098Joe:
I wonder how many jobs there would be in the UK now if the big unions were still crippling our industries (British Leyland for example). The companies that are investing big money in UK (JLR/BMW/Volkswagen etc etc) do so because we now have a stable workforce that they can rely on to come and work every day
NTSA
I wonder what our economic growth figures,trade balance,incomes relative to prices and ( real ) unemployment rates would be if we’d have carried on as were going in 1972 and assuming that Powell and Shore had been running the show after Heath was kicked out instead of Wilson,Callaghan and Thatcher.
Or what Germany’s competitive edge would have been if it hadn’t have been for the London agreement which wrote off 50 % of Germany’s WW2 debts unlike ours.Suggest you read this.Which shows why our government imported German goods at the expense of British industry and British workers.Which is why Germany is where it is today.
098Joe:
I wonder how many jobs there would be in the UK now if the big unions were still crippling our industries (British Leyland for example). The companies that are investing big money in UK (JLR/BMW/Volkswagen etc etc) do so because we now have a stable workforce that they can rely on to come and work every day
NTSA
I wonder what our economic growth figures,trade balance,incomes relative to prices and ( real ) unemployment rates would be if we’d have carried on as were going in 1972 and assuming that Powell and Shore had been running the show after Heath was kicked out instead of Wilson,Callaghan and Thatcher.
Or what Germany’s competitive edge would have been if it hadn’t have been for the London agreement which wrote off 50 % of Germany’s WW2 debts unlike ours.Suggest you read this.Which shows why our government imported German goods at the expense of British industry and British workers.Which is why Germany is where it is today.
Carryfast:
Or what Germany’s competitive edge would have been if it hadn’t have been for the London agreement which wrote off 50 % of Germany’s WW2 debts unlike ours.Suggest you read this.Which shows why our government imported German goods at the expense of British industry and British workers.Which is why Germany is where it is today.
And what would it of been like if we let russia have the lot, that could of saved a vast amount of money.
It would probably be fair to say that America decided to pay off the Germans,at our expense,on the erroneous premise that if they didn’t West Germany would run off to join the East.Then the British CBI decided to add insult to injury by telling British workers that the resulting trade stitch up was their fault for refusing to work for peanuts.
Carryfast:
Or what Germany’s competitive edge would have been if it hadn’t have been for the London agreement which wrote off 50 % of Germany’s WW2 debts unlike ours.Suggest you read this.Which shows why our government imported German goods at the expense of British industry and British workers.Which is why Germany is where it is today.
And what would it of been like if we let russia have the lot, that could of saved a vast amount of money.
It would probably be fair to say that America decided to pay off the Germans,at our expense,on the erroneous premise that if they didn’t West Germany would run off to join the East.Then the British CBI decided to add insult to injury by telling British workers that the resulting trade stitch up was their fault for refusing to work for peanuts.
Maybe they did write off 50% of germanys war debt, but the uk recieved a large sum off uncle sam, so we didnt lose out to much.
Maybe it was uncle sam who was the biggest loser financialy after ww2.
weeto:
Maybe they did write off 50% of germanys war debt, but the uk recieved a large sum off uncle sam, so we didnt lose out to much.
Maybe it was uncle sam who was the biggest loser financialy after ww2.
Not exactly bearing in mind the small matter that we had to pay our debt.Unlike the Germans.
weeto:
Maybe they did write off 50% of germanys war debt, but the uk recieved a large sum off uncle sam, so we didnt lose out to much.
Maybe it was uncle sam who was the biggest loser financialy after ww2.
Not exactly bearing in mind the small matter that we had to pay our debt.Unlike the Germans.
But there was also 17 billion dollars given in aid to european countries in 1948, of which the uk recieved 26% of.
Ive no idea why you want to drag up what happened in this country quite a few years ago with unions, unions involved in industries where jobs could be exported, which happened, its not like they can export a driving job.
