Sal Paradise wrote:
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...
OK ... we clearly differ on that one.
I believe there has to be a limit or some kind of brake on the multiple, as part of a fairer, more balanced society, reason being that it makes life better for more people.
You seem not to care about that at all and the gap can continue widening ... ultimately that would mean virtually all the wealth in the hands of a tiny percentage and all the rest would be allowed only what makes them productive.
I struggle to see a great deal of difference between that and slavery.
Sal Paradise wrote:
... 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!!..
That's a bit vague David, you'll need to say what it is that McCluskey preaches but does not practise.
It does sound like you are defining his socialism for him, at the moment it sounds like you're saying that Ratcliffe can have as much as he likes but McCluskey's 5x is somehow immoral.
Is Ratcliffe practising what he preaches? Must his workforce lose out so that he makes more money and, if so, is that somehow more moral than a Union official on a 5x multiple?
Sal Paradise wrote:
... So how did McClusky "improve/maintain the remuneration of his members in this case"?..
He didn't ... but he tried ... and that's his job.
According to your initial post, he should have simply acceded to whatever Ratcliffe said.
However, that was not my point ... I was making the point that, in the tussle about who gets what from Ineos (i.e. Ratcliffe or his employees), McCluskey's salary is not part of the negotiation nor is it in any slightest way relevant to the argument about the strike/settlement/dispute.
BTW - DISCLAIMER
I am not a member of a trades union and have not been since I was apprenticed and fell out with the union about the political levy.
I paid my dues but not the levy and, after several months, the convener (a bullying pr!ck) interpreted that as being behind in my dues and would not accept my membership without the levy, so I told him where to stick it.
I mention this only to illustrate that I am in no way a Union apologist.
