Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

[ciderglider]

I'm not sure that is a sign that people don't *want* to join a Union. More likely that they get 'gig' jobs and are a part of the army of the 'self employed' (sic) because that's the only job they can find. Joining a union would then promptly mean no work being 'offerred'.

About 10% of the UK workforce are involved in the "gig economy", so that doesn't explain why most people in the private sector don't join a union. My experience is that many companies don't recognise a trade union, and joining a union as an individual doesn't offer many benefits. Starting a campaign in the workplace to get union recognition is an option, but not very attractive.

 

[Tony L]

Tony has a particular spin on Trades Union which is essentially negative.

I can understand how someone who has, I assume, spent a whole lifetime working in the public sector may think that.

I'm not sure that is a sign that people don't *want* to join a Union. More likely that they get 'gig' jobs and are a part of the army of the 'self employed' (sic) because that's the only job they can find. Joining a union would then promptly mean no work being 'offerred'.

Which trade union were you in at Armstrong and what exactly did they achieve for you?

PS For clarity: I have huge, huge respect for what unions achieved back in the days of dangerous mass labour in mills, mines, shipbuilding etc, especially from a health and safety/human rights perspective. These days I’m far more sceptical as to their scope beyond holding end-users to ransom in public sector roles (Tube drivers etc). I’d even be inclined to argue the lavish gold-plated pensions in unionised education roles were currently being offset against outrageous student fees! I obviously understand a lot of this is down to systemic political failure and the corruption of both main parties as is so much we face (education should absolutely be free to the end user at all ages and paid for by fair and well-implemented progressive taxation IMHO). I’m just calling things how I see it right now, and it smells a bit off from the perspective of someone who spent a lifetime in the private sector where you get to make whatever you can in a competitive environment. I also think the lack of engagement in unions these days speaks volumes, votes being “carried” by just a tiny percentage of members etc. If they mattered people would engage more. They have just become another bureaucracy/establishment institution. Another greasy pole for a certain type of person to climb.

 

[droodzilla]

I'm struggling to see the joy in this, Unison can sponsor and fund whoever they like. Presumably they prefer the Tories in power, as they seem to be the main beneficiaries of this decision made on behalf of their members.

Let's hope the members are all as happy with that as you and Sean, presumably they were consulted.

Poor union leaders, they can't win. Len McCluskey was widely crticised for donating too much to the Labour Party. Now Sharon's getting it in the neck for reducing donations to focus resources on the issues that matter to members.

In this week's reshuffle, Starmer abolished the shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights position. He's also has made it clear that he wants to cut reliance on union funding and and raise more from wealthy individuals and coroporate donor (the Mandelson model, essentially).

Sharon Graham's decision is a rational response to all of this (and more). She will use the Unite's considerable resources to fight for members in other ways, because the Labour Party offers little hope of progressive change now. I expect she will be monstered in the right wing press over the next few years, and that will be a sign that they're afraid of her.

 

[ks.234]

The take away is that in response to feeling the Labour party no longer represents the interests of trade union members, their answer is to help the Tories.

I guess it will be good for business, the Tories will certainly make sure their members have plenty to seek union assistance with.

If the Labour Party was planning to amend any of the Tory Labour policies that have so damaged the lives of ordinary working people, that argument might have some legs.

The idea that the Tories are worse than Labour on representing ordinary workers had no legs I’m afraid. Labour has bought into the social, eco minus for political conditions that leave us were we are. Changing anything substantial is not on the agenda of Labour. More than not being on their agenda any discussion of changing things is shut down so as to ensure it never even gets to committee stage

 

[ks.234]

If the Labour Party was planning to amend any of the Tory Labour policies that have so damaged the lives of ordinary working people, that argument might have some legs.

The idea that the Tories are worse than Labour on representing ordinary workers had no legs I’m afraid. Labour has bought into the social, eco minus for political conditions that leave us were we are. Changing anything substantial is not on the agenda of Labour. More than not being on their agenda any discussion of changing things is shut down so as to ensure it never even gets to committee stage

If you want change, don’t vote Labour

 

[SteveS1]

If the Labour Party was planning to amend any of the Tory Labour policies that have so damaged the lives of ordinary working people, that argument might have some legs.

The idea that the Tories are worse than Labour on representing ordinary workers had no legs I’m afraid. Labour has bought into the social, eco minus for political conditions that leave us were we are. Changing anything substantial is not on the agenda of Labour. More than not being on their agenda any discussion of changing things is shut down so as to ensure it never even gets to committee stage

That isn't the case though. They may not go as far as you would like but to pretend they are as bad as the Tories is just dishonest.

Just consigning yourself to vocal bystander and critic of all sides with no stake is a cop out. Changing anything substantial certainly will not be an option outside of the larger P political process.

 

[ks.234]

That isn't the case though. They may not go as far as you would like but to pretend they are as bad as the Tories is just dishonest.

