A potential Corbyn led government and unions

[northwichcat]

If Labour led by Corbyn get in the government I can see it being a lot more pro-Trade Union than the current Conservative government. However, while I can see a lot of government support for Trade Unions representing private sector employees, what will happen about public sector employees?

The government will be in positions where they will have to spend more tax payer's money if they want to keep the unions happy. With the NHS I can see Labour being happy to spend more (with the quality NHS always being a manifesto claim) but with the railways (which a Corbyn led government would nationalise) Labour will be under pressure to have a more cost effective railway system and if they scrap DCO/DOO plans to keep the unions happy I can't see the national rail company offering pay rises at the same level as the privatised system offers. If they put an independent body in charge of reviewing pay I honestly don't think they'll be recommending pay rises for drivers unless they discover that train drivers are paid less than ones in other EU countries.

In the case of any nationalised sectors whether it be railways or energy I can see the number of high paid manager roles being reduced.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't really understand what you are trying to debate. May i clarify? is it that private v public ownership of the railways may have an impact upon rates of pay? if so i think you may be right. However I don't think Corbyn will win so it will be academic! We will ALL be paid less under the Conservatives

 

[northwichcat]

I don't really understand what you are trying to debate. May i clarify? is it that private v public ownership of the railways may have an impact upon rates of pay?

It's really what will happen if the unions want higher pay for public sector workers but the government will have to fund that additional pay, especially if independent pay bodies don't agree with the unions' demands.

However I don't think Corbyn will win so it will be academic!

I agree and I think even if Corbyn becomes PM it's more likely to be as part of a minority government or Coalition than as part of a normal majority government, which will mean he may have to compromise with another party to get policy through.

 

[DarloRich]

It's really what will happen if the unions want higher pay for public sector workers but the government will have to fund that additional pay, especially if independent pay bodies don't agree with the unions' demands.

Surely any Corbyn government would use the get out of an independent pay commission to deny all ability to influence the process.

 

[Phil.]

If the dreamer Corbyn and his union paymasters get in power God help us all. Some of us can clearly remember the Callaghan government and the union leaders traipsing in and out of Downing Street.
That's what will happen under a Corbyn led government. Not that he'll be in power for very long as the Marxists in the background will stage a coup against him just like Livingstone did against Andrew McKintosh when he was voted in as Labour leader of the now defunct GLC.
The railways - built with private money - have always fared better under a Conservative government. What do you think the railways of 2016 would look like if the cold hand of the treasury was still around it's throat?
History is everything.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If Labour led by Corbyn get in the government I can see it being a lot more pro-Trade Union than the current Conservative government.

Thatcher was more pro-Union than this shower. You have to be properly going some to make doctors so upset that they go out on strike.

I can't see the national rail company offering pay rises at the same level as the privatised system offers

That will be more about market effects than anything else. Most of the pay rises in the current system are because TOCs will pay more to experienced drivers, because giving them a bumper salary is cheaper than training a newbie from scratch. I don't blame either side for this, but having one system will prevent TOCs being played/playing off against each other.

 

[DarloRich]

Thatcher was more pro-Union than this shower. You have to be properly going some to make doctors so upset that they go out on strike.

And those most left wing and militant of individuals: barristers!

 

[northwichcat]

The railways - built with private money - have always fared better under a Conservative government. What do you think the railways of 2016 would look like if the cold hand of the treasury was still around it's throat?

I think there would be little difference whoever is in power. Lord Adonis as Labour Transport Minister gave the go ahead to North West, Thames Valley and Great Western electrification, the Ordsall Chord and Thameslink and those projects are still be undertaken under a Conservative government where Lord Adonis chairs a National Infrastructure Commission. In fact you may recall many rail projects got delayed by a few months due to the Coalition government ordering an immediate halt on all infrastructure projects which Labour had already approved, so that they could evaluate whether they thought the projects were still value for money so if anything I think we are a few months behind where they would have been if Labour hadn't been kicked out of office.

As for this year specifically the "1%" fare rise wouldn't have occurred this year if Labour had been elected as they proposed an actual freeze for 2016 not a relative freeze like the Conservatives. I say "1%" as in the case of Northern Rail it seems they've increased all adult fares by 10p to average 1%, so any fare under £10 has increased by more than 1%. However, as with many of Milliband's promises the detail was missing so while we knew fare rises were going to be reviewed and in 2016 there would be an actual freeze, we have no idea what would have happened in 2017 under Labour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thatcher was more pro-Union than this shower. You have to be properly going some to make doctors so upset that they go out on strike.

I know one junior doctor who on the day of the election result posted on Facebook that she was over the moon to have been offered a job in Canada given Cameron was remaining in Downing Street. I think a lot of other doctors will now be wanting to join her.

