3 ms·

The reverse is true. Unionization of the UK car industry in the 1970s, more than played its part in the collapse of the UK car industry, for example: > The co

by DrBazza 4mo ago

The reverse is true. Unionization of the UK car industry in the 1970s, more than played its part in the collapse of the UK car industry, for example: > The company became an infamous example of the industrial turmoil that plagued the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Action by unions frequently crippled BL manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1975%E2%80%931982:_Collapse,_the_Ryder_Report_and_the_Edwardes_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1975%E2%80%931... 'work deserves to be compensated fairly' - are you talking about Marx's 'labour theory of value'? Even though Marx himself criticised it?

Thedarkb 4mo ago
Unionisation didn't bring down British Leyland, the management did. There was no upward mobility from the unionised shop floor up to the management and design departments and it led to designs and management strategies that were completely divorced from both the realities of building cars and what consumers wanted to buy. The unions were a convenient scapegoat for Margaret Thatcher, but the reality is that Ford of Britain, Vauxhall, Nissan UK, Honda of the UK, and Toyota UK workers were all part of the same union but they didn't have relentless industrial disputes because they were managed effectively by people with actual experience in car production. British Leyland were extremely reluctant to produce clean-sheet designs as well to save on R&D, which hampered their production capacity because production techniques were moving on from things that were complicated to assemble and maintain towards simpler assemblies which took fewer manual operations to put together. The Morris Ital and Austin Metro launched in 1980 fitted with an engine designed by Austin Motors in 1951 with the Ital inheriting a crudely widened (with deleterious effects on the handling) and very anachronistic front suspension assembly designed during World War 2 by Alec Issigonis debuting in 1948 on the Morris Minor while Vauxhall and Ford were selling cars with McPherson struts in the front and a twist beam in the back like you'd see in a modern car. The shop floor workers saw the problems, but they had no agency to correct them. The industrial disputes were a symptom of deeper rot.
- DrBazza 4mo ago
  Perhaps. Though if you strike endlessly, you have no product to sell. So people buy elsewhere and you go out of business. If you disagree, perhaps edit this line in wikipedia: > These internal issues, which were never satisfactorily solved, combined with serious industrial relations problems with trade unions, the 1973 oil crisis, the three-day week, high inflation and ineffectual management meant that BL became an unmanageable and financially crippled behemoth (emphasis, mine).
Giefo6ah 4mo ago
The labour theory of value is Adam Smith's, not Marx's.
- DrBazza 4mo ago
  Indeed. I paraphrased this line from wikipedia - "The LTV is usually associated with Marxian economics" perhaps I should have read the next bit ", although it also appears in the theories of earlier classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. "

by DrBazza 4mo ago

Thedarkb 4mo ago

Unionisation didn't bring down British Leyland, the management did. There was no upward mobility from the unionised shop floor up to the management and design departments and it led to designs and management strategies that were completely divorced from both the realities of building cars and what consumers wanted to buy. The unions were a convenient scapegoat for Margaret Thatcher, but the reality is that Ford of Britain, Vauxhall, Nissan UK, Honda of the UK, and Toyota UK workers were all part of the same union but they didn't have relentless industrial disputes because they were managed effectively by people with actual experience in car production. British Leyland were extremely reluctant to produce clean-sheet designs as well to save on R&D, which hampered their production capacity because production techniques were moving on from things that were complicated to assemble and maintain towards simpler assemblies which took fewer manual operations to put together. The Morris Ital and Austin Metro launched in 1980 fitted with an engine designed by Austin Motors in 1951 with the Ital inheriting a crudely widened (with deleterious effects on the handling) and very anachronistic front suspension assembly designed during World War 2 by Alec Issigonis debuting in 1948 on the Morris Minor while Vauxhall and Ford were selling cars with McPherson struts in the front and a twist beam in the back like you'd see in a modern car. The shop floor workers saw the problems, but they had no agency to correct them. The industrial disputes were a symptom of deeper rot.

DrBazza 4mo ago
Perhaps. Though if you strike endlessly, you have no product to sell. So people buy elsewhere and you go out of business. If you disagree, perhaps edit this line in wikipedia: > These internal issues, which were never satisfactorily solved, combined with serious industrial relations problems with trade unions, the 1973 oil crisis, the three-day week, high inflation and ineffectual management meant that BL became an unmanageable and financially crippled behemoth (emphasis, mine).

Giefo6ah 4mo ago

The labour theory of value is Adam Smith's, not Marx's.

DrBazza 4mo ago
Indeed. I paraphrased this line from wikipedia - "The LTV is usually associated with Marxian economics" perhaps I should have read the next bit ", although it also appears in the theories of earlier classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. "