sorry bruce, usually respect your views, but this time feel you are way out of touch.
you sound like maggie in the 80's. and imho she ripped the bowels out of the north of the country.
unions were overboard in the 70' and took the piss, but since then bosses took it too far the other way and they took the piss, i just think it needs to even up at little with a (small) swing to the workers
i believe that a happy workforce is more productive.
I'm afraid Thatcher was right though. That isn't to say that she was popular, of course she wasn't but she had the foresight to see that many of our industries simply weren't good enough to survive in an open market. The days of Britain building the world are long gone, China has that mantle now. Our strength is financial and the City leads the world.
I agree that a happy workforce is more productive and I suspect that the vast majority of corporations will agree with this also. If you look at someone like Toyota they go to great lengths to develop their employees, and they lead the world in car manufacturing. GE are the same and they lead the world in most of what they do. The notion that all companies are out to exploit their workers is very outdated.
Yes, it's true that the forces of globalisation have helped to make owners more money due to cheaper labour overseas but don't forget that it has also kept our economy growing over the past decade because much as Gordon Brown is loathe to admit it, it's been the growth in China and India that has led to global economic growth rather than his own tax and spend policies.
With regards to Blairs points:
Firstly, the "oh, it's always the Public Sector workers that cause a fuss"... mainly, iit's because they have a tendency to get shat upon from the greatest of heights because those that employ them know that a vast majority are motivated more by a sense of duty than money (why else would a Nurse work in the NHS rather than BUPA, where people very rarely spit at or punch you, or if they do, it's a far better class of spit).
I don't buy this 'sense of duty' thing one bit. People by and large look out for themselves first and foremost and go into a career for their own ends, be they financial or otherwise. Providing no one forced them into their chosen career then they can expect no sympathy from me if their chosen career doesn't meet those ends. This of course ignores the latest research that shows graduates starting out in public sector jobs earn on average £21,000p/a compared to £20,000 in the private sector. Not really being [Poor language removed] on either way is it, and perhaps if they were it might be because they work for a monopoly?
The other facet of this is the "Well, why did you sign up then?". Maybe, just [Poor language removed] maybe, they signed up to do a job that they felt made a [Poor language removed] defference.... their reward for this shouldn't be having to smile while they get crapped on, they should have a means of making their point.
Again, I simply don't buy this nobler than thou attitude, as though people working in the private sector are money grabbing low lives who couldn't give a monkeys about anything but their pay cheque. It's an incredibly simplified view of society and one that certainly isn't born out by evidence. This socialist idea that making money is a dirty thing is terribly out dated. If you get down to the basics of a transaction it is essentially each consumer voting for a product or service by handing over their money in return for it. I get to cast my 'vote' every week when I buy my groceries etc. unlike every four years for a government that then steals my money and dictates how it will be spent. I can just imagine the uproar if we were all forced to hand over money to Tesco, regardless of whether we shopped there or not. Good job the government are all in it to make a difference though hey, not like they'd be scoundrels and sell peerages or bribe Saudi princes
