[DaveO]

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:56 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: That description of Socialism is straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - so are suggesting they have got it wrong? Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice.

Sal Paradise wrote: That description of Socialism is straight from the Oxford English Dictionary - so are suggesting they have got it wrong? Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:18 am  

DaveO wrote: Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice. LOL

DaveO wrote: Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice. LOL

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:20 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: ...Better spread of wealth would be a major principle of Socialism... That accords with my own personal view of Socialism (I'm probably a Social Democrat). What actually constitutes that better spread of wealth, I guess, depends on one's own views. So, whilst I think of myself as a Socialist (of sorts), I can't and won't allow your definition to frame my view. Sal Paradise wrote: ...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 ... This sounds dangerously like your favourite ... i.e. the politics of envy. Sal Paradise wrote: ...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. "Champagne Socialist" ... Bingo !! ... it's been a while since you gave that meaningless term an airing. McClusky might be paid much better and have a better pension than the members ... and I would agree he would be more credible if his pay was not such a high multiple of that of his members ... but, nonetheless, at a multiple of around five times, it's not stratospheric is it? But that's not the point, McCluskey's remuneration by the Union is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of his attempts to improve/maintain the remuneration of his members. If you want to make a "spread of wealth" comparison, I'd suggest that this should compare Ratcliffe's income from Ineos against the mean income (i.e. not the average) of Ineos employees ... and my guess is that it would far, far, exceed the five-times multiple that you find so abhorrent. I wouldn't be surprised at a hundred-times multiple. This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16545898 contains a graph which shows that the income gap has risen and risen since 1979 such that it is now back where it was in the 1930's. This is not how you build a healthy, happy or equitable society. Back to Ineos then ... Ratcliffe runs Ineos very highly leveraged but has agreements with his creditors not to increase his debt beyond an agreed level ... the credit crunch (how that term already sounds archaic) pushed him exceedingly close to the debt limit and he has reduced cost by shifting the head office to Switzerland (after HMG wouldn't allow him to defer his VAT payments), sacking workforce, selling-off bits of the business and is now (in my guess) trying to get the pensions monkey off his back ... but he knew what the pension shortfall was when he bought the company and now he's using bullying brinkmanship (and, IMHO, lies about the refinery) to rid himself of that responsibility.

Sal Paradise wrote: ...Better spread of wealth would be a major principle of Socialism... That accords with my own personal view of Socialism (I'm probably a Social Democrat). What actually constitutes that better spread of wealth, I guess, depends on one's own views. So, whilst I think of myself as a Socialist (of sorts), I can't and won't allow your definition to frame my view. Sal Paradise wrote: ...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 ... This sounds dangerously like your favourite ... i.e. the politics of envy. Sal Paradise wrote: ...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. "Champagne Socialist" ... Bingo !! ... it's been a while since you gave that meaningless term an airing. McClusky might be paid much better and have a better pension than the members ... and I would agree he would be more credible if his pay was not such a high multiple of that of his members ... but, nonetheless, at a multiple of around five times, it's not stratospheric is it? But that's not the point, McCluskey's remuneration by the Union is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of his attempts to improve/maintain the remuneration of his members. If you want to make a "spread of wealth" comparison, I'd suggest that this should compare Ratcliffe's income from Ineos against the mean income (i.e. not the average) of Ineos employees ... and my guess is that it would far, far, exceed the five-times multiple that you find so abhorrent. I wouldn't be surprised at a hundred-times multiple. This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16545898 contains a graph which shows that the income gap has risen and risen since 1979 such that it is now back where it was in the 1930's. This is not how you build a healthy, happy or equitable society. Back to Ineos then ... Ratcliffe runs Ineos very highly leveraged but has agreements with his creditors not to increase his debt beyond an agreed level ... the credit crunch (how that term already sounds archaic) pushed him exceedingly close to the debt limit and he has reduced cost by shifting the head office to Switzerland (after HMG wouldn't allow him to defer his VAT payments), sacking workforce, selling-off bits of the business and is now (in my guess) trying to get the pensions monkey off his back ... but he knew what the pension shortfall was when he bought the company and now he's using bullying brinkmanship (and, IMHO, lies about the refinery) to rid himself of that responsibility.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:37 am  

On a related note, I saw a tweet by Richard Branson earlier this week about an article on Henry Ford, apparently during a trial v the Dodge Brothers (who wanted 75% of Ford's $39,000,000 bank balance paid in dividends, Ford wanted to expand the plant and employ more people) he talks about his idea of "the purpose of business".
A small selection from it:

"Henry Ford, speaking to what he saw the true purpose of his company and business: in essence, to give people transformative freedom through ubiquity of the automobile and through meaningful employment to a large number of people at wages enabling better livelihoods.

