You mean voted by about 10% because a) humans are lazy and B) lack of choice and no connection between Union members and the union hierarchy.
Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban
- Thread starter J-FRO
- Start date
You mean voted by about 10% because a) humans are lazy and B) lack of choice and no connection between Union members and the union hierarchy.
I think people would, rationally, support unions if their objectives were aligned with the needs of society as well as the wants of the workforce. The size of the labour force required to do a particular task will vary (usually reducing over time), and the necessary skill level of that labour force will also vary (usually reducing over time). Fighting against that trend does not maximise our productivity, and the unions have a long history of opposing and slowing down innovations, automation and technological improvements.
It's difficult to not roll your eyes every time Bob Crow comes on the TV crying about how the latest round of changes are going to decrease safety/ruin the service/etc. It's such a Punch and Judy show people are utterly bored of the high-level rhetoric.
It's difficult to not roll your eyes every time Bob Crow comes on the TV crying about how the latest round of changes are going to decrease safety/ruin the service/etc. It's such a Punch and Judy show people are utterly bored of the high-level rhetoric.
Last edited:
I'd go out on a limb and say that this is because union leadership seems to be universally comprised of hapless ****wits who get into such positions of responsibility by promising their half-baked dreamworlds will become reality.
There was an interview by Martin Durkin with Brendan Barber that to this day still makes me cringe. Essentially Barber attempting to dispel the idea that they hold the country to ransom in order to get things that would drive a private enterprise into the ground.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
How many businesses/enterprises* have been ruined by unions?
*Odds on you'll quote British Leyland but you'd be wrong to blame that on the unions.
I think you've misread my post?
BL was a disaster anyway. My great grandfather worked for them and some of the stories he told about the workforces attitude to actually working were far from flattering.
If something doesn't have the interest of society or the workforce at heart, then the Unions are right to slow it down.
If a technological advance only generates benefit to the shareholder at the cost of other stakeholders, it's unethical practise. That is precisely what unions exist to stop.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I think you've misread my post?
BL was a disaster anyway. My great grandfather worked for them and some of the stories he told about the workforces attitude to actually working were far from flattering.
DId I? Apologies in that case.
BL was mismanagement - crappy workforce ethics is due to **** poor management, not Union influence.
Yay - someone else gets it. <happy dance>
Is the efficient conduct of business the ONLY thing that matters?
I don't think that is entirely correct. If a technological advance lowers cost to the end consumer and improves overall quality of the end product but costs a worker his job, it isn't automatically unethical.
Totally agree - it's exactly why the workforce were able to sleep through their shifts without getting a pasting!
Nice dreamland, you would make a typical union leader.
Where in reality this is just Bs and said company unless publicly owned will go bankrupt due to competition who does use technology or moves production abroad like a lot of the car industry. Some sectors will always go more highly trained and fewer staff, while other sectors will expand. People just have to move jobs and not be so tied downed.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to work for a major UK manufacturer, not naming names but they're a huge engineering firm, family run and synonymous with mobility products worldwide.
They refused to use technology that a lot of other firms did, relying on a skilled workforce who actually cared about their jobs. It was the only time I've ever seen line staff who cared about doing a good job.
It's why they're the leader of their industry against companies who treat the workers like machines and would replace them in a heartbeat. Fancy machines cost a lot more than motivating your workforce, it's what a lot of companies fail to take into account.
No at all. Machines are a lot more skilled, with tolerances far higher than any human can achieve.
Good luck machining anything with tight tolerance in the old fashioned way, compared to cnc.
Or welding mass produced cheap cars together.
You cant have cheap products and old fashioned way, but of course some business still use hand crafted and you pay a premium for the human touch.
Good luck machining anything with tight tolerance in the old fashioned way, compared to cnc.
Or welding mass produced cheap cars together.
You cant have cheap products and old fashioned way, but of course some business still use hand crafted and you pay a premium for the human touch.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you wanted to manufacture on the cheap you'd send it to china, the only way to compete in engineering and manufacturing in the UK or indeed any developed country is to compete on niche or quality.
The quality makes them world leaders and personally I'd rather pay for quality, cheap throwaway tat makes no financial sense if you can afford to buy quality.
Compared with the competitors who were more expensive, slow and poorly designed despite the fact our main competitor was a german steel conglomerate with a lot more power and funding, our products sold better and worked better because they were ultimately built and designed better.
Using jigs and skilled workers you can produce everything up to super fine tolerances.
Part of the reason they were able to become so globalized is they weren't relying on super expensive machines and complex techniques resulting in super quick turnaround compared to competitors who have to do all manufacturing on one site in one country.
Technology doesn't always mean better business, the people who design the tech aren't business experts.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Who do you think are happier - those working for the watch maker or those working @ Casio. Who do you think has the highest union membership density?
Is productivity the only measure of a businesses success?
Oh, and most of the items I have CNC'd I have to send back due to poor tolerance. CNC is only as accurate as the operator and the person that maintains the machine
The only reason I have parts CNC'd is to save time, not because it's more accurate. I can do better with a bottle of oil and a file.
Last edited by a moderator:
Becuase of course you had access to good cnc, or not as it didnt give good toolerences.
Those working for a watchmaker, how many is thatt, thats really going to keep the population employed.
Hand made with yur eyesight and shakipy hands, compared to cnc down to less than microns
Im out of this stupid threa, you dont even make sensiable arguments and post random crap which goes against your point.
Those working for a watchmaker, how many is thatt, thats really going to keep the population employed.
Hand made with yur eyesight and shakipy hands, compared to cnc down to less than microns
Im out of this stupid threa, you dont even make sensiable arguments and post random crap which goes against your point.
Machines are not skilled...their human designers and operators are...machines simply do as they are designed or programmed to do. And Amigafan is correct in what he says..the premium you pay for some hand-crafted items..such as a car for example is about the quality of the product, not simply the fact that is was hand-crafted. You can look at things like furniture and jewellery for the better examples of man over machine when it comes to quality of fine work.
You are right in that some things are easier and more precise with a machine...each item being exactly as before..but then that is not always desirable or needed.