The 2017 GE & Politics Thread

[coldel]

To be fair door knockers aren't going to go into depth about macro politics, they should though know your local issues.

[Ekona]

I have no love for the Prime Minister (PM) or her political party, I've seen the devastation that 50 years have brought to my part of the world through Labour (L) domination and, I have no time for them, but in Westminster, you need some form of opposition, on one side, the priveleaged with their billionaire donators, on the other, an organised working class opposition, who can only rely, mostly, on their Union affiliated donations to operate.

 

Hopefully in the next few years, you'll have what you want and, I'll have what I want. I will tolerate opposition, I'm not sure you, or those like you will.

Given that I've stated numerous times that the reason Corbyn needs to go is because the UK desperately needs a strong (and stable) Opposition for the government to function properly, I choose to ignore your not-so-subtle dig sir. We do need an Opposition. We don't need Unions.

 

Unions used to be very important back in t' days of working down t' mill, but these days they're useless, toothless, and perfect examples of champagne socialism. The train driver thing serves as the perfect example of this.

 

 

In more general answers to your questions, if an employer tries to change my contract illegally then I shall take them to court over it for breach of contract, something that has evolved in UK law over hundreds of years. If I don't like more general practices then I'll leave and work elsewhere. Would I work for Sports Direct, given a choice? I've no idea, but in theory I have nothing against them in principle. Do I think they're a stand-up example of an employer? Not at all, but no-one is forced to work there.

 

You're quite wrong when you say that worker's rights are not enshrined in law, and I mean proper statute stuff as well as common law. Employment Right Act 1966, HASAW Act 1974, Working Time Regs 1998: They're the main ones, which are of course backed up by numerous amounts of case law precedents.

[Stutopia]

Unions are important, as anyone who's ever been through any HR steamrollering will know. Without the representation and support of unions an individual worker has no ability to stand up to the weight of any large organisation. As someone who's been through failed stitch ups by management, the ability to rely on experienced people who actually know the law - not the law according to Company's HR department - and can accompany and advise you in meetings, they are invaluable. I've also used them to get huge discounts on expert accounting advice.

 

I probably could have done the research and learned some of the things a union rep told me, but I can't say the same for everyone who I've ever worked with. People are easily intimidated by lectures on "company policy" dressed up as legalese, they should be able to call on expert support when they need it and feel out of their depth.

 

It's not all national strike action, there's thousands of individuals who get support, but it doesn't suit to cover that in the Mail.

[Jay84]

I've been on both sides of the union, both needing them and having them advising a staff member i was disciplining. I found them helpful on both instances. However my wife is a teacher, they have 20 (hyperbole) unions all with different agendas, and it seems not a year goes by where one of them isn't striking.

[Ekona]

I probably could have done the research and learned some of the things a union rep told me, but I can't say the same for everyone who I've ever worked with. People are easily intimidated by lectures on "company policy" dressed up as legalese, they should be able to call on expert support when they need it and feel out of their depth.

See, I'd simply go to a solicitor instead.

 

I guess my issue isn't with the theory of unions, it's how they're run. Like I say, the people I know who are union guys are utterly despised by co-workers and management alike, because their mindset appears to be one of "If it's not written down, then I'm not doing it", which just feels wrong to me. On a case by case level, where one person is under investigation for whatever reason then sure, the union isn't that different from a solicitor, but when you get the group mentality it just destroys things.

 

I've been on both sides of the union, both needing them and having them advising a staff member i was disciplining. I found them helpful on both instances. However my wife is a teacher, they have 20 (hyperbole) unions all with different agendas, and it seems not a year goes by where one of them isn't striking.

Only 20? Seems more like 200! Other half has just left one union for another as she's been made headteacher now officially (she's only 28, I'm so massively proud of her for that achievement) and the first union doesn't cater for HTs, but even though she told them three times in writing why she's leaving she still gets these blackmail letters through saying that they have a 98% retention rate and you'll get run over without us blah blah. It's all nonsense, she's only with a union so that she gets free legal cover if a kiddy accuses her of something innapropriate!

[Stutopia]

Try affording a solicitor when you're on less than a living wage, union subs are affordable to those who are most at risk.

[Jetpilot]

Yes connotations are families in misery, no safety of the line, no help for disabled passengers, no safe person to go to in the metal tube that is the train when you are under threat.

 

And the misery caused to 1000's of commuters reliant on the trains to get their job, or even worse, open the doors (excuse the pun) of their business?

 

If the upper echelon have decided one man can push the button, thats their decision, jobs cant be kept just to keep someone employed (like the mines), if their business suffers because of safety etc again thats their business, thats for bosses to decide not the staff.

 

i often wonder how many of these union employees would react if the shoe was on the other foot, i.e if they were running a business, i cant see for one minute they would keep people employed unnecessarily.

 

i fully appreciate workers rights in the working environment, but no one has the right to a job.