Question, French truck drivers unions, have they wasted thier time getting a good deal for their members over the last 26 years?
weeto:
But there was also 17 billion dollars given in aid to european countries in 1948, of which the uk recieved 26% of. Marshall Plan - Wikipedia
Ive no idea why you want to drag up what happened in this country quite a few years ago with unions, unions involved in industries where jobs could be exported, which happened, its not like they can export a driving job.
Question, French truck drivers unions, have they wasted thier time getting a good deal for their members over the last 26 years?
It was actually 098 Joe who decided to go back to the same old ‘militant’ British unions bs not me.When having been a part of those so called ‘militants’ in the day it was actually a case of British workers being stitched up to pay off their German counterparts.
As I’ve said Germany had a much better economic deal out of the post War budgets/loans than we did.Especially when its written off loan amount and the fact that what it was left with owing,was dependent on the rigged condition of a trade surplus,are taken into account.
As for the French drivers’ unions in the long term it is difficult to see how any advances can be sustained within an EU controlled trading environment,which just like here,is subject to all the pressures of an ongoing anti road pro rail transport policy thereby reducing the demand for labour.While at the same time imposing an environment which is subject to all the implications of the east Euro cheap labour invasion both in the form of immigrant labour and/or the lifting of cabotage regulations.Thereby increasing supply.
yoyo5:
Hi Weeto, I can understand your sentiments, but unfortunately the world does not work along those lines, even more so the Transport Industry.
I have been involved in Transport since 1968, and over all of those years I have seen and heard it all, that does not mean I know it all !far from it, but believe me I have worked through every Government. Times when Unions held sway, and every other conceivable combination that you can think of.
And a real honest answer is in that time the Transport Industry has all ways worked on an individual basis ! with each company offering its best to the customer at the rates that it hoped would get the work and turn a profit.
The proof of the pudding being when company’s amalgamated, you would still get different rates for the same job from both company’s.
So I cannot see things ever changing as company`s chase work offering the lowest rates, The outcome being your wages have to come out of a small profit margin, and so will not increase.
Just to clarify, wages are a cost and form part of the cost base. Costs are many things both fixed and variable and are what will dictate the rate you charge for your service when trying to win customers.
Profits = what is left after all costs and taxes are deducted.
It therefore follows that wages are not dependant on profit but on the rate charged being sufficiently high enough to cover all costs incurred in the running of the business.
Those that undercut to win business usually go to the wall (obviously not the giants within the industry) and the only way they can compete is to cut costs as much as possible and unfortunately that will include wages!
And of course they all operate in a fair way don’t they so everyone is equal when trying to survive in what is a cut throat and generally poorly run industry!
fredthered:
Just to clarify, wages are a cost and form part of the cost base. Costs are many things both fixed and variable and are what will dictate the rate you charge for your service when trying to win customers.
Profits = what is left after all costs and taxes are deducted.
It therefore follows that wages are not dependant on profit but on the rate charged being sufficiently high enough to cover all costs incurred in the running of the business.
Those that undercut to win business usually go to the wall (obviously not the giants within the industry) and the only way they can compete is to cut costs as much as possible and unfortunately that will include wages!
And of course they all operate in a fair way don’t they so everyone is equal when trying to survive in what is a cut throat and generally poorly run industry!
Historically the biggest problem faced by the unions is the employers’ idea that wages can be cut to the point of both undercutting rates/prices ‘and’ adding to the profit margin.Which the CBI calls and views as ‘competitiveness’.But which anyone with any sense knows just wrecks and defeats the object of a developed industrialised economy.Which ( should be ) all about creating a Fordist closed loop economic feed back system in which more wages are a good thing because they translate as more demand for more goods and services which of course includes transport.
Whereas what we’ve got is the perfect storm of the antithesis of the Fordist model,in the form of the global free market ( in this case the labour component of free market economics ).Which in reality is just a market that is rigged in favour of oversupply and a race to exploit the lowest possible denominator in terms of wage levels.Combined in this case with a government transport policy which is hostile to road transport in favour of other modes mostly rail.Thereby reducing demand for labour in the industry while at the same time adding to supply.