Just consigning yourself to vocal bystander and critic of all sides with no stake is a cop out. Changing anything substantial certainly will not be an option outside of the larger P political process.

But I wasn’t making a general case that Labour are as bad as the Tories, I was making a specific case to say that Labour are just as bad as the Tories on employment law. To my mind the Tories have introduces a lot of legislation to damage the pay and working conditions of ordinary worker. So if Labour are better than the Tories, which of those bits of regressive legislation is Labour going to repeal?

 

[droodzilla]

But I wasn’t making a general case that Labour are as bad as the Tories, I was making a specific case to say that Labour are just as bad as the Tories on employment law. To my mind the Tories have introduces a lot of legislation to damage the pay and working conditions of ordinary worker. So if Labour are better than the Tories, which of those bits of regressive legislation is Labour going to repeal?

Ironically, I think this is one of the few areas where Labour has made slightly more encouraging noises than the Tories. Not that they're going to repeal decades of anti-trade union legislation, or anything. But they have made positive noises about increasing employment rights from day one.

But this merely highlights another problem with Starmer's Labour - can you believe a single word they say? Starmer has broken the 10 pledges that got him elected and some of his defenders have gloated about it. So why believe him now? Starmer's dishonesty is a serious problem if the aim is to attract voters repulsed by Johnson's lies.

In many other policy areas, I would say that Labour are now as bad as, or to the right of, the Tories.

 

[Seanm]

That's OK then, let's hope the members enjoy it.

Concern trolling.

 

[Seanm]

It is interesting. How did the unions respond to Blair? I can’t remember as I’ve never really had that much interest in Labour. Maybe Starmer’s “strategy” (assuming such a thing exists) is targeting Tory seats alienated by the corruption, criminality and racism of Johnson’s new Trump Tories plus the poor handling of C19 and may even view friction with the unions as a win. I’ve no idea.

Starmer’s lot apparently just don’t get unions: they don’t involve themselves in developments, they don’t listen to them, they don’t really see the point of them. I don’t think it’s strategy so much as an authentic expression of uninterest. Even if Blair didn’t personally get unions he understood their importance to him and he kept old union guys around him. The main difference between Starmer and Blair though is that Blair was in power, and Starmer looks a long way from it. Even if the unions hadn’t learned from experience that they can expect little from this faction, it would make sense not to count on Labour even being in a position to help. A dual strategy - maintain affiliation while funding work-based initiatives - seems pretty sensible.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Which trade union were you in at Armstrong and what exactly did they achieve for you?

I joined the IEEE, AES, etc.

TBH Armstrong were a pretty good employer and treated their line/repair/etc staff quite well. But I doubt that was true for many other businesses at that time.

Earlier, I had (briefly) a job at one of the old Defence companies. Nominally worked in a hangar with hundreds of other people. There I did join a union, but I can't recall which one. After a month or two I got fed up with it, so left. They had no work for me to do as they contracted projects on the basis of X people working Y hours for a Government contract, and inflated those numbers. Hence wanted many NOT to do anything. Boondoggle.

When an academic I joined the Union. They actually saved my job on one occasion, so it was a very good idea. They also negotiated good pay and benefits during that period. Alas, since then the pay and conditions at Unis has declined in relative terms.

These things depend on your circumstances. At Armstrong I was able to deal with the management, etc, on a reasonable personal basis and everyone know how business was going. Different world to the Defence company or a big Uni. Nothing like being van driver or delivery man for a big company that treats you as a 'subcontractor' or some other trick.

Nor, I suspect like some chains that look like a big UK company, but are actually 'francises' from a non-UK company that hoovers money away overseas as 'costs' in the UK to dodge tax and responsibilities here. Fill in with the name of your unfavourite maker of gadgets, opticians, chemists, etc, often charging premium prices.

 

[SteveS1]

But I wasn’t making a general case that Labour are as bad as the Tories, I was making a specific case to say that Labour are just as bad as the Tories on employment law. To my mind the Tories have introduces a lot of legislation to damage the pay and working conditions of ordinary worker. So if Labour are better than the Tories, which of those bits of regressive legislation is Labour going to repeal?

Yes I realise that and I get the fact that Trade Unions are unhappy with the extent to which Labour will deliver what they want.

But that's against a guaranteed absolutely nothing being delivered except even worse to come. Whichever way you look at this, the only people that can possibly be happy with Unison's position longer term are the Tories. The short term feelings of having stuck one up Labour's current leadership are worth nothing.

 

[ks.234]

Ironically, I think this is one of the few areas where Labour has made slightly more encouraging noises than the Tories. Not that they're going to repeal decades of anti-trade union legislation, or anything. But they have made positive noises about increasing employment rights from day one.

But this merely highlights another problem with Starmer's Labour - can you believe a single word they say? Starmer has broken the 10 pledges that got him elected and some of his defenders have gloated about it. So why believe him now? Starmer's dishonesty is a serious problem if the aim is to attract voters repulsed by Johnson's lies.

