4 ms·

And (in the UK at least) the demise of unions has seen the earnings ratio of company bosses to employees rise to levels not seen since the 19th or early 20th ce

by barking 11y ago

And (in the UK at least) the demise of unions has seen the earnings ratio of company bosses to employees rise to levels not seen since the 19th or early 20th century

mattmanser 11y ago
That's happening across the world at the moment isn't it? Doesn't seem to be linked to the demise of unions. Admittedly, there needs to be a new version of unions, the next evolution. We need the next Marx to bring the pendulum back.
- pjc50 11y ago
  demise of unions The demise of unions is also a general phenomenon across the western world. It's not helped by the migration of lots of factory industries to parts of the world without strong unions and with plenty of hungry workers. Ultimately unions have only one effective negotiating tool: the strike. And if it's easy to replace striking workers, it's not an effective tool. It's also very disruptive (in the bad sense) when it is effective. UK public opinion turned against unions when they rationed electricity to 3 days a week. We need a better check on unlimited greed than the blunt threat of going up against the wall in a Communist revolution. A lot of people have cited Piketty as the next Marx, but there don't seem to be Piketty-ist factions.
  - barking 11y ago
    As I'm sure you know, it wasn't just globalisation, Margaret Thatcher's intention was to spancel the unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conservative_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_U...
    - bechampion 11y ago
      Unions are noisy lately here in London , i'll have 2 hours commute next week thanks to them.
      - barking 11y ago
        The public sector is the only sector that is still strongly unionised while also being the sector with least necessity for it
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Yes - although she wasn't the first or only person to propose that. That Wikipedia page leaves out both "In Place Of Strife" (1969 Labour government), and the three day week itself. The disruption caused by high levels of industrial action greatly reduced the support of the public for it.
  - toyg 11y ago
    > plenty of hungry workers. aka a reserve army of labour, just on a global scale. It's the XI century but Engels still makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it. However you look at it, the game is still fundamentally the same; it's just that one side can play it so much better than the other. It's like that period in the '90s when football clubs using the offside trap and applying pressure up the pitch dominated the European scene. > Ultimately unions have only one effective negotiating tool: the strike. That's not correct. Striking is the only legal negotiating tool; but it's not always been legal, nor the only tool. Striking is a type of industrial sabotage; being the most innocuous one, it's the only one that was made legal (and even there, its legal deployment has been progressively restricted in most countries since the '80s). If shit really hits the fan, a compact unionized workforce can do much more damage than "down tools". We've forgotten a lot about industrial relations, sooner or later we'll have to relearn old lessons. > UK public opinion turned against unions when they rationed electricity to 3 days a week. That's a problem for public services only (most recently, with the London tube). Unions in public sector and public services refuse to understand that their exposure damages the whole movement. It's a historical issue in most countries, a huge strategic problem for any progressive movement. Most private companies likely wouldn't get public support in a fight with unions, but because public-service ones can (and will) abuse their role, the whole movement gets a bad rep. > A lot of people have cited Piketty as the next Marx Unfortunately, with all due respect, Piketty's contribution is nowhere as significant as Marx. Piketty tried to prove what a lot of people suspected, but I don't think he managed to reveal so many new elements about the structure of the game in the same way as Marx did, nor did he articulate solutions as powerfully as Marx did. Besides, there is little point in waiting for a messiah; what is required is a combination of analysis and prognosis that can resonate with an atomized and oevereducated white-collar workforce.
  - vfclists 11y ago
    Strking is no different from a seller refusing to sell if the buyer can't meet their price. The difference is that corporations are able to get the press on their side because the press depend on them for the advertisement income. In respect of London's striking transport workers. The reason is simple, both London Transport and the rail networks are monopolies, so customers have no option. Imagine if Tesco workers went on strike. Shoppers would go to Sainsbury's, Asda (Walmart), Morrison etc. Both managers and workers both lose if they strike. In the case of London Transport and the Rail Networks, commuters have no where to go and both strikers and management know that. In a case where the service was not a monopoly the management would try to come to an agreement because of the competitors waiting in the wings. LT and the unions can both play hardball because the commuters are captive. You can't always blame striking unions for LT's issues.
- wowoc 11y ago
  Speaking of which: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pi...

