delphiandomine: The problem is that actually, Solidarity from the beginning were dreadfully socialist. Spare yourself catch phrases. "Socialist" a scare crow that few even understand. Is equal opportunity socialism? Is earning decent wages socialism? If so then we need to get rid of a few of the top socialists. we could start with the Rotchilds.
delphiandomine: Many industries were/are still State owned and have suffered with huge problems with this. Look at the ridiculous privileges handed out to miners, for example - again, a direct result of emotional blackmail. You might also want to consider that Solidarity management ruined many State owned businesses - as I said, Ciegelski is a great example. Likewise, the shipyards - they refused to modernise. I met one director personally from Ciegelski, who made it clear that they were bound by the workforce - a workforce that doesn't want to change with the times. One example I was given - there was a proposal to produce some new equipment for ships, in a brand new production hall. It was going to involve the re-training of many workers, all at the company expense. It was refused by the trade union - because - the workers didn't want to do something new. Utter nonsense, don't you think? And that's in a State owned company! That is a common technique used in business. Don't let rue democracy in. If it is in then do everything to prove it isn't working, under-fund what is working well and offer a solution. The solution is ALWAYS privatization and a big kick in the workers' colective rear end.
delphiandomine: No, greed is when the workers demand payrises in a company which is losing money. The risk should be shared, no? Greed is also deliberately obstructing reform in order to protect your own position - Strangely, the owners of those companies don't seem to be switching from their BMWs to Fiats 500s. And if the company is loosing money what is exactly its purpose? Shouldn't it be closed? Something is missing here.
delphiandomine: Shouldn't trade unions be apolitical, fighting for the best possible deal for their members irrespective of political inclinations? Nonsense.
Employment, wages, workers' rights is all politics. Any detachment of labor laws (which is definitely a part of politics) from the political is just an artificial construct. If a country has, for instance, minimum wage laws, then labor is a part of politics. If the workers are allowed to or prevented from strikes then it's also politics.
You can't separate the two. The same took place in UK under Thatcher. A political leader who meddled with labor movement. What gives!? Shouldn't she have stayed away from labor and concentrate on politics?
|