It would be interesting if each of the agencies in the public sector were made keep within their budgets i.e. any overruns in the programme expenditure and they'd have to pay the extra out of their salaries budget (I suppose consquently, if there were savings, then they all get a bonus).
The R Word
- Thread starter ccbkd
- Start date
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Your are interpreting what I am saying based on your own prejudice. Not on the facts of what I am saying. Multinationals who abide by the laws of these countries and offer these people a fair wage based on thier own standard of living is quite acceptable to me. However this is frequently not the case. Where they get the oppurtunity multinationsals have and will contimue to exploit workers in the developing world. This is a fact. And you think otherwise your being nieve. Yes development is important but development that takes into account some basic decency and standards of social justice. And yes if you asked these people would they rather have a job (where they know they are being exploited) or no job at all, they would probably take the job. However this does not lessen the exploitation and the need to try and change it. You want to leave it up to the market place to gradually improve these peoples lives. You fail to realise that in Europe these better conditions were won by trade unions and the left. If someone does not fight for these rights for emerging countries they are not going to be given them.
Your other points are good. 5 is hard to do unless you have enough power to force it through. Look at Mary Harney, she wants to reform the system, but can't rock the boat too much or it will sink. But maybe it is time for it to sink, clear the boards and start again.
Now the HSE. It should stand and perform it's original purpose. All the regional health boards under it should be basically scrapped. They are all duplicating the same paper pushing back office operations. Their numerous different systems where mainly designed for the NHS, and anyone of them is capable of running the whole country. Rest of rant removed...
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Rethoric in relation for the need for social justice and unity among workers accross the world is not dated. Do you realise that there ishundred of millions of workers in the developing world who are suffering exploitation and terms and conditions that are by any standard is immoral. You think this is morally acceptable? Business has a role in solving poverty and improving peoples lives but without being allowed to organise some business will exploit these workers. This is a fact. This is not outdated. It happens every day in a greater scale than ever happened in Europe in the 19 century, Billions of people expolited. They deserve better. YOu want to call them "socialists" if they are tryign to unit, of trying to deride anyone who points out the need for all workers to show some solidarity with them with the cheap name call of "out dates socialism". Its never outdated to have concern for workers accross the globe. of telling business that they should abide by some basic moral ethical and social princials. You may have some nieve view that unchecked global capitialism will solve the worlds problems. The reality over the last hundred years it that it has made winners out of a few nations while plunging the rest (billions of people) into poverty and misery.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Joe sod. I am not talking about the russian revolution. And your assessment in relation tothe colapse of Russian communism is flawed to say the least. I am saying that the terms and conditions of employment that we all take for granted today were won by socialist groups in france and germany and england in the 19 and early 20 century. they were not given in a willing magnamimus way by business. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
So when people deride unions take into account that they are there to serve the needs of workers, like me and you. to do thier best to ensure that workers have a voice. That is not outdated it is perfectly reasonable
Actually, the biggest reform in labour conditions in Europe was due to the Black Death. And was caused by simple supply and demand economics rather than unions or protests. With half the workforce eliminated, there was competition for workers and so employers had to give better terms and conditions or else they couldnt recruit or lost their people to other employers with better conditions. This broke the semi-slavery system that existed up to this time.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
I abviously talking to a historian here. I shall take about to your superior knowledge.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Listen csirl your big time out of your comfort zone with that last one. Stick to what you know Its when you make most sense even if I completly disagree with you.
I am talking about the agricultural/industrial revolution 1750-1850. Black death has nothing to with it.
Its when you make most sense even if I completly disagree with you. I am talking about the agricultural/industrial revolution 1750-1850. Black death has nothing to with it.
T
Treehouse
Guest
This is great.
Abolish the PS, save the country!
Talk about seeing the hole and not the doughnut.
Abolish the PS, save the country!
Talk about seeing the hole and not the doughnut.
J
jimbob1234
Guest
sence?
