In article <000e01c10f11$c0c0b540$38ed07c3@jonmac>, John Macartney
<jonmac@ndirect.co.uk> writes
>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.
Perhaps "dysfunctional" would cover it better. Terrorised by their own
unions; exploited by their managers and by turns ignored and kow-towed
to by their politicians.
> 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'?
Indeed I do. And "blackleg". I have the unfortunate habit of
standing up for my principles, which means that I have both manned
picket lines and crossed them, at various times.
>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.
Been there, done that - although I'm sure that the threats and
intimidation were far less in heavy engineering in the mid-eighties than
in the automotive industry in the mid-seventies. I don't know whether
I would have had the guts to cross a picket line at Cowley or Dagenham.
> 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.
Hmm. The Employment Act of 1985 was one of the most vicious pieces of
legislation ever enacted. For example, I started my first job in 1986,
at the age of 19. Thanks to the previous year's legislation, I did not
gain my first employment "rights" until two years later. My union
would have been powerless to help me, had I needed any such support,
until I was 21.
> 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.
<raises hand> I am a confirmed socialist, and a rational one, I hope.
My own view is that something definitely needed to be done in the
seventies to reduce the power of the unions, but that what actually
happened sent the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
>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.
And that needed addressing, I agree.
>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.
Inasmuch as manufacturing success rests on the three pillars of
effective management, productive labour and supportive legislation, my
own view is that management, labour and government of the time were all
equally to blame for the disaster that hit UK industry during the
subsequent decade. Indeed, each on its own would have been enough to
cripple our industry - all three together ensured that the collapse was
near-total and semi-permanent.
Now, back to the fun of driving the products of those years!
ATB
--
Mike
Michael Hargreave Mawson, author of "Eyewitness in the Crimea"
http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheets/eyewitness_in_the_crimea.html
/// 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
///
|