Ironically there is nothing in Labour Party policy which recognises or intends to fix any of those issues.While bearing in mind that the TUC is hopelessly tied to that same Party agenda.IE ‘if’ the road transport unions were really doing their job they would be standing on a totally opposite policy of anti EU,anti global free market economics,global warmist sceptic.Which really ain’t Labour in any form whatsoever.
yoyo5:
Hi Weeto, I can understand your sentiments, but unfortunately the world does not work along those lines, even more so the Transport Industry.
I have been involved in Transport since 1968, and over all of those years I have seen and heard it all, that does not mean I know it all !far from it, but believe me I have worked through every Government. Times when Unions held sway, and every other conceivable combination that you can think of.
And a real honest answer is in that time the Transport Industry has all ways worked on an individual basis ! with each company offering its best to the customer at the rates that it hoped would get the work and turn a profit.
The proof of the pudding being when company’s amalgamated, you would still get different rates for the same job from both company’s.
So I cannot see things ever changing as company`s chase work offering the lowest rates, The outcome being your wages have to come out of a small profit margin, and so will not increase.
Just to clarify, wages are a cost and form part of the cost base. Costs are many things both fixed and variable and are what will dictate the rate you charge for your service when trying to win customers.
Profits = what is left after all costs and taxes are deducted.
It therefore follows that wages are not dependant on profit but on the rate charged being sufficiently high enough to cover all costs incurred in the running of the business.
Those that undercut to win business usually go to the wall (obviously not the giants within the industry) and the only way they can compete is to cut costs as much as possible and unfortunately that will include wages!
And of course they all operate in a fair way don’t they so everyone is equal when trying to survive in what is a cut throat and generally poorly run industry!
Yes wages are part of costs, and should be taken into account when applying Rates.
But without profits, you cannot move forward with further investment and that would clearly impact on wages. As to setting rates, you are clearly restricted by market prices, and so you cannot increase wages unless you can increase rates, and there is little chance of that happening, as historically (as I have related before) Transport has always been at the bottom of the ladder.
Why did I go into Transport, the answer is easy really it was the only job that I could do being unqualified and without a trade, I could earn more than most Tradesmen, but only because I could work long hours and accumulate a bigger wage, and I think that is the same today.
As for unions, overall they did more damage than any good, at least that was my experience of all there meddling , and that remains the same today in my opinion.
yoyo5:
Yes wages are part of costs, and should be taken into account when applying Rates.
But without profits, you cannot move forward with further investment and that would clearly impact on wages. As to setting rates, you are clearly restricted by market prices, and so you cannot increase wages unless you can increase rates, and there is little chance of that happening, as historically (as I have related before) Transport has always been at the bottom of the ladder.
Why did I go into Transport, the answer is easy really it was the only job that I could do being unqualified and without a trade, I could earn more than most Tradesmen, but only because I could work long hours and accumulate a bigger wage, and I think that is the same today.
As for unions, overall they did more damage than any good, at least that was my experience of all there meddling , and that remains the same today in my opinion.
The simple answer to that is the difference between the US and UK economies of the 1930’s as opposed to 1960’s and early 1970’s.Are you saying that you’d have preferred to be working in the the type of economy of the 1930’s because that’s the logical conclusion of where your type of view will eventually inevitably lead to.IE grinding ‘austerity’ for the working class to provide massive profits for the very rich few.
yoyo5:
Yes wages are part of costs, and should be taken into account when applying Rates.
But without profits, you cannot move forward with further investment and that would clearly impact on wages. As to setting rates, you are clearly restricted by market prices, and so you cannot increase wages unless you can increase rates, and there is little chance of that happening, as historically (as I have related before) Transport has always been at the bottom of the ladder.
Why did I go into Transport, the answer is easy really it was the only job that I could do being unqualified and without a trade, I could earn more than most Tradesmen, but only because I could work long hours and accumulate a bigger wage, and I think that is the same today.
