>>would it be an
>>unwise decision on my part to get a Spitfire, and expect to be a
>decent daily
>>driver with minimal problems given regular maintenace?
>
>Mike Hargreaves Mawson replied:
>SNIP
>These cars are old, and they were
>built by the most disaffected workforce in the world
>SNIP
>
>That's coming on a bit strong. I was part of that workforce at the
>time!
Can you name another workforce anywhere in the world that went on
strike
more often? I was a schoolboy at the time, so my grasp of current
affairs may not have been 100%, but I certainly got the impression
that
British workers were less than happy with their lot. Not just the car
workers, either, but the dockers, the miners, the dustmen, the postal
workers, the power workers, even the bakers and the firemen went on
long
and bitter strikes during my childhood.
I should point out that I do not mean to imply that British workers
were
*wrong* to be disaffected in the 1970s.
ATB
- --
Mike
Mike - I'm very relieved to see that disaffection does not mean
someone was in error or "wrong.". I would be more inclined to
substitute 'disaffected' for 'terror' and at a personal and individual
level. The media did a great deal to persuade the world that all
British workers were less than happy with their lot. In that regard
they largely succeeded. The stark fact is that within a workforce
where trade union membership was mandatory before a person was allowed
to do whatever job had to be done, there were thousands of people who
were not disaffected but experienced considerable intimidation by a
fairly small but extremely powerful minority against a majority that
basically wanted nothing more than to get on with the job.
You may remember the term 'scab'?
I knew many men and women whose jobs forced them to be a union member
and who were also labelled 'scabs' because they didn't want to go on
strike and refused to follow the union line. To not do what the union
proposed was the epitome of folly because they ran the very real risk
of personal harm to themselves, their families and their homes.
Speaking from personal experience as a 'scab' for about 8 months and
with the threat hanging over my head of promised (not threatened)
personal harm, you incline to support the union view because there was
no-one else to turn to. What made things worse was that the legal
system tended to support the unions to the detriment of the individual
and it was the unions (largely populated by ultra left wingers and
rank communists) who ran the companies and the country. Successive
Conservative and Labour administrations pussy-footed around in trying
to patch things up and entirely failed but the person who entirely
changed this and put the unions back where they belonged was Margaret
Thatcher. While I have never been one of her advocates, it cannot be
denied that she was the one who took this country by the scruff of the
neck and kicked it hard in the backside. Legislation introduced during
her premiership did much to greatly diminish union power, ring-fence
it and put it back where it belonged. It's also worth mentioning that
many ordinary working men and women as confirmed socialists who had
always preferred to support the Labour Party, breathed a very profound
sigh of relief when all this came into effect on the Statute Book.
Trade unionism is to be commended to allow any person to withdraw his
or her labour if they have just cause. Many of the people I knew were
unanimous they had no just cause to voluntarily and willingly withdraw
their labour but they were so terrified of what would happen to them
if they didn't, that they could only go with it.
While there were certainly many faults at a managerial level in those
days, my personal view is that the Trade Union movement of the 60's
and 70's was the root cause for the UK's manufacturing industry
collapse.
Jonmac
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
|