ALL STRIKES CANCELLED EXCEPT BRIDGEWATER

[Tman]

-Under the capitalist system workers are no longer paid for the value of what they produce, nor do they retain rights to ownership of what they produce, instead they are paid by how little compensation someone else is willing to do the same job for. Just as it is understood that market competition drives the price of other commodities down, it has the same impact on labor when labor is a commodity.

So when was it any different? Doesn't any business man try and reduce costs as much as possible, or do you think that any of them ever thought "I know, I'll just make enough to cover my costs plus just a little profit, and that way I can pay my workers as much as possible"?

That somewhat naive and dreamlike world of the Left Wing again. A Utopian situation that has never, and will never, exist.

[Cue- "yeah but there's this capsicum farmer in Southern Chile who......etc etc" type of comment.]

A sad fact of life is that anything is worth only what you can sell it for, and that is influenced by market conditions at the time. If you can only offer basic skills then there's plenty who'll do the job for less, a fact exploited by industry for centuries, especially when the list of unemployed is growing all the time.
Spout the old dogma all you like, but it ultimately changes nothing.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Talking about retreading arguments the above sounds like "We can't change anything so why try" an argument that the Capitalists and free marketeers seem to rely on to keep the status quo.

Well if enough people disagree with a system it can be changed, because if it was not possible we would still be operating under the Feudal system as when that was operating I am sure the Barons and Lords saw no reason to change it.

I am not against Free Marketeering per-se but I am certainly pro fair days pay for a fair days work.

[andy2007]

Talking about retreading arguments the above sounds like "We can't change anything so why try" an argument that the Capitalists and free marketeers seem to rely on to keep the status quo.

Well if enough people disagree with a system it can be changed, because if it was not possible we would still be operating under the Feudal system as when that was operating I am sure the Barons and Lords saw no reason to change it.

I am not against Free Marketeering per-se but I am certainly pro fair days pay for a fair days work.

Exactly! Obviously it's a double edged sword. But it's the fairest way I've come across, to treat people.

We have often heard the argument, that people should be able to finish early, but be paid for a full day. After all, it's what happened for several years. But that is either on it's way out, or has already gone (depending on where you are). On the other hand, we should be paid fairly for the work we do. That's what I mean about it being a double edged sword.

If you replace dedicated, experienced, staff. With low paid staff, who feel no loyalty to the service. You will get a reduced quality of service from them. That's where RM is making a bad situation worse. I know that at the moment, we're paid well for the type of work we do. But we have ben given below inflation pay rises, which if they continue, will lead to us being poorly paid. Just like we were, when I first started. That's a trend which needs to be halted next time.

Personally, although it would be great to reach the "average wage". I'd be perfectly happy for my wages to match inflation, in the future. So that we would be neither higher, or lower paid than we are at the moment, in real terms. As I've said many times before: I do this job, because I want to be part of an important service to the Public. But I have bills to pay too. If I wanted to improve my standard of living. I'd get a better paid job elsewhere. But I'm perfectly happy with what I have.

[Tman]

TrueBlueTerrier"]Talking about retreading arguments the above sounds like "We can't change anything so why try" an argument that the Capitalists and free marketeers seem to rely on to keep the status quo.

Well if enough people disagree with a system it can be changed, because if it was not possible we would still be operating under the Feudal system as when that was operating I am sure the Barons and Lords saw no reason to change it.

That's a poor analogy. Society and changes in the way of life caused the end of Feudalism rather than a desire for change, but even back then there were bakers, masons, smiths, thatchers, fletchers and the rest,and do you honestly believe that all those craftsmen and traders charged exactly what items cost to make, and made no profit?
Trading is a basic human interaction and probably goes back to Neanderthals, and involved who could make the best tools, or do the best cave paintings, and bartering for people's skills.
If you can think of a more successful way, or a system to change to, then speak up, but many (like the deluded fool Marx, and many others) have tried and got nowhere.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I see you did not quote the last part of my post which kind of changes what you are responding to. I shall say it again just in case you missed it. I am not against a free market system per-se but what I would like to see is a fair days pay for a fair days work. Or in other terms a fairer division of the wealth.

Yes people can be paid more that others, nothing wrong in being paid for your skill, but why is it the rich who decide what is a fair wage is for the workers, and why is the rich who complain when workers strike for better wages, and then get the press to stir up the population against the strike. Yet when they award themselves high wage increases or insane bonuses its briefly mentioned, there is a brief outcry and some idndignation, but it all dies down after a few days.

Its an unfair system and I honestly believe that, yes there should be an agreed wage level between bosses and workers, but some of the profit must be awarded to the workers, as it is already with Shareholders, board members and Company Chairmen. The so called trickle down theory has not worked on a voluntary basis so perhaps its time to enshrine it in law.

