Union power

P.s. One can believe in and fight for workers rights without being a socialist.
Having actually visited socialist countries, socialism is NOT something I think we should embrace. Workers are not IMO better off under socialist regimes.

When labourites accept that they are not the only ones who "care", they might then begin to see that unions and workers rights can be better achieved without party ties

M0nica Quote [Er, I thought you just said those (Labour) politics do not normally come to the fore until any member gets elected to district or Reginal Committee level, or as a delicate to the union's annual conference.] End Quote.

Yes M0nica, if a member does not agree with any union policy, they can put themselves forward to become a delicate at the Unions annual conference which is the highest policy making body in a union. The alternative to that is to stand for election to a trade sector committee, district or Reginal committee where the polices of the union are implemented at those levels.

With the Unite Union, a member can put forward a new policy at branch level. If accepted by the Branch members that policy idea will be forwarded to one of the above committees for discussion and possibly support at that level.

In the above, it would then be put forward for discussion and possible adoption at the union annual delicate conference and possibly become policy for the whole Union.

So M0nica with the Unite union policy changes can be brought forward from even branch level. However, it is obviously far better if the member who brought forward any new policy idea is then present on the other bodies that will discuss the fledgeling policy to support the policy idea.

In short, the more they engage, the higher a member will in all probability to be elected in the structure, and the more influence they will gain to fight for the changes they wish to see.

The 1970s annie

Most of the unions’ industrial actions of the period were reactive, either seeking to resist wage or job cuts, or political attacks such as the 1972 Industrial Relations Act. In industry (private and nationalised) most British companies, instead of prioritising research, reinvestment and restructuring, preferred to simply lay off workers, prompting industrial militancy in response.

After Labour was elected in 1974 the unions showed great patience in abiding by the ‘social contract’ with Labour, reining in pay demands in return for an increase in the ‘social wage’ (rent freezes, pension increases etc). As a result inflation began to come down.

But although the unions had contributed to containing inflation, the banks continued to send money abroad, causing a balance of payments crisis and threatening a further rise in inflation. While Phases 1 and 2 of wage restraint were broadly accepted by the trade unions, Phases 3 and 4 were not.

Phase 3 allowed a maximum wage increase of 10 per cent, although inflation was higher. By 1978 inflation had fallen to 10 per cent but the government unwisely chose to go to Phase 4, which limited pay increases to 5 per cent.

This set off the strikes of the ‘winter of discontent’, which were in response to pay increases lower than the rise in the cost of living and large cuts in public services demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for its loan in 1976.

Myth becomes fact

The media greatly exaggerated the size and impact of the strikes to discredit Labour and assist Thatcher. In reality the strikes inconvenienced relatively few and, compared to genuine catastrophes like the collapse of UK manufacturing in the 1980s or the banking crisis of 2008, had no permanent economic impact.

Despite this, the legend of the winter of discontent is now set in stone, impervious even to the admission of Derek Jameson, editor of the Daily Express in 1979, that: " We pulled every dirty trick in the book. We made it look like it was general, universal and eternal, whereas it was in reality scattered, here and there, and no great problem .”

dscross.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/debunking-the-myth-of-the-winter-of-discontent-what-was-1970s-britain-really-like/

I was working in a northern city that winter. There were no piles of rubbish and no unburied bodies.

Maizie I was a married woman with children during the three day week, strikes and general union mayhem in the 70s. I can assure you that they were not a myth.

Days with power cuts, only working so many days a week, rubbish piling up, you name it, I can remember it. It was union power that got Mrs Thatcher into Downing Street.

I'm not really saying they were a myth. Just that it wasn't as bad as is made out.

No rubbish piling up where I was. Or unburied bodies. The media just made the most of what they could find. As they admitted.

I was a young married woman with a mortgage and a husband on a student grant. Extending the 'social contract' into a 3rd/4th year was just a step too far. As the article says.

The strikes were by the public sector unions, Power cuts were earlier, during the miners' strike.

Many of us were probably young women with babies in the 70s.. we might not percieve things similarly though.
Why do those who fear / dislike/ disapprove socialism always lob in that fallacy that " socialists think they are the only ones who care"?
There are conservatives that care of course.
Just that too often the manifesto of a Conservative Gov appears less care focussed.

