Maggie dies

[Arriba]

Serious question and not having a dig, have you ever been in a union and at what level?

I used to work in local government and somehow (not sure how) ended up as a Uniosn rep, we had a dispute with employers which affected me and the majority of our branch members where without any consultation they changed our terms and conditions to the tune of about £100/month.

We decided to ballot for action and called a meeting  seeking central Unison help and advice, and Unison never bothered to even send anyone. When asked the regional rep admitted that unless it involved either women workers or minimum wage they didn't want to get involved as it would not get them the support they wanted, I and most of my colleagues rapidly resigned after that.

Not doubting the rank and file but anyone at higher levels in a union is in it for one person only - how many labour politicians have got forward via this route, I suggest if you want a strangely accurate portrayal of union activity watch When the Boat Comes In from the 1970's.

Oh and if any of you can put forward a sustainable solution that would have kept the mines viable and sustaionable into the 1990's I suspect you may have one of the best economic minds of a generation.

Yes and just a normal member.

Regarding your issue above then I assume that although you had valid claims your rep couldn't see it drumming up enough support to do anything?
If so it shows how the weakening of unions has happend, just what Maggie wanted.

[Arriba]

It wasn't exactly a secret though. The plan implemented by Maggie was devised in the 70's and had been leaked to the press and published. So Scargill knew what they had planned and still walked straight in to it, refusing to change stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan

No disputing that but Thatcher got what she wanted and fucked over whole cummunities in the process. Scargill tried and failed but at least he tried.

[Arriba]

To be fair though, the unions were a pain in the arse to anybody who wasn't a member of one and, in the end, cut it's own throat by refusing to concede its stranglehold on government policy making. By believing it would bring the government to it's knees through strike action (because that's how it worked in those days) the Miners Union, and more importantly Scargill, didn't anticipate the stubbornness of Thatcher or change tact when it was faced with ultimate failure.

I policed the miners strike and felt sorry for the families that were torn apart by it. Ultimately the blame for the closure was down to Maggie but it was Scargill's arrogance that cost the miners a lot more.

You are correct in saying that Thatcher would never negotiate with Scargill because she knew there was no negotiating that Scargill - it was make or break and so takes me back to my original question, had Thatcher broke, what would we have become as a country?

Impossible question to answer isn't it?
I would have hoped that we would have been providing transport, fuel, utilities at fair prices and efficiently by now though. All owned by the public

[4D]

I remember the mid seventies, and the continual striking that was going on. Crap times.

[@MacPhlea]

In the perfect world the UK would be a co-operative where you get out what you put in... if you put nothing in you get nothing out.  If you can't find employment then you earn your benefits by doing service in the community. If you work then you receive a share of the profits and if you own a company all your share holders must be employed.

Unfortunately PLC's are the modern day union - a union for it's shareholders.  Every decision made is with them in mind, often with little regard to the people who actually generate the revenue, the employees and customers... now, if only we had a union to stand up for them...

[@MacPhlea]

Impossible question to answer isn't it?
I would have hoped that we would have been providing transport, fuel, utilities at fair prices and efficiently by now though. All owned by the public

Trouble is that when it is owned by the public there is no stability because the 'CEO', board members and policies policies change every 4 years... this is how the unions gained there strength; because they knew if they had enough supporting members they could influence the incoming CEO to meet their terms or face strike action.

[horlock07]

Yes and just a normal member.

Regarding your issue above then I assume that although you had valid claims your rep couldn't see it drumming up enough support to do anything?
If so it shows how the weakening of unions has happend, just what Maggie wanted.

I think its got bugger all to do with Maggie and more to do with modern politics.

Politicians and by extention (as they aspire thus) union leaders are now in it for a career, its got little to do with civic responsibility these days and all to do with having a career like anyone else, therefore they are only interested in what they look like, not what they may achieve for their members.

To emphasise I am in no way a tory. I am all a bit Mewh about Thatcher as she didn't really affect me growing up in the countryside in the 80's as whilst my family had worked inside in Swindon for three generations my dad was out before it closed.

[leefer]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/arthur-scargill-sues-miners-union-129834

I.5 million apartment supplied and paid for...donkeys years he has had it....car and phone paid for....at his Barnsley residence.

All supplied with money that was paid into the unions by......guess what,skint miners along with other trades.

A rich socialist just dosnt seem right to me somehow.

Of course the rules and entitlements he is afforded were probably drawn up while he was  a leading player.

Wonder if he will be charged the bedroom tax on his two properties

[LucienSanchez]

If the mines really were an inefficient waste of money, and the cost of modernising was prohibitive, i don't understand what else could have been done but to close the worst performing ones. It's tragic for the miners affected, but that's life - no one is owed a living. A lot of the rage coming out of those areas seems to be because they lost their jobs in a failing industry that was in terminal decline... not really anyones fault, just one of those things. You can't keep employing people just for the hell of it, especially back in that era - things needed changing.

[Paolo69]

If the mines really were an inefficient waste of money, and the cost of modernising was prohibitive, i don't understand what else could have been done but to close the worst performing ones. It's tragic for the miners affected, but that's life - no one is owed a living. A lot of the rage coming out of those areas seems to be because they lost their jobs in a failing industry that was in terminal decline... not really anyones fault, just one of those things. You can't keep employing people just for the hell of it, especially back in that era - things needed changing.

I'm not an expert on this by any means but is it not better to have them employed (even if the industry isn't as efficient as it once was) than paying them to sit on their arses with no purpose in life?

[sonicyouth]

I'm not an expert on this by any means but is it not better to have them employed (even if the industry isn't as efficient as it once was) than paying them to sit on their arses with no purpose in life?

Increasing unemployment keeps inflation down by means of low wages

[Paolo69]

Increasing unemployment keeps inflation down by means of low wages

True but on the flip side is surely an extra burden on the state in the form of benefits?!

[LucienSanchez]

I'm not an expert on this by any means but is it not better to have them employed (even if the industry isn't as efficient as it once was) than paying them to sit on their arses with no purpose in life?

The idea would have been that they would eventually find work elsewhere, I imagine. I genuinely don't believe any PM really wanted a massive unemployed contingent - it won't have been a decision taken lightly.

[Paolo69]

The idea would have been that they would eventually find work elsewhere, I imagine. I genuinely don't believe any PM really wanted a massive unemployed contingent - it won't have been a decision taken lightly.

Ahhhh that's ok then. Now i can't see what all those people put out of work were complaining about.

[Arriba]

Some excellent points being made in this thread with differing views. Politics does that and there are usually always counter points to be made to any arguement. It's just a case of where you sit individually with each viewpoint I suppose.

I note Dave Whelan is calling for a minutes silence at matches. No chance of that being observed at all. Not happy the woman has died but she doesn't deserve everyones respect in my opinion.