On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:45:36 +0200, David Sanders <dsuzukisand...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a bit strong. I think foreign investors were already put off by > our far higher rates of pay in relation to newer manufacturing > opportunities in the far east. To call the workers of the 70s and 80s > "workshy" is to simplify a very big social problem into a Daily > Mail-style "solution" (IE - it's all those horrible worker's fault). > > I can't believe you think all industrial action is "moron"ic,
Aha! A straw man! I don't and never said I did. The actions of the unions _in the 70s and 80s_ was utterly unreasonable. The idea of a union is that a fair settlement can be reached by having a negotiator who can speak and act on behalf of a large number of people, and that if one member is victimised by his employer that union can act in solidarity and protect its member. I am 100% behind that. The problem is that the unions had decided that, even though the economic realities, and not the companies themselves, were dictating the required action, they were not prepared to accept it. That, to me, is moronic. The most obvious example is Scargill, who would not accept that cheap foreign coal was making many UK pits, with difficult and relatively expensive extraction, unviable. And I said that the foreign investors were scared of a workshy british workforce, which is definitely how they were perceived in the early 80s, that perception caused by the action of the unions and the constant reporting of it in the media. Now we're getting seriously off-topic... erm, favourite crisp flavour anyone? :) G