Maybe "..no rubbish ... or unburied bodies.." where you were MaizieD - but I remember clearly that my great uncle's funeral could not go ahead - was delayed and delayed - unpleasant times indeed.
And as for Grandad's idea of standing for election within the union's hierarchy - sorry Grandad but it was all stitched up before meetings even took place - the "caucus" meetings beforehand that decided how delegates voted - democracy NOT! I was a shop steward for a number of years but I did not belong to the correct left-wing group (yes there were more than one) so I had no chance of rising higher in the union structure - being a woman in a virtually all-male environment didn't help either.

Maizie. The power cuts were in the seventies, you say they were earlier? The miners strikes, power cuts, all in the seventies , first you dismiss them as a myth, then you say not really a myth but didn’t take place where you lived .

I was never affected by strikes which hit car workers, there was no car manufacturing where I lived , do I say these were a myth .

PECS I was a young mother with babies in the 70’s, perceived things differently? How can power cuts be perceived differently , no power = no light, no cooking, no tv, no street lights ,

I now understand the defence by some of Corbyn’s dream of giving back more power to unions, they don’t remember the seventies.

PECS I always thought it was the socialists who very vocally condemned anyone who didn't agree with them as not caring, especially if they were to the right of them, difficult to be otherwise

I am not sure I have ever heard or read anyone accusing socialists of not caring. The problem with socialists is that they only care, most Labour governments have proved to be economically disorganised and left us worse off than when we started. Even Gordon Brown, who I so thought was going to buck the trend, in the end, took too many risks.

By the way Grandad I did not say anything about disagreeing with union policy, your words, that I re-quoted referred to being a member of the Labour Party.

Maizie, all I can say over your 1970s up north, is 'lucky you'. No we didn't have dead bodies in the streets but there were long delays in burials. It was just a decade of endless inconveniences caused by strikes and the feeling that it was the unions running the country not the government.

Gosh the North ? So they didn’t have strikes , so the cries of
The poverty in the North now can be dismissed as a myth .

I'd rather be associated with a political group that focussed more on caring for all citizens than one that focused heavily on economics that preferenrially benefit a particular group of citizens. The global financial crisis, that hit everywhere, was not caused by socialism!

This is why I don't do leftwing bashing debates. You all get hysterical and trot out the cliches.
No wonder we're still in thrall to the likes of Rees Mogg. Workers must know their place and not get uppity...

Try looking up Stockholm Syndrome.

Hysterical? Rees Mogg ?

It has been said on this thread Gordon Brown caused the banking crisis .

Not forgetting the strikes in the seventies were a myth

Faux naivety going on here! Of course I saw the power cuts & refuse collection delays! However uncomfortable for me I perceived them to be reasonable as a way to demonstrate the value of the jobs that were not being paid well enough. The employers / gov were intransigent so the decision to invoke the right to withdraw labour was taken.

So the strikes did happen , then you didn’t live in the North
PECS ?

The country didn’t think the mythical strikes reasonable , the 1983 election ?

Yes of course they happened but No.. I was in London

annie I don't change my principles just because I am in a minority.

Neither do I PECS

I'm behind you PECS and admire your patience.

You were in London? Where rubbish did indeed pile up in the streets. We all saw the press photos. But it didn't happen everywhere. The effects were exaggerated in the press. The gravediggers were on strike in Liverpool, not all over the UK.

Annie did you think the workers were wrong to strike?

Maisie but how did you see photographs of what you have declared was a myth fed to us by the press

In my view, it's a union's job to get better conditions for its members and when unions are dealing with unreasonable and intransigent employers it will be inevitable that a degree of conflict will arise.

To imagine that such issues will not have a political dimension is, in my opinion, rather naive. The fact that the Conservative party receives the largest proportion of its funds from wealthy individuals, hedge funds and multinational businesses means that these are the organisations and people whose interests are more likely to be represented by that party.

Unions do hold a certain amount of sway with the Labour party but individual membership fees also make up a substantial proportion of their funds.

If unions are so powerful, how is it that average wages are reported to have either stagnated or fallen whereas the incomes and salaries of the wealthy and super rich have rocketed?

People are often critical unions until they need them, at which time they suddenly decide to join and get some sort of representation and protection for themselves.

PECS not to the extent of the strikes in 1979 which gave us Thatcher, not pickets at entrances to hospitals , not unofficial strikes such as the grave diggers strike.

And not the miners strike in 1984 - 1985, where there was no
National strike ballot so kept miners in the midlands in work whilst here in South Wales we suffered so much, homes lost, families broken up , soup kitchens and helped to keep Thatcher in power .

My community was betrayed by the unions , they certaintly smashed the few for the many .