Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I didn't say it wouldn't.
It does seem that the brinkmanship is about getting more money for themselves at the expense of the workforce...

Not least since the entire row was kicked off, by the company, about something that had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The company was looking for an excuse to have a row.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:34 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Yes, imagine that! Someone tasked with input which results in increasing Company profit, and job security for their workforce, should get to share in this financial good fortune with other shareholders. It'll never catch on. However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more PHOTOGENIC? And will the bold Ed step up and smack down the guys whose votes got him the top job? Good article by the Mail. Unite are just bullies and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Yes, imagine that! Someone tasked with input which results in increasing Company profit, and job security for their workforce, should get to share in this financial good fortune with other shareholders. It'll never catch on. However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more PHOTOGENIC? And will the bold Ed step up and smack down the guys whose votes got him the top job? Good article by the Mail. Unite are just bullies and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:47 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Good article by the Mail.

Unite are just bullies and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

Answered the questions put to you yet?

Oh dear: no you haven't. One is left to assume that you can't.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:49 am  

Mintball wrote: Not least since the entire row was kicked off, by the company, about something that had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The company was looking for an excuse to have a row. Exit stage left as the former theatre critic (unpaid) of the Morning Star may have observed.

Mintball wrote: Not least since the entire row was kicked off, by the company, about something that had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The company was looking for an excuse to have a row. Exit stage left as the former theatre critic (unpaid) of the Morning Star may have observed.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:07 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Exit stage left as the former theatre critic (unpaid) of the Morning Star may have observed. According to some here, company finances were the problem. Which rather begs the question of why the company therefore needed to use something completely unrelated to trigger a row.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Exit stage left as the former theatre critic (unpaid) of the Morning Star may have observed. According to some here, company finances were the problem. Which rather begs the question of why the company therefore needed to use something completely unrelated to trigger a row.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:13 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

No, I'd say that is more akin to Communism than the sort of Socialism that we have ever seen in the history of Socialism in the UK.

It is however the view of most Americans that Socialism IS Communism hence their panic at the first post WWII Labour government and the view of most Republicans ever since.

That description of Socialism is straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - so are suggesting they have got it wrong?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:21 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

That description of Socialism is straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - so are suggesting they have got it wrong?

He's pointing out that there are differing ideas of what constitutes socialism in different countries/cultures.

A single definition does not, for instance, take account of the long-held analysis of British socialism as owing 'more to Methodism than Marx' (which does go some way to explaining the prudery of much of the British left, though).

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:29 am  

Mintball wrote:

You may need to begin with an understanding of what socialism is and how it differs from communism.

But no, irrespective of accuracy, it doesn't come even close to providing a basis for what "a supposed socialist" should expect to receive as pay in any society, and particularly not in a society that is not organised in such a way.

Mind, "perhaps" is not a sound basis for trying to provide something concrete as a basis for your comment, although it might suggest that you have made the comment without actually thinking about it.

As I said this quote comes straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - picked so that you could not do what you have just done - blur the lines with interpretation. You may think - as usual - that yours is the only view that counts I would trust the scholars at the dictionary more.

The point is this if you spout socialist retoric like McClusky then you should be seen to be at least adopting some of its principles. Better spread of wealth would be a major principle of Socialism - not sure how having a very expensive final salary scheme achieves that, driving large expensive car also, huge salary also. It would be interesting to see where he stayed in Manchester for the Labour Ed bashing? All of this is being paid for by members who will earning significantly less and have significantly worse pension arrangements than McClusky. He is a typical Champagne Socialist - looking after number one whilst spouting about the social equality - who needs to reign his neck in to avoid looking more out of touch than he does already.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:35 am  

Mintball wrote:

He's pointing out that there are differing ideas of what constitutes socialism in different countries/cultures.

A single definition does not, for instance, take account of the long-held analysis of British socialism as owing 'more to Methodism than Marx' (which does go some way to explaining the prudery of much of the British left, though).

And it still does not answer the question of the going rate that a "supposed socialist" should expect for a given job.

You could define Socialism in an infinite number of ways - just as you are trying do now. Interesting how you put your quotes from other people as being the definite comment on any topic yet when others do the same you question the validity - sad really!!

What bit of a relationship between the lowest paid and the highest did you not get? so say the lowest is on minimum wage would it be unreasonable in a socialist society that the top earn 5 times that?

It isn't just McClusky's wage it will be the cost of running him - which I bet will not be a lot different to his salary.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:38 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

As I said this quote comes straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - picked so that you could not do what you have just done - blur the lines with interpretation. You may think - as usual - that yours is the only view that counts I would trust the scholars at the dictionary more...

It's a definition. I haven't disputed that. You're the one who posted something that has not an iota of relevance to the question you were asked.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The point is this if you spout socialist retoric like McClusky then you should be seen to be at least adopting some of its principles. Better spread of wealth would be a major principle of Socialism - not sure how having a very expensive final salary scheme achieves that, driving large expensive car also, huge salary also. It would be interesting to see where he stayed in Manchester for the Labour Ed bashing? All of this is being paid for by members who will earning significantly less and have significantly worse pension arrangements than McClusky. He is a typical Champagne Socialist - looking after number one whilst spouting about the social equality - who needs to reign his neck in to avoid looking more out of touch than he does already.

It's an irrelevance.

It does not answer the question of the going rate that a "supposed socialist" should expect for a given job.

Indeed, if one were to apply that definition to the question, one could say that, in a society that was organised the way your "supposed socialist" might wish – "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" – that suggests that that same "supposed socialist" might be among those deciding what pay is awarded for what job etc.

In which case, it might be anything. Redistribution, if you will, doesn't just have to work downwards. I would also suggest that McCluskey's pay is lower than that of many CEOs in charge of organisations on a scale comparable with Unite.

However, what that definition does not do is:

* suggest any level of renumeration;

* suggest the "supposed socialist" should be on a low income in order not to be "supposed" any more – that is only your interpretation, and we know how little you value interpretation from your comment above;

* have any relevance to the question when concerned with pay in a society that is not organised in such a way.

And for goodness sake – instead of spouting yet another unthinking soundbite, find the bit where it ever says that a socialist shouldn't enjoy champagne, because I'll note that both Fred and Charlie did, and never suggested nobody else should.