Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
That would be the shareholders, which would include far more than just the partly nationalised banks  |
Yes, however over 80% of certain banks are owned by unwilling shareholders as opposed to voluntary / speculative shareholders. There is no point / little comfort in using the term "partly nationalised" as this is part of the old school labour spin. The fact is the banks are in a pit of poo which they are not about to get out of any time soon and they face further dilemmas in the very near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Irresponsibility and being too relaxed got them into the mess, wouldn't want them to get back into trouble by not being suitably controlled with their extension of capital again now would we?
For banks to do well they must invest properly and wisely, so if companies aren't running efficiently they are obliged to invest in better run companies to get a better return for their own shareholders - us the taxpayers.
It seems a bit odd to suggest that the banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more. Strikes me as suggesting the public as a whole should subsidise unionised workers. We already do that quite enough to the detriment of their non-unionised industry colleagues.
I did - and the union of one (me) was perfectly content as he received performance related bonus and everything was in line with the industry rather than being a random figure picked out of the union's rectum.
It could be worse. My union of one could have been the same union that took lower pay rises for other members in other companies this year while complaining about this one not compensating for inflation and ignoring that the employees of this particular company already receive higher pay and better perks than others in the industry.
Same syndrome as BA really, striking despite being better paid and having better perks than those who aren't ex-public sector.
|
I think you are missing the points I was trying to make.
You, as an individual, are entirely entitled not to join or support a union. That right does not, however, obviate the democratic rights of others to collectively exercise their democratic right to do so and to exercise whatever (legal) action they might deem necessary to secure their rights / employment.
Never assume the unions are working to an anti-government or anti competitive agenda.
Bear in mind that if unions fought for their membership and their membership only then certain economic ideals would be realized even quicker than the coalition could hope for in that they (industry / government) could cut (streamline) workforces as they saw fit and the remaining (unionised) workforces would be forced to prove themselves more productive with the overall wage defecit spread over a shorter (unionised) base.
I see from your info that you are 31. As such your entire working life experience since reaching voting age has, with the exception of the past two weeks, taken place under what can only be described as a disasterous labour administration. On that premise I think I'm fairly safe in assuming that you have little or no real recollection of the Thatcher era and the policies of the then day.
You have a lot of unlearning to do, believe me. What lies ahead for Britain under the tory / lib dem coalition (through no fault of their own I hasten to add) will cause catastrophic implosions in all sectors of all industries. People who currently believe there is no "use" or "need" for a union or their participation in one are about to embark on a very steep learning curve.
As for the being "shareholders" (and in some cases majority shareholders) of certain high street banks the fact is that the tax payers needlessly propped up banks which otherwise would have failed.
Any assertion that banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more is no more ludicrous than proposing to bail out the very same banks in the first place because of their fiscal ineptitude and greed and their continued wanting to reward failure at your / my / our collective expense.
"What's good for the goose.....". etc.
I've really no wish, nor indeed the energy nor compunction, to get into this discussion other than to reiterate that people have a democratic right to be unionised and any move to forsake that democratic right for future generations just because the country has been dragged into the financial gutter by the actions of an industry fuelled by greed and which continues to show little or no compassion for its customers / saviours (as opposed to savers) would be a very, very foolish sacrifice to make.