[Thorby Bislam]

As feudalism and its end has been mentioned, I should point out that it was neither 'society' nor 'desire for change' that eventually ended it. It was the Black Death.
Previously the lower ranks (the working class, if you will) were made up of a minority of Freemen and Yoemen and a majority of serfs. These people were tied to the land and effectively owned by the landowners, the nobility (I know, an oxymoron) and the knights. They could not better their lives no matter how much they may have wanted to.
However, when 1/4 to 1/3 of the population of europe died from bubonic plague, the survivors found out that their labour now had a value that it hadn't had before. The upper ranks now had to take their aspirations into account or they could easily move on to someone who would.

So what does this mean for us 600 years later ? Perhaps this. Our industry is going through difficult times and we are going to lose a lot of our people. The employer, RM, is going to have to come to terms with us or lose us. If they want to act like feudal barons, then we must act like freemen, not serfs. We can withdraw our labour, either temporarily or permanently (by leaving the job).

No doubt Tman will respond by saying that RM will just employ others at vastly reduced wages and benefits. Well, they might, but other contributors to this debate have already pointed out the folly of that. The bottom line is this : If RM want a well paid job with good benefits for themselves, they will HAVE to ensure that we get the same.

[Tman]

TrueBlueTerrier"]I see you did not quote the last part of my post which kind of changes what you are responding to. I shall say it again just in case you missed it. I am not against a free market system per-se but what I would like to see is a fair days pay for a fair days work. Or in other terms a fairer division of the wealth.

I'm sure we all agree with, and would like that, and so it really wasn't necessary to requote it, was it?

Yes people can be paid more that others, nothing wrong in being paid for your skill, but why is it the rich who decide what is a fair wage is for the workers, and why is the rich who complain when workers strike for better wages, and then get the press to stir up the population against the strike. Yet when they award themselves high wage increases or insane bonuses its briefly mentioned, there is a brief outcry and some idndignation, but it all dies down after a few days.
Its an unfair system and I honestly believe that, yes there should be an agreed wage level between bosses and workers, but some of the profit must be awarded to the workers, as it is already with Shareholders, board members and Compan

rmen. The so called trickle down theory has not worked on a voluntary basis so perhaps its time to enshrine it in law

But all that's opinion, not fact. Playing the devil's advocate, I'm sure there are many business men and factory owners who say there's already far too much "law" and government interference in how they run thier firm, and as they were the ones who set the firms up/loaned finance/took risks/keep it running/etc then WTF should anyone else have a say in how they run it and how much of the profit is returned to the workers?

We've already seen too much British industry fade and die because of idiotic union decisions, where "the workers" have had a say, although blinkered management have to take a large portion of the blame too, to be fair. I thought those "worker participation" schemes went out with BL...

[borders]

-Under the capitalist system workers are no longer paid for the value of what they produce, nor do they retain rights to ownership of what they produce, instead they are paid by how little compensation someone else is willing to do the same job for. Just as it is understood that market competition drives the price of other commodities down, it has the same impact on labor when labor is a commodity.

So when was it any different? Doesn't any business man try and reduce costs as much as possible, or do you think that any of them ever thought "I know, I'll just make enough to cover my costs plus just a little profit, and that way I can pay my workers as much as possible"?

That somewhat naive and dreamlike world of the Left Wing again. A Utopian situation that has never, and will never, exist.

[Cue- "yeah but there's this capsicum farmer in Southern Chile who......etc etc" type of comment.]

A sad fact of life is that anything is worth only what you can sell it for, and that is influenced by market conditions at the time. If you can only offer basic skills then there's plenty who'll do the job for less, a fact exploited by industry for centuries, especially when the list of unemployed is growing all the time.
Spout the old dogma all you like, but it ultimately changes nothing.

a simple question to you , as a defender of the Capitalist system , do you honestly believe it is the best / fairest system on offer to mankind ? do we have the right to draw the conclusion that capitalism has solved the problems of the world , that it is not neccesary to look for another system , and that , therefore, history has finished ? such a conclusion Mr Tman , not only flies in the face of logic but also goes against the evidence of our senses.

[axeman]

Teaman british industry died as a direct result of marget thatcher and her government of the day we are now in a position of having basicaly no manufacturing base whatsoever and what remains is now being outsourced to places like china etc... why ? because the profit margins are better(chinese work for peanuts) not a thought for the wokers who got the firm in that position in the first place it takes a good workforce to make a company viable not just an owner /manager this is capitalism at it's worst and exploitation of workers worldwide

[k979aaa]

Capitalism is dead look hard for the bank's with the cash for enterprise or even big business!. It's the government who has all the money our money and where did they give it too the failed bank's of the land!. And now they are trying to do the same with royalmail give it away too a failed bank UBS for it and the government to make a profit out of all their losses in proping up CAPITALISM!.