by barking 11y ago

And (in the UK at least) the demise of unions has seen the earnings ratio of company bosses to employees rise to levels not seen since the 19th or early 20th century

mattmanser 11y ago

That's happening across the world at the moment isn't it? Doesn't seem to be linked to the demise of unions. Admittedly, there needs to be a new version of unions, the next evolution. We need the next Marx to bring the pendulum back.

pjc50 11y ago
demise of unions The demise of unions is also a general phenomenon across the western world. It's not helped by the migration of lots of factory industries to parts of the world without strong unions and with plenty of hungry workers. Ultimately unions have only one effective negotiating tool: the strike. And if it's easy to replace striking workers, it's not an effective tool. It's also very disruptive (in the bad sense) when it is effective. UK public opinion turned against unions when they rationed electricity to 3 days a week. We need a better check on unlimited greed than the blunt threat of going up against the wall in a Communist revolution. A lot of people have cited Piketty as the next Marx, but there don't seem to be Piketty-ist factions.
- barking 11y ago
  As I'm sure you know, it wasn't just globalisation, Margaret Thatcher's intention was to spancel the unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conservative_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_U...
  - bechampion 11y ago
    Unions are noisy lately here in London , i'll have 2 hours commute next week thanks to them.
    - barking 11y ago
      The public sector is the only sector that is still strongly unionised while also being the sector with least necessity for it
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Yes - although she wasn't the first or only person to propose that. That Wikipedia page leaves out both "In Place Of Strife" (1969 Labour government), and the three day week itself. The disruption caused by high levels of industrial action greatly reduced the support of the public for it.
- toyg 11y ago
  > plenty of hungry workers. aka a reserve army of labour, just on a global scale. It's the XI century but Engels still makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it. However you look at it, the game is still fundamentally the same; it's just that one side can play it so much better than the other. It's like that period in the '90s when football clubs using the offside trap and applying pressure up the pitch dominated the European scene. > Ultimately unions have only one effective negotiating tool: the strike. That's not correct. Striking is the only legal negotiating tool; but it's not always been legal, nor the only tool. Striking is a type of industrial sabotage; being the most innocuous one, it's the only one that was made legal (and even there, its legal deployment has been progressively restricted in most countries since the '80s). If shit really hits the fan, a compact unionized workforce can do much more damage than "down tools". We've forgotten a lot about industrial relations, sooner or later we'll have to relearn old lessons. > UK public opinion turned against unions when they rationed electricity to 3 days a week. That's a problem for public services only (most recently, with the London tube). Unions in public sector and public services refuse to understand that their exposure damages the whole movement. It's a historical issue in most countries, a huge strategic problem for any progressive movement. Most private companies likely wouldn't get public support in a fight with unions, but because public-service ones can (and will) abuse their role, the whole movement gets a bad rep. > A lot of people have cited Piketty as the next Marx Unfortunately, with all due respect, Piketty's contribution is nowhere as significant as Marx. Piketty tried to prove what a lot of people suspected, but I don't think he managed to reveal so many new elements about the structure of the game in the same way as Marx did, nor did he articulate solutions as powerfully as Marx did. Besides, there is little point in waiting for a messiah; what is required is a combination of analysis and prognosis that can resonate with an atomized and oevereducated white-collar workforce.
- vfclists 11y ago
  Strking is no different from a seller refusing to sell if the buyer can't meet their price. The difference is that corporations are able to get the press on their side because the press depend on them for the advertisement income. In respect of London's striking transport workers. The reason is simple, both London Transport and the rail networks are monopolies, so customers have no option. Imagine if Tesco workers went on strike. Shoppers would go to Sainsbury's, Asda (Walmart), Morrison etc. Both managers and workers both lose if they strike. In the case of London Transport and the Rail Networks, commuters have no where to go and both strikers and management know that. In a case where the service was not a monopoly the management would try to come to an agreement because of the competitors waiting in the wings. LT and the unions can both play hardball because the commuters are captive. You can't always blame striking unions for LT's issues.
wowoc 11y ago
Speaking of which: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Pi...