[Jay84]

Congrats to your SO , mine is head of English at GCSE and A level school. When I did my time at Tesco as management a lot of the union reps were failed managers and a lot of the time they were over protective of staff that needed harsh punishment for work practices or sickness. But, if you worked with them you still got the favourable result. I agree with Stu, though I don't know how much solicitors cost but I bet its not cheap.

[Ekona]

I was thinking more the 30mins free, or hell you can pretty much find anything on the internet these days, but point taken.

[BobbyZ]

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't no win no fee solicitors render unions obsolete if their main purpose is employee legal support?

[Jay84]

Not used one myself, but I imagine they'll not take on cases they cant win, and in those instances do 30min free consult and charge thereafter.

[Angrybiker]

Yeah mate you are. Unions aren't just there to protect you from unfair dismissal. They fight for better pay, conditions, keeping decent pension schemes open etc.

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

 

[Ekona]

I wouldn't expect a Union to carry on unwinnable cases either, as that would be a waste of other people's money at that point.

[BobbyZ]

Yeah mate you are. Unions aren't just there to protect you from unfair dismissal. They fight for better pay, conditions, keeping decent pension schemes open etc.

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

Fight for better, or fight for the same pay and conditions as originally available but have subsequently declined? Striking because you decide that you don't like your job (even though it hasn't changed) is ridiculous. It does help unions to justify their existence though

[coldel]

I guess going back to the point at the top, as the money ultimately comes from the same pot (ie taxpayer) it seems absurd that unions have driven such unrealistic salaries for jobs that clearly are not justifiable and obtained through crippling the private sector and the economy. Earning £50k to drive a train is disproportionate to the qualifications, experience, skills and capabilities of that role especially when you put it side by side with something such as health care. Clearly the threats unions carry out around striking to drive unrealistic salaries are more impactful in certain industries (nurses cannot strike to the degree tube drivers do which is around 5-6 days a year minimum as the impact would be people dying) which feels fundamentally wrong to me.

 

With regards to the election, I don't think the unions will play as big a role in the slating that goes on from the Tories - there is enough dirt for both sides to end in a zero sum game - I think the Tories will focus on weak leadership of Corbyn (hence the strong and stable line we are already bored of) and Labour will point at lack of of public servants, economy, austerity etc.

 

Its all a bit of a chicken and egg situation anyway, how far do you go back? Yes Tories have spent loads etc since 2010, but they had to to recover the weak economic state left by Labour previously, who had to do this because previous to that the Tories did not...etc etc!

[Ekona]

Basically the circle continues as ever. Tories make the money, Labour spend it, and so on and so forth.

[Angrybiker]

Yeah mate you are. Unions aren't just there to protect you from unfair dismissal. They fight for better pay, conditions, keeping decent pension schemes open etc.

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

Fight for better, or fight for the same pay and conditions as originally available but have subsequently declined? Striking because you decide that you don't like your job (even though it hasn't changed) is ridiculous. It does help unions to justify their existence though

Well since companies don't give inflation matching pay rises out of the goodness of their heart I'd effectively be getting a real terms pay cut most years were it not for my union fighting for it.

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

 

[Angrybiker]

Basically the circle continues as ever. Tories make the money, Labour spend it, and so on and so forth.

What money have the Torys made us over the last few years? They've doubled UK debt since taking power. I'm not a huge fan of Labour but it can't still all be Labours fault

 

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

 

[Ekona]

I suspect they've done significantly better than if Labour had been in charge, but your point is very much valid. World circumstances dictated that things haven't been great, and in fairness that same issue didn't help Labour during the credit crunch so I don't lay masses amount of blame there either. After all, I did vote that Labour government in so I should take some of the blame!

[coldel]

A nice video to show national debt (although a little out of date now) - also it shows what austerity was all about very simply i.e. emptying the little cup not the big one which is what confuses a lot of people. But its foolish to think the Tories just borrowed lots of money without thought. Like most debts if you don't pay it back, it gets bigger, and we were already well in debt long before the Tories arrived. Additionally if your country is borrowing and cannot pay it back, and a recession hits your biggest industry i.e. services then clearly borrowing is going to increase.

 

[Zeezeebaba]

Basically the circle continues as ever. Tories "take" the money, Labour spend it, and so on and so forth.

 

Corrected that for you

 

[Aashenfox]

Labour now have 4 votes today! Any new signups with a name Diane Abbot or similar?

[AliveBoy]

Hypothetical question for everyone, if the Lib Dems won the majority and came to power, who would be more surprised:

 

1) Every politician who isn't a Lib Dem.

2) The Lib Dem politicians themselves.

3) The general public

[Jay84]

Hypothetical question for everyone, if the Lib Dems won the majority and came to power, who would be more surprised:

 

1) Every politician who isn't a Lib Dem.

2) The Lib Dem politicians themselves.

3) The general public

2, definitely 2

[AliveBoy]

Hypothetical question for everyone, if the Lib Dems won the majority and came to power, who would be more surprised:

 

1) Every politician who isn't a Lib Dem.

2) The Lib Dem politicians themselves.

3) The general public

2, definitely 2

 

Tim Farron nips on to amazon and buys this