[borders]

-Under the capitalist system workers are no longer paid for the value of what they produce, nor do they retain rights to ownership of what they produce, instead they are paid by how little compensation someone else is willing to do the same job for. Just as it is understood that market competition drives the price of other commodities down, it has the same impact on labor when labor is a commodity.

So when was it any different? Doesn't any business man try and reduce costs as much as possible, or do you think that any of them ever thought "I know, I'll just make enough to cover my costs plus just a little profit, and that way I can pay my workers as much as possible"?

That somewhat naive and dreamlike world of the Left Wing again. A Utopian situation that has never, and will never, exist.

[Cue- "yeah but there's this capsicum farmer in Southern Chile who......etc etc" type of comment.]

A sad fact of life is that anything is worth only what you can sell it for, and that is influenced by market conditions at the time. If you can only offer basic skills then there's plenty who'll do the job for less, a fact exploited by industry for centuries, especially when the list of unemployed is growing all the time.
Spout the old dogma all you like, but it ultimately changes nothing.

the real Utopians are the reformists who think that humanity can survive and prosper within the suffocating limits of the capitalist system . this idea is negated at every step by experience . the continuation of this rotten system is creating new nightmares every day, the latest one being the collapse of the banking system . it threatens the very future of culture and humanity. the difference between rich and poor is increasing at an alarming rate. i will give you 2 examples, Tiger Woods earns more than the entire wages of all the employees of Nike in Indonesia and Goldman Sachs , a company of investments with only 167 partners , earns $2,200 million every year - the same as Tanzania , a country of 25 million people.

[andy2007]

Capitalism is dead look hard for the bank's with the cash for enterprise or even big business!. It's the government who has all the money our money and where did they give it too the failed bank's of the land!. And now they are trying to do the same with royalmail give it away too a failed bank UBS for it and the government to make a profit out of all their losses in proping up CAPITALISM!.

That's not neccessarily true. The sort of Capitalism which has been held up as an example, for the last few decades, is rather extreme. Specifically, it is based around those "at the top" giving themselves whatever their Business can afford. And keeping the wages of the staff, as low as possible, to keep it afloat. As we now see: That is as severely flawed, as the delusions of Carl Marx, and his cronies!

What's the answer?
I don't know, yet. But one thing I can say for certain, is that it's neither one extreme, or the other. What we need, is balance. The precise nature of this, is something which can't be rushed into. In fact, I suspect that it will emerge naturally, over time.

As we're getting so far off topic. I thought I'd better start a dedicated thread for this: http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... =5&t=13355

[Tman]

[]a simple question to you , as a defender of the Capitalist system ,

Not a defender in the slightest, but someone who's come to realise there is currently no workable alternative.



do you honestly believe it is the best / fairest system on offer to mankind ?

No, see above, and certainly not "fair" either.


do we have the right to draw the conclusion that capitalism has solved the problems of the world ,

No

that it is not neccesary to look for another system ,

Feel free, the world awaits....




and that , therefore, history has finished ?
Ehh? You had to go and spoil it.


such a conclusion Mr Tman , not only flies in the face of logic but also goes against the evidence of our senses.

Yeahbut, whose logic, whose senses and what logic? It's all subjective, after all.

[Night Tonic]

Many of the posts above seem to hinge on pay being the solution to getting a good service. What rot. Pay alone isn't the answer and dreams of a leftie utopia are just that - dreams. Not mine either, thankfully.

And no British business didn't die because of thatcher. It was already dead because other countries could do it cheaper and Thatcher was sick of propping up industries that lost money. Quite right and good riddance. Many of those industries kept striking until they killed their own jobs. Again, good riddance.

[DGP1]

Many of the posts above seem to hinge on pay being the solution to getting a good service. What rot. Pay alone isn't the answer and dreams of a leftie utopia are just that - dreams. Not mine either, thankfully.

And no British business didn't die because of thatcher. It was already dead because other countries could do it cheaper and Thatcher was sick of propping up industries that lost money. Quite right and good riddance. Many of those industries kept striking until they killed their own jobs. Again, good riddance.

I think you'll find that it's the very poor management we have in this country, not the staff We have managers who can't be trusted to run a bath let alone a business. Whenever the staff and management were good all that happened is the owners just up sticks to China because it's cheaper to get things produced thus meaning that they all lost their jobs anyway.