On 3 June, 07:38, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:3729ffc2-18f8-4f56-9b25-
:







On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51-
bbda-
:

Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do
any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems
to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers".

(Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was
referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an
individual.

OK then, defeating the trades unions != defeating the workers.-

It's sadly true that more and more union officials are going for a
kind of subscription model, where "the union" is a separate body from
the workers and simply takes their money to donate to New Labour. A
bit like a bank or insurance company that never pays out.

However, that kind of union doesn't need to be defeated, because it
isn't fighting.

They way it should work is that the union IS the workers*, coming
together for their common interests, as a balance to the business old-
boys' networks that are working for a different bunch of common
interests.

Believe it or not, the RMT is far closer to the latter sort of model
than the majority of unions these days. It may not be perfect, but
it's still much much better. At least it does something other than
give its members' money to a government that it working against their
interests.

*The number of people who say "... and the union did nothing" and I
say "but you ARE the union".