In a just few words, he relegates financial profit almost to ‘also-ran’ status, and a by-product of pursuing meaningful things well, with meaningful outcomes. Or in his word at court: “Organized to do as much good as we can, everywhere, for everybody concerned.”

In it, he even goes on to share the idea of a “reasonable profit” – not too much, but just the right amount to continue to go on doing those meaningful things."

A shame he was anti-semitic.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:58 am  

Him wrote:

On a related note...

Henry Ford also believed in paying high wages to a) attract the best workers and b) because it was good for the economy.

Of course, if anyone could have undercut him by fair means or foul, he wouldn't have been able to adhere to that policy ... which is, to my mind, where Government and legislation needs to step in, to ensure that (what I would call) bad practices and unfair terms are not foisted onto the workforce of a country, otherwise it's just an ultimately self-defeating short-termist race to the bottom which actually shrinks the economy in the longer term, widening the income gap all the time.

n.b. I'm not advocating over-payment (which leads to ruinous inflation) and I'm not riling against increased efficiency (where it really is increased efficiency rather than simple and/or unfair cost-cutting to benefit an already over-comfortable and small section of society).
Rather, I'm thinking of the many calls we hear from captains of industry bemoaning employment legislation that they see as restrictive, and the likelihood that our current government will see it in the same way.
There needs to be maintained a basic level of fair treatment of the workforce (aka society), otherwise democracy is a worthless sham of little bread and disappearingly few circuses.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:30 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: That accords with my own personal view of Socialism (I'm probably a Social Democrat). What actually constitutes that better spread of wealth, I guess, depends on one's own views. So, whilst I think of myself as a Socialist (of sorts), I can't and won't allow your definition to frame my view. This sounds dangerously like your favourite ... i.e. the politics of envy. "Champagne Socialist" ... Bingo !! ... it's been a while since you gave that meaningless term an airing. McClusky might be paid much better and have a better pension than the members ... and I would agree he would be more credible if his pay was not such a high multiple of that of his members ... but, nonetheless, at a multiple of around five times, it's not stratospheric is it? But that's not the point, McCluskey's remuneration by the Union is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of his attempts to improve/maintain the remuneration of his members. If you want to make a "spread of wealth" comparison, I'd suggest that this should compare Ratcliffe's income from Ineos against the mean income (i.e. not the average) of Ineos employees ... and my guess is that it would far, far, exceed the five-times multiple that you find so abhorrent. I wouldn't be surprised at a hundred-times multiple. This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16545898 contains a graph which shows that the income gap has risen and risen since 1979 such that it is now back where it was in the 1930's. This is not how you build a healthy, happy or equitable society. Back to Ineos then ... Ratcliffe runs Ineos very highly leveraged but has agreements with his creditors not to increase his debt beyond an agreed level ... the credit crunch (how that term already sounds archaic) pushed him exceedingly close to the debt limit and he has reduced cost by shifting the head office to Switzerland (after HMG wouldn't allow him to defer his VAT payments), sacking workforce, selling-off bits of the business and is now (in my guess) trying to get the pensions monkey off his back ... but he knew what the pension shortfall was when he bought the company and now he's using bullying brinkmanship (and, IMHO, lies about the refinery) to rid himself of that responsibility. I don't find that gap between Ratcliffe's earnings and the rest an issue - not sure I saw him standing up at the Labour party conference spouting left wing clap trap. My times five was an attempt engage Mintball in actually stating a position on this issue rather than posting a link to someone else's point. For me McClusky, a bit like Bob Crow lacks credibility, he doesn't practise what he preaches a bit like Major on family values that is the issue for me!! So how did McClusky "improve/maintain the remuneration of his members in this case"? I agree with you Ratcliffe is trying to limit his pension liabilities before he closes the plant - I suspect the site has 3 years tops.

