THE UNIONS SHOULD WAKE UP

ALLAN J PHILLIPS · 17-02-2007, 05:48 PM

There are several factors which cause job losses. Some of them are:

The deliberate unashamed movement of capital, whole factories and jobs from Britain. One of the victims has been the closure of the Peugeot plant in Ryton, Coventry, moved to a prepared plant in Slovakia. One million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997.

The Government must control the export of capital and jobs even if this offends EU policies emanating from Brussels and also ignore and resist EU Directives. The responsibility of government must be to look after the best interests of the people of Britain and not the profits of transnational corporations.

We must leave the EU so that Britain can run its own affairs instead of carrying out orders from Brussels. This must include taking back powers over the economy and the right to promote and protect industries and jobs.

The current Labour Government enthusiastically promotes EU policies and has failed to protect those it should represent with complete disregard for the social and economic consequences for those who work for their living.

Most trade union leaders, the TUC and the 80% funded European TUC take part in the "social partnership" with the EU Commission and employers who seem to have failed to look after the interests of their members.

To stop the rot it is necessary for union members to pressurise their unions to cease support for the EU social partnership and EU institutions promoting the federal "free market" and to take action to prevent the loss of jobs by applying pressure on government to ignore EU directives, laws and policies. In parallel, and to enable this to be done, campaigns should be enhanced for the removal of the Tory and New Labour anti-trade union laws.

Spike · 17-02-2007, 07:01 PM

The basic idea behind the so-called social partership is a fine one, but you are right: it doesn't seem to be working out. In fact, it seems to me that whichever aspect of socialist ideology we scrutinise, we find deep flaws.

On the matter of export of manufacturing jobs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The government needs to intervene. (This, of course, introduces a corporatist element to the debate, so no doubt I will now be labelled as a fascist).

I felt at the time that HMG should have intervened in the case of MG Rover. "Should the government bale out a lame duck industry?" I was asked. Well yes, when you are at war (as we are right now) is it wise to shut down your manufacturing plants? Do you think that that during WW2 Spitfires were all made by Supermarine? They were produced (in part or in whole) on production lines at Rolls Royce, Wolsley, Hillman, Humber, and many others. Sometimes alongside tanks and other military vehicles. Humber particularly excelled in the manufacture of light armoured vehicles.

Industry has not just an economic value to its host state, but also a strategic value.

The 'market' does not take account of this added value. The 'free-market' ideology is therefore flawed.

Dissident Congress · 18-02-2007, 02:25 PM

My stance is that trade unions and the Labour party are synonymous with one another and inseparable from each other. If one is opposed to the Labour Party and their policies then they should not support or be members of a trade union. Trade unions may have be guardians of workers during the early 20th century, but times have changed and trade unions no longer stand up for the interests of workers in the face of globalised capitalism and EU legislation, because every trade union is committed to Britain's membership of the EU. This is highlighted by the total inability of trade unions to save Rover from bankruptcy because the EU legislation prevented the British government from nationalising Rover or offering them a loan because it would fall foul of legislation on subsidies to industry.

I read something during 2005 that the Army was buying a whole fleet of vehicles from Germany. Surely they could have been made at Longbridge.

This-England · 18-02-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike

The basic idea behind the so-called social partership is a fine one, but you are right: it doesn't seem to be working out. In fact, it seems to me that whichever aspect of socialist ideology we scrutinise, we find deep flaws.

On the matter of export of manufacturing jobs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The government needs to intervene. (This, of course, introduces a corporatist element to the debate, so no doubt I will now be labelled as a fascist).

I felt at the time that HMG should have intervened in the case of MG Rover. "Should the government bale out a lame duck industry?" I was asked. Well yes, when you are at war (as we are right now) is it wise to shut down your manufacturing plants? Do you think that that during WW2 Spitfires were all made by Supermarine? They were produced (in part or in whole) on production lines at Rolls Royce, Wolsley, Hillman, Humber, and many others. Sometimes alongside tanks and other military vehicles. Humber particularly excelled in the manufacture of light armoured vehicles.

