear as a motivating force. Yes, there are plenty of bad managers, "old school" autocratic bosses etc., but when the day-to-day business is conducted between employees on a face-to-face basis it takes an extraordinary degree of cynicism to completely shield yourself from collegiality, empathy and ultimately - conscience. Sure, some people can do this. But - consistently - not many.

In large and/or deeply stratified businesses where management and employees rarely - if ever - come into direct contact this kind of thing is far more common. I'm not saying a CEO's conscience is never troubled by tough decisions - but it's troubled A LOT less if a name doesn't equate to a face, a personality or the possibility of an angry reaction.

Of course, big business has been in the business of cultivating feelings of insecurity among workers for decades. Let's not forget that no lesser mortal than Alan Greenspan at least in part attributed economic success in the 90s to companies putting the frighteners on workers in order to get just that bit more out of them. What's more - he approved of their actions.

and I will have my son-in-law as editor, even if I have to oust the real editor by false means.' That was fun and, as a result of Buggin's Turn, it was me as MoC who led the subsequent dispute and strike, and saved his job. Please can I not have to go through anything like that again!

** You do not set up a company in a semi-rural environment in the north west and then use London-style, aggressive sales techniques to sell your product. It just puts people's backs up and makes them decide against buying, even when they know it's a good product and will benefit them. I found this out after I'd been made redundant, because I was subsequently employed by one potential customer that I had done the original work on.

*** I had a variety of bullying bosses over the years – mostly women. And much of the bullying was centred on my apparent inability to dress how they thought I should. I'm not talking about wearing inappropriate wear for the office, but it was just a convenient target. In the earlier case, it didn't matter if I followed the usual prescription for office wear of straight skirt, blouse and a small heel, somehow I could never pull it off to her satisfaction. In a later situation, I was almost barred from attending the TV BAFTA award ceremony (I'd been working on it) because the boss claimed that she was worried I'd dress in such a way as to bring the company into disrepute. Fortunately – because it turned out to be a memorable night – colleagues stuck up for me.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/17/general-motors-ellesmere-port-vauxhall?newsfeed=trueYet more evidence of those intransigent, militant unionistas[/url

Good to see Cable is taking all the plaudits and hardly a mention on any news reports of the efforts of "Red" Len McCluskey and Tony Woodley, despite them flying to the US to meet GM before Cable even booked a flight there.

I think the interesting thing is this deal was done without the need to introduce legislation to make the workforce "more flexible" i.e. peoples jobs less secure.

In fact one of the main reasons there was a fear the factory would be closed in the first place was because it is [ialready[/i easier and cheaper to fire people in the UK than it is on mainland Europe.

Absolutely spot on.

I find it quite ironic that this austerity-led government is taking the plaudits for a result of the fiscal stimulus by the US government. What's more, the fooking press are swallowing it too

An excellent article by Owen Jones on [url=http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/the-foundations-of-a-new-trade-unionism-have-been-laid#.T9cYSiUYbsw.twitterThe foundations of a new trades unionism[/url

The poor, whether working or not and especially the youth of today NEED a voice.