Marin writes: >>>Relating this to Land Rovers and the car industry, it would
be interesting to hear
> the views on the benefits of unions from some of the UK members of this
list old
> enough to recall the situation in Britain's automotive industry during the
1960s and
> '70s<<<
do I have some views!
To my mind the history of the Unions in the UK motor industry, and other
industries goes something like this:
During the industrial revolution of the 19th Century owners of mills and
pits acted like dictators. When they wanted a few pounds more they dropped
wages. Conditions were atrocious and unions came in to try to get some
justice. Early unionists were attacked by soldiers for (illegally at the
time) trying to go on strike.
Eventually we got unions legally and they did a great deal of good.
Then came the 20th Century and, particularly WW2. The war led to a boom in
industry in the UK during the 50's. Every company was making a lot of money.
Every year the Unions marched in and asked for more money and the owners,
who were all making a fortune, handed it over.
The Unions, therefore, got the feeling that whatever they wanted they could
get - and this was true to a great extent.
By the time the downturn came in the 60's and 70's the Unions were so
big-headed that they were not prepared to bend. They had three ideas in
particular that they simply wouldn't budge over.
1. Differentials. Different jobs had different wage scales but job 1 was
worth (say) half the wage of job 2. If job 1 got a rise, job 2 insisted on
the same rise to 'keep the differential' and the same the other way around.
2. tea breaks/ other perks. We saw strikes that emptied entire factories in
the 60's just 'cos management wanted to alter tea break arrangements. For
instance, in the Austin factory at Cowley I remember, the tea break was 15
minutes and started at 10am. Management told some guys that, if they worked
10-10.15 and had their tea break then, others who had been on break 10-10.15
could start work on items the other lot had worked on... the union called a
strike.
3. Inflexibility over jobs. Worker a did 'this', he did not do 'that' and if
he was told to do it, or workers en masse were asked to do a job that was
not theirs it would cause a strike. You had the fact that (say) a dozen
workers would be sitting around because it was not their job, but another's
to push a button.
So my view is that Unions started off as a 'good thing' but, through
circumstances, became so powerful that they lost sight of land.
Best Cheers
Frank
+--+--+--+
I !__| [_]|_\___
I ____|"_|"__|_ | / B791 PKV
"(o)======(o)" Bronze Green 110 CSW
----- Original Message -----
From: Faure, Marin <Marin.Faure@PSS.Boeing.com>
To: 'Land Rover Mail Group' <LRO@Works.Team.Net>
Cc: <tgross@esri.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 2:11 AM
Subject: LRO: Re: Overworked and underpaid
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:47:18 -0700
> From: Tom Gross <tgross@esri.com>
> Subject: LRO: Overworked and underpaid
>
> >Ok that's it. I've listened to this crap long enough from Olgive and
Faure.
> I worked for the government, United States Forest Service, as a fire
fighter
> until I was 39. I don't recall feeling particularly fat or underworked
> after pulling 24 or 48 hour shifts digging hand line in steep mountain
> terrain, breathing smoke that seared my lungs.
>
> I fought fires, too, for a season in Colorado. Only I did it from the
> driver's seat on a Cat. Seemed to me to be a better deal than slogging
> around on the ground with a shovel. Considering the way things turned
> out in later years, I guess in my case it would be called "survival of the
fattest."
>
> While I have complaints about some of the government's policies, I don't
have
> anything against government employees (outside of the rule-makers at the
FAA).
> Most of the policies I don't like were dreamed up by elected officials,
not by the
> government workers saddled with enforcing them.
>
> As to unions, my biggest objection is that they are geared to supporting
> the lowest common denominator. Union contracts define the minimum
> employees can be paid, not the maximum. But very few companies,
particularly
> those with adversarial relationships with a union, will pay a union member
> MORE than the contract-defined minimum for the grade and seniority of a
> particular job. Unions tend to remove any incentive for a company to
reward
> a worker for doing an exceptional job. The workforce becomes defined by
their
> contract, not by their individual abilities. So an unmotivated, mediocre
union employee
> who barely meets the qualifications to hold onto his or her job will be
paid the same
> as a highly motivated, outstanding union employee who happens to have the
identical job
> description and seniority. It's been my observation from having had a
union job in
> the past that it doesn't take long for this situation to discourage the
motivated
> employee. This is a generality, I admit, and there are certainly
exceptions. But for
> the most part, unions, which do have their benefits, also have by their
very
> nature the downside of stifling individual effort, enthusiasm, and
achievement.
>
> .
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
> (original owner)
> 1973 Land Rover Series III-88
> 1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
> Seattle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 03 2001 - 13:38:12 EDT