That will be more about market effects than anything else. Most of the pay rises in the current system are because TOCs will pay more to experienced drivers, because giving them a bumper salary is cheaper than training a newbie from scratch. I don't blame either side for this, but having one system will prevent TOCs being played/playing off against each other.

It's really a double edged sword. If the drivers paid their own training they would deserve high salaries because of how much of their own time and expense they'd put in to become a driver. However, as the TOC pays they want to make sure their drivers don't go off to other TOCs. The drivers are fortunate it's the latter not the former.

 

[ExRes]

I really think that people need to do some research on the relationship between the Labour Government and the Unions during the 1970s, that relationship was the major reason for the election of Margaret Thatcher, but the Unions wouldn't wish to remember that of course

The Union view was that it was them that told the Government what to do and when to do it and their magnificent success was to destroy the Labour party, what makes people think that the Unions will act any differently now if they were to put Corbyn, or more likely his successor, into Downing Street?

 

[DarloRich]

I really think that people need to do some research on the relationship between the Labour Government and the Unions during the 1970s, that relationship was the major reason for the election of Margaret Thatcher, but the Unions wouldn't wish to remember that of course

The Union view was that it was them that told the Government what to do and when to do it and their magnificent success was to destroy the Labour party, what makes people think that the Unions will act any differently now if they were to put Corbyn, or more likely his successor, into Downing Street?

that seems, with respect, to be very much the Conservative view of the Labour movement. Whilst true in parts it is not entirely true.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I really think that people need to do some research on the relationship between the Labour Government and the Unions

People always highlight this as though it is some absolutely terrible thing. I genuinely don't understand it and, even more to the point, don't understand why the Tories don't get the same criticisms about their backers.

People will financially support parties that sync with their views. Trade union people tend to sync more with Labour, free market Hedge Funders tend to sync more with the Tories.

Why is Unite donating money to Labour any worse than Michael Farmer- now a Tory life peer- donating £7m to the Conservatives?

 

[ExRes]

People always highlight this as though it is some absolutely terrible thing. I genuinely don't understand it and, even more to the point, don't understand why the Tories don't get the same criticisms about their backers.

People will financially support parties that sync with their views. Trade union people tend to sync more with Labour, free market Hedge Funders tend to sync more with the Tories.

Why is Unite donating money to Labour any worse than Michael Farmer- now a Tory life peer- donating £7m to the Conservatives?

I think you misunderstand my point, I don't think for one moment that the Unions back Labour for any other purpose than their own, in the 70s the Unions fought tooth and nail against Labour because, quite simply, they thought that they could have what they wanted because they'd put Labour into power

Your example, Michael Farmer, will support the Tories for what he can get back out at the end of the day, what annoys me is the ridiculous claim by some that Unions don't do the same because of some higher moral calling

I lived and worked through the 70s, as you may have, so my comments are based on fact rather than any ideological belief

 

[yorksrob]

I think you misunderstand my point, I don't think for one moment that the Unions back Labour for any other purpose than their own, in the 70s the Unions fought tooth and nail against Labour because, quite simply, they thought that they could have what they wanted because they'd put Labour into power

Your example, Michael Farmer, will support the Tories for what he can get back out at the end of the day, what annoys me is the ridiculous claim by some that Unions don't do the same because of some higher moral calling

I lived and worked through the 70s, as you may have, so my comments are based on fact rather than any ideological belief

Labour or not I fear that the influence of big business and multi-national corporations is of rather more concern to the majority of people in this day and age, than the unions who already operate under a substantial framework of regulation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I lived and worked through the 70s, as you may have, so my comments are based on fact rather than any ideological belief

Being born in 1945, I am old enough to remember the speech made in 1967 by the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, trying to justify the devaluation of the pound.

That speech is generally referred to as "The pound in your pocket" speech.

 

[Tetchytyke]

what annoys me is the ridiculous claim by some that Unions don't do the same because of some higher moral calling

I think group funding tends to be a little more benevolent than personal funding, at least in its practical implementation. Unions are normally interested in stronger employment rights (for their members) which, whilst it is still about back-scratching, is a little more benevolent than a Hedge Funder giving a donation to get a tax break for hedge funds.

But of course unions will only fund parties that have the interests of their members at heart. That's a big reason why the RMT didn't fund Labour during the Blair and Brown years but has started funding Corbyn.

 

[miami]

I think you misunderstand my point, I don't think for one moment that the Unions back Labour for any other purpose than their own, in the 70s the Unions fought tooth and nail against Labour because, quite simply, they thought that they could have what they wanted because they'd put Labour into power

Your example, Michael Farmer, will support the Tories for what he can get back out at the end of the day, what annoys me is the ridiculous claim by some that Unions don't do the same because of some higher moral calling

I lived and worked through the 70s, as you may have, so my comments are based on fact rather than any ideological belief

Of course Michael Farmer is in it for himself

The union reps at least have to worry about support of their membership.