As for unions, overall they did more damage than any good, at least that was my experience of all there meddling , and that remains the same today in my opinion.
The simple answer to that is the difference between the US and UK economies of the 1930’s as opposed to 1960’s and early 1970’s.Are you saying that you’d have preferred to be working in the the type of economy of the 1930’s because that’s the logical conclusion of where your type of view will eventually inevitably lead to.IE grinding ‘austerity’ for the working class to provide massive profits for the very rich few.
Is all this even relevent to Unites drivers charter? and did you swallow some history books?
weeto:
Is all this even relevent to Unites drivers charter? and did you swallow some history books?
Ironically trying to impose a 48 hour week limit on the industry while supporting Labour Party transport policy and the pro EU agenda would probably fit the definition of doing more damage than any good.
weeto:
Is all this even relevent to Unites drivers charter? and did you swallow some history books?
Ironically trying to impose a 48 hour week limit on the industry while supporting Labour Party transport policy and the pro EU agenda would probably fit the definition of doing more damage than any good.
Why would that be a drivers problem though? and wasnt it the government who wanted to impose a 48 hour week on us in the first place? I think you will find the answer to the second question is yes!
Just going to amend one point, it was actually the european union that wanted to bring in the 48 hour week, my mistake.
which was announced in 1997.
weeto:
Is all this even relevent to Unites drivers charter? and did you swallow some history books?
Ironically trying to impose a 48 hour week limit on the industry while supporting Labour Party transport policy and the pro EU agenda would probably fit the definition of doing more damage than any good.
Why would that be a drivers problem though? and wasnt it the government who wanted to impose a 48 hour week on us in the first place? I think you will find the answer to the second question is yes!
The fact is that ( so far ) the general consensus is ( rightly ) that a 48 hour week limit won’t work.While the fact remains the EU max limit allows for way more than that.In which case assuming the unions succeed in getting a 48 hour week limit that certainly would be ‘problem’ for many of those operations that are subject to such an agreement.Assuming that the EU drivers’ hours regs limit remains the same especially ‘if’/when cabotage restrictions are lifted.
Whereas a union position of EU withdrawal,return to domestic hours regs,with change to a 12 hour max day limit,and allowing trucks to run on red diesel would make ( a lot ) more sense in that regard.Which of course would put the TUC in contradiction with Labour Party policy.
weeto:
Is all this even relevent to Unites drivers charter? and did you swallow some history books?
Ironically trying to impose a 48 hour week limit on the industry while supporting Labour Party transport policy and the pro EU agenda would probably fit the definition of doing more damage than any good.
Why would that be a drivers problem though? and wasnt it the government who wanted to impose a 48 hour week on us in the first place? I think you will find the answer to the second question is yes!
The fact is that ( so far ) the general consensus is ( rightly ) that a 48 hour week limit won’t work.While the fact remains the EU max limit allows for way more than that.In which case assuming the unions succeed in getting a 48 hour week limit that certainly would be ‘problem’ for many of those operations that are subject to such an agreement.Assuming that the EU drivers’ hours regs limit remains the same especially ‘if’/when cabotage restrictions are lifted.
Whereas a union position of EU withdrawal,return to domestic hours regs,with change to a 12 hour max day limit,and allowing trucks to run on red diesel would make ( a lot ) more sense in that regard.Which of course would put the TUC in contradiction with Labour Party policy.
An EC white paper issued in 1997 for the 48 hour week contained a proprosal to modify european driving hours within the limits of a 48 hour week, so the hours problem had already been sorted out.
I would say it would be a change to AETR rules if we ever pulled out of europe.
weeto:
for [zb] sake, you can tell its an election year! your in the wrong job carryfast.
Unfortunately history shows that the fortunes of the working class and especially everyone involved in the road transport industry are just as dependent on government policy as that of union policy.Which is why the unions formed the link with the Labour Party.The problem being that Labour Party policy long ago abandoned the interests of the working class while arguably never being on the side of anyone working in the road transport industry.
