Some very valid and interesting points. It must also be considered that we as a country are part of a global economy where transportation is relatively cheap. MMP will have similar production sites all over Europe, production in the UK only makes sense if the unit cost of production + transport is cheaper to a UK destination than the equivalent from a factory in Europe. One of the problems will be a falling demand and uncompetitive production cost in the UK.

We all want to stimulate manufacturing within the UK but to do this we need to be competitive, otherwise what is the point? Companies are not charities and this is where unions need to take a reality check. Unite is particular are scared of conceding in one chapel in case it leads to a feeding frenzy in other places - the unions Unite in particular - think companies have loyalty to factories, they don't. When they say they will close plants if unit costs of production cannot be reduced they mean it. Often it is the only way to get the unions to play ball - Polestar's facility at Colchester and Wynedham' Heron site are two recent examples within print. Unions need to embrace change accept new machinery and differing work patterns are required to remain competitive. The choice is simple either adapt or die.

An example - we produce a big catalogue for a DIY chain, this needs to delivered to mid England and because of its size it needs to produced Gravure. In the UK there are only 2 Gravure sites Prinovis in Liverpool and Polestar in Sheffield. This is a huge job well into 7 figures, the cheapest place to get it produced Monadori in Italy and that includes the transport from Verona to mid England. So if all three sites were owned by the one company which one would you definitely keep open? That is the decisions companies are making all the time as demand for some products shrinks.

As an economy we cannot expect commercial enterprises to take an altruistic view on loss making plants because it help the UK economy - it will not happen. We need to ensure our manufacturing cost base is competitive within its sector - this is where the Unions need to wake up and smell the coffee. It may well mean that some will see a reduction in their overtime but if it keeps the whole in work that must be a positive.

Beer and sandwiches was just to give the unions the lay of the land or to say thanks for the financial backing? Nothing to do with the unions telling the government what they wanted? These being the unions that at the time set Labour Party policy by block vote and controlled selections for parliamentary candidates? A tad naive methinks.

FWIW I think most unions today are far more clued into economic reality than they have ever been before, and there's generally more flexibility on both sides.

The problem is that the workers in the weakest positions such as healthcare non-professionals often aren't and can't be helped much by unions. That's why I can't agree with any attempt to remove minimum wages and conditions. That sort of legislation may not be perfect but it at least provides protection for the people who by nature of the work they do have absolutely no power at all - they could strike for a year and have no impact. They'd just get replaced by someone more desperate.

To balance things out, as I've suggested before, bosses of any company/institution should be limited in salary (or any other form of compensation) to a maximum multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid employee. That would mean the bosses and workers are all in the same boat, (albeit allowing the CEO to earn 20 times more than the lowest paid or whatever the multiple should be) and directly incentivise bosses to increase wealth across their business.

The argument that the top bosses would all f*ck off to America or somewhere is cobblers - British bosses as far as I can tell aren't really rated at all, and even if they were, the next generation of eager wannabees would soon take their place. I don't agree with a lot of the left-wing diatribes on here, and there are certainly exceptions to the 'greedy bosses' mantra, but executive compensation and its inherent unfairness needs to be addressed at some stage.

And neither are the workforce.

They have to live – at a time when there the cost of living is rising.

And only an economic illiterate would not also realise the link between having an economy that is 3/4 based on the service sectors – and the need for people to have disposable income in order to keep that economy even just ticking over.

And the unions aren't even asking for a pay rise – simply for some staff in a company that is increasing profits and dividends not to lose their jobs.

Perhaps is the kind of rampant greed an utter irresponsibility that sees companies sack workers even when the company is not remotely doing badly or at risk were controlled it'd be better for everyone, eh?

A lot of people are missing the point on (or ignoring, most likely) a very simple question.

What if the company concerned cannot AFFORD to keep employees on?

It's all very well going on about HSBC making people redundant because of lower than expected profits. If you think that is TYPICAL of 'private business' then you're way out. And no, I don't think the HSBC example is any way to do business, before any of you start.

Similarly it's all very well going on about great big Japanese companies keeping employees on in exchange for longer hours in the future. That is completely subject to said company having cash reserves to do it. What if you don't have that luxury?