El Barbudo wrote: That accords with my own personal view of Socialism (I'm probably a Social Democrat). What actually constitutes that better spread of wealth, I guess, depends on one's own views. So, whilst I think of myself as a Socialist (of sorts), I can't and won't allow your definition to frame my view. This sounds dangerously like your favourite ... i.e. the politics of envy. "Champagne Socialist" ... Bingo !! ... it's been a while since you gave that meaningless term an airing. McClusky might be paid much better and have a better pension than the members ... and I would agree he would be more credible if his pay was not such a high multiple of that of his members ... but, nonetheless, at a multiple of around five times, it's not stratospheric is it? But that's not the point, McCluskey's remuneration by the Union is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of his attempts to improve/maintain the remuneration of his members. If you want to make a "spread of wealth" comparison, I'd suggest that this should compare Ratcliffe's income from Ineos against the mean income (i.e. not the average) of Ineos employees ... and my guess is that it would far, far, exceed the five-times multiple that you find so abhorrent. I wouldn't be surprised at a hundred-times multiple. This article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16545898 contains a graph which shows that the income gap has risen and risen since 1979 such that it is now back where it was in the 1930's. This is not how you build a healthy, happy or equitable society. Back to Ineos then ... Ratcliffe runs Ineos very highly leveraged but has agreements with his creditors not to increase his debt beyond an agreed level ... the credit crunch (how that term already sounds archaic) pushed him exceedingly close to the debt limit and he has reduced cost by shifting the head office to Switzerland (after HMG wouldn't allow him to defer his VAT payments), sacking workforce, selling-off bits of the business and is now (in my guess) trying to get the pensions monkey off his back ... but he knew what the pension shortfall was when he bought the company and now he's using bullying brinkmanship (and, IMHO, lies about the refinery) to rid himself of that responsibility. I don't find that gap between Ratcliffe's earnings and the rest an issue - not sure I saw him standing up at the Labour party conference spouting left wing clap trap. My times five was an attempt engage Mintball in actually stating a position on this issue rather than posting a link to someone else's point. For me McClusky, a bit like Bob Crow lacks credibility, he doesn't practise what he preaches a bit like Major on family values that is the issue for me!! So how did McClusky "improve/maintain the remuneration of his members in this case"? I agree with you Ratcliffe is trying to limit his pension liabilities before he closes the plant - I suspect the site has 3 years tops.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:32 pm  

DaveO wrote: Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice. Because they were listed as two separate interpretations - simple really. Not one continuous version as you are implying here.

DaveO wrote: Why didn't you quote the entire text from the dictionary definition? http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism This is it: noun [mass noun] 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy So clearly as your reference site states term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe many different positions and all you are doing is selectively quoting the one part that suits your prejudice. Because they were listed as two separate interpretations - simple really. Not one continuous version as you are implying here.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:32 pm  

I'm still waiting for an answer: what should a "supposed socialist" expect as wages?

You have not provided an iota of a basis for claiming that he's overpaid for "a supposed socialist".

Now you bring Crow up – for Christ's sake: he lives in council house. What more do you want? Do you get upset that he doesn't live anywhere flasher, and therefore enable you to complain about that? Standee does – he's apparently holding up all of one whole household of really poor people having a home.

Which brings us right back to what a "supposed socialist" gets to earn and where they get to live before a bunch of right-wing nutjobs get to pretend they comprehend ethics – which they're incapable of grasping it on any other point, like bankers, as but one example.

The amount of crap that some of you lot come out with is really gobsmacking.

You need to supply real, concrete evidence to back up your comments, instead of all this floundering around when caught out spouting soundbite bôllôcks. Try facts for a change. Who knows – you might even like them.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:33 pm  

Him wrote:

LOL

Ha ha - I see you failed to answer any of the points - seems you are getting bashed up on every thread - so sad.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:41 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

For me McClusky, a bit like Bob Crow lacks credibility, he doesn't practise what he preaches a bit like Major on family values that is the issue for me!!

Yep, it's a bit like millionaire Prime Ministers spouting that, 'were all in it together'.
Then take four holidays in a year whilst ordinary people face cuts, zero hours working and job insecurity.