Industry has not just an economic value to its host state, but also a strategic value.

The 'market' does not take account of this added value. The 'free-market' ideology is therefore flawed.

Great post.

g hall · 18-02-2007, 06:50 PM

Dissident Congress

Quote:

during 2005 that the Army was buying a whole fleet of vehicles from Germany. Surely they could have been made at Longbridge.

Bad for the UK but good for the EU which is why the decision was made by the europhile nulab government

17-02-2007, 05:48 PM	#1 (permalink)
ALLAN J PHILLIPS Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: BIRMINGHAM Posts: 34	THE UNIONS SHOULD WAKE UP There are several factors which cause job losses. Some of them are: The deliberate unashamed movement of capital, whole factories and jobs from Britain. One of the victims has been the closure of the Peugeot plant in Ryton, Coventry, moved to a prepared plant in Slovakia. One million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997. The Government must control the export of capital and jobs even if this offends EU policies emanating from Brussels and also ignore and resist EU Directives. The responsibility of government must be to look after the best interests of the people of Britain and not the profits of transnational corporations. We must leave the EU so that Britain can run its own affairs instead of carrying out orders from Brussels. This must include taking back powers over the economy and the right to promote and protect industries and jobs. The current Labour Government enthusiastically promotes EU policies and has failed to protect those it should represent with complete disregard for the social and economic consequences for those who work for their living. Most trade union leaders, the TUC and the 80% funded European TUC take part in the "social partnership" with the EU Commission and employers who seem to have failed to look after the interests of their members. To stop the rot it is necessary for union members to pressurise their unions to cease support for the EU social partnership and EU institutions promoting the federal "free market" and to take action to prevent the loss of jobs by applying pressure on government to ignore EU directives, laws and policies. In parallel, and to enable this to be done, campaigns should be enhanced for the removal of the Tory and New Labour anti-trade union laws. __________________ I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE EU DICTATORSHIP AND I CAMPAIGN TO GET US OUT OF THIS UNDEMOCRATIC AND DANGEROUS EU.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-02-2007, 07:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Spike Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 58	The basic idea behind the so-called social partership is a fine one, but you are right: it doesn't seem to be working out. In fact, it seems to me that whichever aspect of socialist ideology we scrutinise, we find deep flaws. On the matter of export of manufacturing jobs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The government needs to intervene. (This, of course, introduces a corporatist element to the debate, so no doubt I will now be labelled as a fascist). I felt at the time that HMG should have intervened in the case of MG Rover. "Should the government bale out a lame duck industry?" I was asked. Well yes, when you are at war (as we are right now) is it wise to shut down your manufacturing plants? Do you think that that during WW2 Spitfires were all made by Supermarine? They were produced (in part or in whole) on production lines at Rolls Royce, Wolsley, Hillman, Humber, and many others. Sometimes alongside tanks and other military vehicles. Humber particularly excelled in the manufacture of light armoured vehicles. Industry has not just an economic value to its host state, but also a strategic value. The 'market' does not take account of this added value. The 'free-market' ideology is therefore flawed.

18-02-2007, 02:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
Dissident Congress Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 723	My stance is that trade unions and the Labour party are synonymous with one another and inseparable from each other. If one is opposed to the Labour Party and their policies then they should not support or be members of a trade union. Trade unions may have be guardians of workers during the early 20th century, but times have changed and trade unions no longer stand up for the interests of workers in the face of globalised capitalism and EU legislation, because every trade union is committed to Britain's membership of the EU. This is highlighted by the total inability of trade unions to save Rover from bankruptcy because the EU legislation prevented the British government from nationalising Rover or offering them a loan because it would fall foul of legislation on subsidies to industry. I read something during 2005 that the Army was buying a whole fleet of vehicles from Germany. Surely they could have been made at Longbridge.