For a start where did I say the drivers are asking for a pay rise? - you need to learn to read before spouting your diatribe. I also said no one should should ever be compromised on H&S - again you should at least read what other people write. If the company want to achieve greater efficiency it should be their job to streamline the processes to facilitate said efficiency savings - once again if you had actually read what I wrote you might save yourself from looking quite so stupid - LOVE.

Yes the economy needs more spending to stimulate it - where is that spending going to come from? increased public sector jobs - maybe we could have people licking hospitals clean!! Maybe we can increase further the service sector!! or just maybe we can increase our manufacturing base? Unlike the service sector to do that we have to be competitive, especially within the EEC - this is where the unions need compromise. Perhaps if they were prepared to do appropriate local deals rather running scared of the affect on other chapels that might be a start.

You seem to think bosses actually care - the company I work for - a PLC - we haven't had a pay rise in 4 years, this year the bosses awarded themselves 250k each in bonuses and closed 6 factories. Life isn't fair in the real world. Before you ask our staff turnover is virtually zero.

Unite performance within the print sector is terrible, they are completely impotent and as the OP shows they often cause more problems when they get involved. In the last three years I have seen a dispute where they have got involved where they have managed to get a decision reversed. In the end they do what they are told because companies will simply close factories if they cannot manage them the way they want - that is the real world as the OP has shown.

Obviously not typical indeed – just as this company was making increased profits and paying increased dividends ...

I got confused between your varied rants over many threads, and others' anti-union claptrap. Hence my removing the bit about drivers from this thread when I realised my confusion – before you posted.



So what's your excuse for posting screeds of bilious rubbish?



Hey, ducky wucky – I removed that bit. If only you'd checked before posting, eh?

But then you managed this illiterate cobblers:

"Also have Unite the barmiest union around involved will hinder this no end."

There's a reason Coddy told you to stick to paper and not comment on transporting hazardous materials.



I didn't mention the public services. Perhaps you need to take your advice and read things properly.

But if more people are made redundant, that will be less tax revenue for the exchequer, more paid out in benefits – and less disposable income that goes into local economies – meaning that more businesses will be lost and more people will become unemployed etc etc etc.

Of course the long-term aim has to be to change the proportion of the national economy to a greater amount that we are producing, but that will not happen overnight. It will take time for people to create and develop new products, then get them into production and find markets. In the meantime, the economy needs people to have disposable income – and if they don't, then things will get worse.

That's really straightforward and simple to understand.




Aw diddy widdums. Perhaps if you got off your whinging backside and organised with your colleagues, you could change that situation, instead of just bending over backwards and accepting it – and then expecting everyone else to do the same.

Nobody's suggested they should "care" as some sort of altruistic matter.

So the point, then, is to make them value you properly. And you are a damned sight better equipped to do that when you do so with others.



Yes dear. We know. All managements are wonderful and always right – or they just don't care and you'll readily bend over for your daily sodomising without raising a whimper except to lecture others about how they should do the same because that's "the real world".

Enjoy it.

But the way some people go on, you would think that all management ever do in any company you care to name, is squeeze employees in order to line their own pockets. As management myself, and as one who doesn't do that, I find that assertion very offensive.

As I'm sure anyone with union affiliation would find other peoples' assertion that all unions ever do in all cases is take everyone out of work.

I think the distinction between publicly quoted and private companies has been made and mostly agreed upon. A private company is not beholden to institutional investors, who in the main are accounts-minded. Private companies have other pressures certainly but are less likely to make decisions based purely on a need to reduce overhead, simply to increase dividends.

The owners and managers of private companies are usually closer to the actual operation, in all apects and tend to make decision on what is best for all concerned. The German Mittelstand being prime examples.

So a company which has a division running at a sizeable loss should keep that division going at any cost as long as the bottom line of the group overall is showing a profit?

That's a remarkably simplistic view to take. If I have six factories in six different countries, five of which are making £1m in profits a year each and one making a £2m loss every year, should I feel obliged to keep the loss making one open just so I don't adversely impact the economy in the area in which it is based?