In many other policy areas, I would say that Labour are now as bad as, or to the right of, the Tories.

For me, as someone who has put time, money and effort into the Labour Party, you hit on the fundamental point. Labour promises very little. And you wouldn’t trust them to deliver on that.

At this point It is also worth noting Article 23.1 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
​

Is such a declaration nothing more than mad, bad, and dangerous socialist nonsense, or is it something to aspire to?

 

[ks.234]

Yes I realise that and I get the fact that Trade Unions are unhappy with the extent to which Labour will deliver what they want.

But that's against a guaranteed absolutely nothing being delivered except even worse to come. Whichever way you look at this, the only people that can possibly be happy with Unison's position longer term are the Tories. The short term feelings of having stuck one up Labour's current leadership are worth nothing.

Sorry, I think your premise is based on what was. As things are now the Tories will have to deliver on something to make the Red Wall look more secure. It is entirely possible that in terms of manifesto promises on conditions of employment, there will be very little to choose between Tory and Labour. But perhaps more important is the fact that when it comes to trusting either party to actually deliver on their election promises, recent history suggests there isn’t a fag paper between them.

Nevertheless, the biggest problem facing decent employment conditions is the constant threat of unemployment and underemployment

If Labour is serious about conditions of employment, shouldn’t they be planting their flag as far away from the Tory position as possible and planting it somewhat closer the Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights alluded to up thread?

Promising to be slightly less shit than the Tories is not promising very much

 

[SteveS1]

As things are now the Tories will have to deliver on something to make the Red Wall look more secure. It is entirely possible that in terms of manifesto promises on conditions of employment, there will be very little to choose between Tory and Labour. But perhaps more important is the fact that when it comes to trusting either party to actually deliver on their election promises, recent history suggests there isn’t a fag paper between them.

I think that mistakes why the 'red wall' vote went there. The nearest that 'employment' got to that calculation was the hope that sending EU people home would create opportunities for higher wages or remove competition in some sectors.

If Labour is serious about conditions of employment, shouldn’t they be planting their flag as far away from the Tory position as possible and planting it somewhat closer the Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights alluded to up thread?

Well yes they should, but are they more likely to without Trade Union influence and funding? If you think they haven't listened under those conditions - I'm struggling to understand how pulling a rug that will be replaced by other sources of funds with less interest in it will help.

Promising to be slightly less shit than the Tories is not promising very much

Giving up on it, is not promising anything at all. As I say, the happiest people with that will be the Tories.

 

[ks.234]

I think that mistakes why the 'red wall' vote went there. The nearest that 'employment' got to that calculation was the hope that sending EU people home would create opportunities for higher wages or remove competition in some sectors.



Well yes they should, but are they more likely to without Trade Union influence and funding? If you think they haven't listened under those conditions - I'm struggling to understand how pulling a rug that will be replaced by other sources of funds with less interest in it will help.



Giving up on it, is not promising anything at all. As I say, the happiest people with that will be the Tories.

Sorry, I can’t vote for a candle in the wind

 

[SteveS1]

Sorry, I can’t vote for a candle in the wind

Your choice entirely, I can't not vote against the Tories - even when the choice is only "least bad".

 

[ks.234]

Your choice entirely, I can't not vote against the Tories - even when the choice is only "least bad".

There is an argument that suggests that if you want to change anything you have to get power, and it worked to a limited extent and with considerable costs a quarter of a decade ago. Blair did achieve some good and important changes, but he also institutionalised following popularity and moving the centre ground to the right if that’s where popularity happened to be drifting.

Which presumes and ever rightward drift if that happens to be the way the wind is blowing.

Which begs the question, when does drifting to the right cross a line into firmly cold blue territory? How far is too far? How far into White Walker territory can you go before becoming a White Walker?

Where do you plant your flag?

Does Labour even have a coherent set of ideas that answers that question?

(PS. For me it’s not just about who to vote for, it’s a question of who I join and actively support, and quite frankly, Labour are not worth the money, time, or effort)

 

[Enfield boy]

Starmer’s lot apparently just don’t get unions: they don’t involve themselves in developments, they don’t listen to them, they don’t really see the point of them. I don’t think it’s strategy so much as an authentic expression of uninterest. Even if Blair didn’t personally get unions he understood their importance to him and he kept old union guys around him. The main difference between Starmer and Blair though is that Blair was in power, and Starmer looks a long way from it. Even if the unions hadn’t learned from experience that they can expect little from this faction, it would make sense not to count on Labour even being in a position to help. A dual strategy - maintain affiliation while funding work-based initiatives - seems pretty sensible.

As he's a lawyer I'm sure Starmer gets unions, isn't the 'Law Society" an organisation well known for getting lawyers out of sticky situations (phrased diplomatically).

 

[monkfish]

Good riddance to Hodge.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nd-corbyn-critic-margaret-hodge-to-stand-down