Capitulating to Farmer, or Osborne's father-in-law, the fracking Lord Howell, benefits one person. Capitulating to a union (at least in theory) benefits the members of that union, and as a society benefiting 100,000 to the tune of £100 each is better than benefiting 1 person to the tune of £10m.

 

[northwichcat]

Capitulating to Farmer, or Osborne's father-in-law, the fracking Lord Howell, benefits one person. Capitulating to a union (at least in theory) benefits the members of that union, and as a society benefiting 100,000 to the tune of £100 each is better than benefiting 1 person to the tune of £10m.

In the case of Simon Wolfson donating to the Conservatives it has allowed Next to abuse the apprenticeship scheme and makes loads of young people worse off than they should have been. (They've effectively finished up as full time employees without the training they should get but still get a reduced apprentice wage.)

 

[ExRes]

Of course Michael Farmer is in it for himself

The union reps at least have to worry about support of their membership.

Capitulating to Farmer, or Osborne's father-in-law, the fracking Lord Howell, benefits one person. Capitulating to a union (at least in theory) benefits the members of that union, and as a society benefiting 100,000 to the tune of £100 each is better than benefiting 1 person to the tune of £10m.

Knowing nothing about you, obviously, I shall have to ask whether you were of an age that the 70s had a direct impact to your life, if the answer is yes then surely you must accept that the behaviour of the Unions benefited nobody whatsoever, not even the membership, as each group of Union members suffered at the hands of other Unions

The miners had two 35% pay increases with the space of a few months thanks to Harold Wilson, how could the government paying increases like that benefit anyone, Union member or not?, it has to be paid for by someone. If NHS staff were given two 35% increases now just where would the money come from?, a great idea on paper for hard working people but nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen for them and everyone else

 

[BlythPower]

Apparently, there's a massive time machine and, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he'll ram the whole country into it and take us straight back to the 70s. It'll be as if four decades had never happened... :roll:

 

[Oswyntail]

Apparently, there's a massive time machine and, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he'll ram the whole country into it and take us straight back to the 70s. It'll be as if four decades had never happened... :roll:

Yes, that's what he's telling us, but you surely don't believe politicians, do you?

 

[miami]

Being born in 1945, I am old enough to remember the speech made in 1967 by the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, trying to justify the devaluation of the pound.

That speech is generally referred to as "The pound in your pocket" speech.

Pensioners typically vote for whoever bribes them with high pensions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...e-9-a-week-better-off-than-those-in-work.html

Pensioners now enjoy larger weekly incomes than people of working age after an "astonishing turnaround" in poverty among the elderly, analysis of average pay shows for the first time.

Very few under pensionable age remembers the three day week. To have voted for Harold Wilson in 1974 you'll be 64 at the next election. 1974 was 7 years after the "pound in your pocket" speech. Nobody in the commons now was in parliament in 1967. Today's electoral landscape is very different to that of 1997, let alone 1967.

Besides wasn't it a Tory government that was in during Black Wednesday?

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently, there's a massive time machine and, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he'll ram the whole country into it and take us straight back to the 70s. It'll be as if four decades had never happened... :roll:

Oh dear that'll mean I can't work in an online role anymore so I'll have to work in the coal mines or in a textile factory instead.

 

[ExRes]

Apparently, there's a massive time machine and, if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, he'll ram the whole country into it and take us straight back to the 70s. It'll be as if four decades had never happened... :roll:

No sorry, I think you've been misinformed by reading too much HG Wells

In the real world though, if Corbyn gives free rein to the Unions then they most certainly will take us back four decades

 

[miami]

No sorry, I think you've been misinformed by reading too much HG Wells

In the real world though, if Corbyn gives free rein to the Unions then they most certainly will take us back four decades

This would be a major discovery in physics, and well worth it. We survived the 70s, we'll survive Corbyn, but a machine that can transport an entire country through time? That would be an amazing discovery that would make gravitational waves look like my 1 year old discovering that if he drops food off his high chair it lands on the floor - EVERY TIME!

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Oh dear that'll mean I can't work in an online role anymore so I'll have to work in the coal mines or in a textile factory instead.

.....or you could join with the thousands who will be making Morris Marinas and Austin Allegros as, apparently, the British car industry is going to be revived again, I think the only 'line' role you can have is a production line.

 

[miami]

.....or you could join with the thousands who will be making Morris Marinas and Austin Allegros as, apparently, the British car industry is going to be revived again, I think the only 'line' role you can have is a production line.

Plenty of lines

The dole line
The railway line
Having a job "on the line"