The model of economic activity that has labour, capital, entrepreneurship and infrastructure both general and specific to the enterprise, exchanging in return for the creation of wealth, variously divided between the actors, now yields some very out of date political attitudes and institutions. Labour, particularly, which persistently argues for a greater share of the 'surplus' it creates, is the least willing to dismantle its attitudes and institutional defence systems, or its political structures.
The trade unions derive everything they are from their foundation threat - the organized withdrawal of labour until a satisfactory new contract is established between themselves and their interlocutors. Levels of economic and social interdependence are now so high that it is arguably impossible to separate immediate interlocutors from society at large. If the train drivers strike for higher pay, or better conditions they strike at more than the railway employers, and they create utter misery for unfortunate members of society caught up on the field. (The mention of train drivers particularly is because E-K might have time to say something).
No other European state has a political party that is so dominated by trade unions - indeed is the trade unions - as is the British Labour party, and here they are in government; not the Executive elected to power at the last election (and the UK electoral system is such that we do elect the Executive, not the party) but an executive depending from a wholly different balance of power between social democracy and organised labour.
As stagflation envelops our economy attempts to maintain living standards are certain to include devastating strikes. A new means of resolving social and economic dispute and a new pluralist party of the centre left is needed urgently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
There have been recent ballots for industrial action at my company. I'm an Aslef member and RMT have already decided overwhelmingly to walk out. The result for Aslef is still pending and the problems are not related to pay.
The most important issue is that we are faced with the alleged refusal by managers to attend meetings in order to discuss the future of members who are on suspension for operational mishaps; other issues are the use of managers in order to drive trains routinely and the use of drivers contracted in from freight companies to undertake depot work.
Whilst this action by my company may sound reasonable during times of staff shortages it breaches local agreements with Aslef and the RMT and we cannot let them get away with treating our representatives as though they do not exist.
In fact, on the issue of pay, our members have recently voted down a 30% pay rise (over two years)because they felt it was a Trojan Horse for a lowering of conditions. I didn't agree but have had to go with the democratic consensus, but at least I can honestly say that my colleagues weren't blinded in the face of a large wad of cash, 'money isn't everything' said one - he should be applauded for that sentiment even if he's wrong.
To be fair to management this offer of 30% was in order to harmonise the lower paid drivers with those on higher pay in return for a cross-over of skills (I was up for it). If harmonisation had happened then shortages would have been mitigated and managers wouldn't have any need to breach agreements.
I'm torn on the issue to be honest but voted 'yes' on the disciplinary problems alone.
Further: I opted out of the political fund from the outset.
I also made extensive efforts to get the pay offer accepted having the forsight to see that harsh times lie ahead and that the cash would be really handy - what's the point in keeping a few conditions if you can't pay the rent ?
We haven't had a strike on my region since 1982 btw.
Can anybody name a company that has long term success that allows it relationships with its employees to break down to such an extent that they go out on strike/threaten strikes on a regular basis. The problem of strikes is not about unions - it is nearly always a management failure as well.
It's very kind of you to cite your current experience when I asked, E-K, and of course what I make out of it is not anything to do with what you think.
You have instanced precisely what makes for bad politics, choosing and decision-taking. Management attempting to assert privileged areas of action, with another part of the workforce, organised and defined as not-management, insisting they do have a part in those decisions, yet it's obvious that it's all the same workforce that should be acting cooperatively.
Your managers can drive trains and your train drivers can organise the work load efficiently yet the set up inevitably produces confrontations to be resolved by threats, of various strength levels, that can result in no delivery of a mass transport system.
Then there's the rigidity of it all; conditions of work being set against higher pay rather than them both being part of the same thing - i.e. doing a competent job for a satisfactory return, and contributing to the well being of the enterprise in the general interest.
You also indicate the submerging of individual choice into the acceptance of a set of goals that are defined in opposition to, or at least different from, the enterprise goals as defined by management.
The individual feels constrained to concede, motivated not by seeking personal advantage, or enterprise advantage, but by appeals to a wholly different set of criteria centred on solidarity with those working in similar jobs.
The whole confontational, hierarchised, collectivist framework is inefficient and outdated. And it has been carried over, necessarily into government as a whole because these are the foundation attitudes, rooted in other economic historical circumstances, of the Labour party's base.
I've posted before on my blog about the greed of some of our members - I don't deny that this small minded thinking happens. The odd thing is that - with privatisation - the industry took to recruiting ex soldiers, policemen (me), teachers, chemists ... it's not unusual for a train driver to have a degree - one of our guards used to teach English in a secondary school and another has 4 maths 'A' levels (in the days when they were hard) The poor sod was told to "Shut that window, you grotty little man." by an aged 'lady' the other day. :-))
The funny thing about all of this is that the Conservatives wanted to attack the 'militancy' that they thought existed within the railway staff. Pre privatisation the railways (though far from the best) were by far the most productive in Europe. Not now.
Rather like nurses too posh to empty bed-pans we have similar on the railways and a more entrenched and spoilt workforce than ever. Retired cops and soldiers on pensions with no need to volunteer for overtime and less fear of telling the supervisor to "shove it." Who'd have thunk it from such a conservatively minded workforce ?
However - we do look with trepidation to our poor colleagues manning station barriers all hours of day (facing abuse and violence) all for £12k per year and have a glimpse of how directors would like to treat us if they could get away with it.
We aren't treated with respect out of their largesse, that's quite obvious.
There are few compensations in the world of work. You either get everything or nothing. The high pay of execs used to be partly justified by references to executive stress, until research showed that the lower you are in an organisation, the higher your stress levels.
Post a Comment