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
J
jimbob1234
Guest
i know what sense is. i just didnt know what sence was.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
I suggest you use your common sense jimbob
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Sorry Sunny I am not. agricultural revloution industrial revloution aprox 1750-1870.
Gradual improvement in the conditions of workers won by the socialist movement from the 1820 turn of the century with further improvements untilthe present day. I am abslolutly clear about that and have no confusion. Of course these dates are aproximations but pretty accurate.
Why do some people latch on to numbers without having a clue of the context and then get all smug? You have not got a clue Sunny.
What is required is government for the people, of the people and by the people (Abe Lincoln). In the modern era you are confusing corruption and ineptitude by governments, and the exploitation that follows within such a failed state, with exploitation due to the economic model that states purport to adhere to. It doesn’t matter if a country is capitalist or socialist if the government fails to legislate and govern for the people its citizens will be exploited. You see the vehicle for that exploitation and you say it is the root cause. In that you are incorrect.
By the way csirl is completely correct that the black death was the reason that European peasants and the “low-born” were empowered. It also lead to the Agricultural revolution and the Industrial revolution. Despite the rhetoric the industrial revolution lead to a massive increase in living standards for the poor and a massive decrease in infant mortality rates.
But before this agricultural workers were treated even worse by big and small farmers. The root cause was not capitalism it was the lack of a real universal franchise (even one for men only). Without democracy and government for the people none of this would have happened. I do accept, BTW, that unions played a valuable role in improving rights for average employees. The problem is that they seem to be stuck in the 1920’s and forget that the battles have been won and they are now political lobby groups for protected middle-class state employees.
television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Where does curruption come from by and larger? from business wanting to bend the rules, to try to get around the laws of the land for their own greed.
Frequently leglislation is ignored by business where they can get away with it. Business has a responcibility to act morally, not just pay lip service to laws and bend them where possible.
That is not what she was arguing? Look at her post.
There is a tendency to make straw men here and then break them down. It is really annoying. Lets keep this dissussion in context. we are talking about the origins of the movement for the betterment of workers rights brought about by worker orginisation since the agrivulutral revolution. It is irlivent to talk about the black death and the subsequent labour shortage and improvement in the remaining workers rights at that time and then make the assumption that this had any effect on the movement for reform 300 years later. It is stretching it to the extreme.
That is about the most vague and nonsencical comment I have ever heard. If you try to ake a very vague and broad statement hoping some of it is factual without having the slighest grasp of the facts then go head. I an not prepared to enter into a mindless discussion with someone not if full grasp of the facts.
Yes the Industrial revolution had a positive effect on the people of europe. But ordinary workers had to fight to get basic standards in terms of employment and force governments to legislate. They did this through worker organisation. it would not have been given to them without organisation. Governments and business listen when people have a united voice.
Z
z109
Guest
You are confusing rights of workers to be treated fairly in their contract of employment with individual voting rights. In the UK and Ireland, 1867 and 1884 are the key dates in which male workers won some voting rights. 1867 giving them to landed agricultural workers and urban householders and 1884 extending them more generally.
Workers rights in Britain and Ireland came in around in the same time period with a number of factory acts.
What was important was the liberal capitalist ideology that infused both the Tories and the Liberals at the time.
France was largely a dictatorship in the nineteen century (either with a monarchy or an elected monarch).
Germany didn't exist as a country until after 1870. It too was an absolute monarchy, although Bismarch introduced an advisory elected assembly.
If you're going to use a historical basis for your argument...
"past performance is not indicative of future returns" .... while the history lesson is interesting, I struggle to see how it changes the reality of our economy becoming increasingly uncompetitive ..... central government and public services are part of the solution and like everyone else, need to trim some of the fat out of the system. We can no longer afford some of the flab that exists.... in the last week we have seen the silo'd menality of many of the players which does not bode well for a quick and flexible response to the hole we find ourselves in. We simply have a cost base in this country which is not sustainable.