I love this, which came to my attention yesterday:
The attitude of the Trades Union Congress to finance and investment policy is primarily derived from a consideration of the effects which such policy may have on the conditions under which workpeople are able to gain their livelihood. We know from past experience that policies pursued by the Treasury, the banks and the City have had considerable influence over the general level of prices and employment and thus, indirectly, over real wages and industrial relations.
I love it because the TUC published that in 1944.
Not much changes.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Trades Union Regress more like.
I wonder if they’ve noticed yet that Tony Blair dissolved their political party.
I also wonder if the silly buggers are still sitting on priceless ‘fine art’ collections.
Your cynicism is unjustified
The world has been made much better by trade unionism
And the advance of unions would be the greatest benefit for most working people
I’m not knocking the principle of Trade Unionism, Richard. Without organised labour the capitalist robber barons have a free hand.
I just think it has too often given up core principles for a comfortable life. and are too ready to accept orthodox wisdom. The early Union movement was deeply committed to education (and I don’t mean political indoctrination, that wasn’t what the like of WEA was about) and that has waned with baleful results I think.
If the members’ cash spent on fancy investment ‘products’ had been invested on workers’ housing union membership wouldn’t be in the sort of doldrums it is now. The few enlightened Victorian capitalists knew how to keep their work forces on board. They built accommodation for them. And sought to improve their quality of life as well as standard of living.
And there’s nothing cynical about seeing the abandoning of clause 4 as the betrayal of the unions by the political party they created. Ed Miliband was craven in his attempts to distance himself from the Unions during his brief period of prominence. I thought his behaviour was despicable.
Trades Unions and their predecessor organisations have been the ‘independent’ financial advisors of working people for generations. And they have achieved … what? Some improvements in measurable items like wages and health and retirement conditions, but after so long are they any nearer to being an integrated part of the economy and the polity which makes decisions about how society operates and who benefits from the national working effort?
Good that trades unions exist. Wish they had a national purpose.
Phil says:
November 17 2017 at 9:53 pm
“Trades Unions and their predecessor organisations have been the ‘independent’ financial advisors of working people for generations. And they have achieved … what? […….] Good that trades unions exist. Wish they had a national purpose.”
and Richard says “And the advance of unions would be the greatest benefit for most working people”
One of Margaret Thatcher’s lies was that she intended to and believed that she had achieved the ‘reform’ of the Trades Unions. What she attempted and nearly achieved was their destruction. Ably assisted by Arthur Scargill in the case of the NUM – Scargill forgot what his objective was: to look after the interests of his membership and chose instead to pursue a political agenda beyond his pay grade or ability, and with no mandate.
Like so many of the things that Thatcher said she would like to see half the job was done and the other half was abandoned or (more likely) never intended to happen. cf the insinuation of private ownership of social housing – breaking up the social ‘ghettos’. A brilliant policy which was totally negated by a) giving away the housing stock on the cheap, for no sound reason and b) preventing the corollary of local authorities buying and renovating private houses and putting them into public sector management. Properly applied and seen through this could have had a major lasting impact on the social mix wellbeing of our towns and cities.
Hello Richard,
I worry that Andy Crow is a bit of a troll as he seems to praise you so he can post then smack you with a disagreement that takes a veiled swipe at you. He changes his opinions very often and often posts long rambling posts that go nowhere. Take care.
But he does have the courage to post under what seems to be his own name
Richard, I worry that ‘Lefty Councillor’ may be harbouring ‘third way’ tendencies. 🙂
S/he pretends I disagree with you to cause dissent amongst the ranks of your apostles.
I can well see why s/he wishes therefore to hide amongst Tory ranks unremarked and unnoticed.
Joy of tax arrived today. Hooray. And it’s a brand new copy. Caught ’em out there. They were pretending they all ready had one; no wonder it took so long to get here.
Enjoy the book
I will decide on the moderation
But I reiterate my request for a little restraint
On balance, these three articles suggest a strong Trade Union movement can have beneficial effects on the general economic situation and performance, quite apart from their direct effects on Trade Union members’ rights and quality of life.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002218568903100304
https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3027.html
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/impact-trade-unions-jobs-and-pay
I agree with them
My view is that trade unionism should be reinvigorated by a progressive government (when we get one) and woven into industrial relations – including the Finance sector whom I understand from insiders routinely sack women for example who are pregnant.
And this should include listening to and building on the words of a very wise woman – Barbara Castle and the In Place of Strife white paper of 1969. Had this been implemented then, maybe Unions might have a better standing in society now. Of course most of the union leaders then were men.
To me unions are about balancing power at work – not dominating it. And of course we also need better protection for companies from rapacious investors seeking more and more rent.
PSR, as I believe you are referred to, I agree that ‘In Place of Strife’ was a missed opportunity, as there have been others.
Scotland is seeing (as far as the media tell us) the unwinding of a fine example of unions not being in the heart of management where 1,400 or so people are directly affected – I mean the BiFab yards at Methil, Arnish and BurntIsland. The situation may be sorted by intervention of the finance people (including the Scot’s Government). The question is why the unions did not know in advance about the contractural pitfalls lying in wait, traps to be sprung, cashflow hurdles (take your pick of description). Each government that comes along seems to prevent union access to valuable information. If I was a shareholder I might know more than a welder working the steel. That’s the problem. It is not my divine right, if a shareholder, to know and the workforce to not know.
Phil says:
November 18 2017 at 11:31 pm
“…… It is not my divine right, if a shareholder, to know and the workforce to not know.”
Ah yes. We believe that, but the laws of business say the Board of a company has a responsibility to look after the interests of capital. (Some recent Health and Safety recommendations make the point that it is not ‘cricket’ to kill the workforce, which is kind of nice)
But Clause 4 doesn’t even exist on paper any longer.
It’s no longer even an aspiration in the political discussion. Not even an Idea in the mind of God.
We’ve moved along way to the right in a very short time.
I guess our present location to be becalmed somewhere just to the north of the Sargasso sea drifting Westwards on a tide of plastic detritus. Brexiteers are looking forward to the trade winds taking them to Eldorado.
It may be worth reading this
It[s the law on what directors gave to do
Nothing about profit maximising, you will note
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172
“But he does have the courage to post under what seems to be his own name”
I’m guessing that’s a dig, but unfortunately as a decent human being being forced to work as a Labour councillor in a Tory run council I have to protect my identity, I’m sure you would agree that whistle blowers need anonymity otherwise things like the Paradise Papers wouldn’t work.
Oh come on, that’s not true of Labour councillors
I’ve heard some crass claims but that takes some beating