Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

Ah Niel, you sly fellow you! Unfortunately misquotes will not save you from the crushing jaws of truth.
In England, the trade union movement is generally believed to have emerged in the 18th century, unless you credit the medieval trade guilds as trade unions, in which case much earlier. However Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Cpt. 8, published 1776, mentions the societies of working tradesmen who gather together to fix wages and talk about combining their interests. Under the Reform Act of 1832, trade unions were made legal in England, for the first time. Sixty-eight years later, on February 27, 1900, the Labour Party of England emerges on the political scene. It seems to me that the only honest and fair conclusion is that trade unions emerge, often in defiance of the law, and historically long before there is any legal recognition. Not at all as you attempt to argue it, that unions only emerge under the protection of the law.
In the case of China the point I make is that because an independent trade union movement does not exist, in fact is generally acknowledged to be suppressed by the government under the guise of government sponsored trade unions, there is no meaningful protection for workers in China. That is what sponors, among other things, the rush for western capitalist investment. While the western capitalist governments bleat about human rights, they carefully restrict their complaints to trivia such as freedom of religion (Falun Gong), public assembly (Tianiman Square), and censorship of the internet. But not one word about the profits the western capitalist gleans from a labor force that works for peanuts, with no medical care, unemployment care, health insurance, or the basic right to bargain for wages. In simple words Sir, those rights which you take for granted and you now, as seems to appear by your remarks, deem a sort of extravagance which was improvidently granted to workers. But unless you happen to be in that fortunate 1%-2% of people who ancestors have left bountiful wealth so you need not ever work a day in your life, you would do well to reflect on the sacrificies of those who have gone before you and the benefits they have obtained for you, before you sneer at them. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Neil · Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject:

I too am feart; that despite my best efforts somehow I am being misunderstood.
Given that the Reform Act of 1832 legalised trade unions in England, the rather clear inference is that they were not legal before that date; still the evidence is also clear that in one form or another they did exist and were able to influence events to some extent, at least as far back as 1776.
The rise and modern day prominence of the Labour Party is proof that the trade union movement has not only gained legal acceptance but also able to enlist the efforts of talented professionals like Tony Blair who has probably never gotten his hands dirty in his life. That is indeed a large step forward, whatever your feelings about the Labour Party and its platform.

Neil · Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject:

So neither of us doubt the early existence of trade unions.

Rather than calling Tony Blair "a large step forward" I would note Labour have never had a manual worker as their PM (granted Ramsay McDonald was the illegitimate son of a sculerymaid) & that since there are fewer now than ever berore it is hardly surprising that they don't now.

Actually I would prefer if we had more from all sides of industry & rather fewer professional politicians (who may have spent a year or two as a lawyer, lecturer or media creature) & more with broader experience.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

RFM

Would I right in thinking you're annoyed about the possibility/actuality US jobs going to China?

Just trying to boil everything down a touch.

Different point: Capitalism

I define Capitalism as being the ability of the few to own or control the product of the many.

ie - If I own a croft a grew carrots and sold those carrots. That would be wealth extracted from my labour - but I would still be in full ownership/control of the product of my wealth - my your definition I'd be a capitalist. In which case we've been Capitalist from the day we emerged from the oceans as amoebas - so we may as well get over it.

I'd credit trade guilds as being the precursor to trade unions, well, ish. I'm not that enamoured by present trade unions, haven't been for a while. They appear to be primarily political movements. The trades guilds had a different outlook IMO. When the Trade Unions went on the Harrow march (1920's I think) - Communists were banned. Now they're basically run by communists. Trade Guilds - and tradesmen in general (these days) are certainly not from the left as such. Referring to the 'political compass' - Ive always viewed the Trade Unions as having a hierarchical outlook (fascist) - whereas the bulk of trades are free individuals (anarchist).

Though this is IMO.

Neil · Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject:

I'm not even worried about Scottish shrimp processing jobs going to China - in the end more wealth is produced overall & what goes round comes round.

Certainly trsdes unions operate on the theory that a group of sticks, or workers, is stronger if the work in "Solidarity", which is the literal meaning of the word fascism. Trades unionism could only come in when there were vasr numbers of workers working together, which is why they were not really the same as guilds. As most of the mass industries have disappeared unionism has declined except among civil servants where politicians have a cosy relationship which hurts only the customer & taxpayer.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

The Shrimp thing does seem a little silly, yes I understand the economic aspect. It also says something about how advanced we've got thats its economically more efficient to transport them to Thailand to get shelled - however I do accept the environmental objections.

You've hit it right on the head as far as Trade Unions go. Basically - they're not. They used to be exactly what it says on the tin - local collectives/guilds that worked for the benefit of all. This was in the days before education, welfare etc. So it was the Guild that provided a means of training, welfare etc - there was nothing political about them at all. No doubt they had agreed rates etc - but then economies in those days were very local - no central Govt to blame everything on.

From a perspective on the ground however, Ive got to say they do good work. Ive been on a number of jobs were people have had grievances - I agreed with every one of them - they took them to the union and they got fixed. So for the worker of the ground, they do a good job IMO.

Its the top end - they're just totally political. Being blunt they're basically (as you said) from the collective fascist strain of outlook - economically they've always come across as far too much to the left IMO. A lot of trades (inc myself) are effectivily self employed, small companies etc, jumping from job to job.

The unions have a definite future IMO - although heavy industry has gone we're always going to have an army of skilled/manual/vocational workers who work all over the place and have a whole host of needs.

Ive always got the feeling that the actual 'trade union' part is just a side line to a greater cause - political ideology. They should give that up. Go back to their roots and start viewing things from the ground up.

They should be the sort of places that a lad can walk into an office and say "Ive got no skills, I can work and need a job" - and get sorted out. I'm thinking of a lot of lads who just have no place in a normal school - too academic - prehaps they could look to changes in the law to allow such lads to be taken under their wing and get excemptions that allow them to go into the workplace under their supervision.

But give up on the politics stuff - none of us beleive in any of that anymore.

RFM · Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:32 am Post subject:

Well Cado, there was a candidate in the last American presidential election; didn't get any votes to speak of but he said one memorable thing: "You may not be into politics, but you can be sure politics is into you".

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

I think was easily your shortest post to date!

Re 'politics' - perhaps the wrong word - I was thinking more of blind imposed ideology.

Neil · Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject:

"You may not be interested in politics but that doesn't mean that politics will not be interested in you"
Pericles of Athens
Though I have also seen it ascribed to Trotsky.

Clearly some truths survive time & ideaology.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken