So, we are supposed to state the whole of acculumated human knowledge in each post are we?

Of course not.
But, in a discussion about unions and wages, to state that unit labour costs have been kept down, without also mentioning the fact that those costs were kept down by means other than wage restraint/reduction, is rather remiss and misleading.

In the case of Daimler Benz, I can categorically state that although unit labour costs reduced, that in no way was reflected in a lowering of wages.

In the 1990s, MBAG realised that they were becoming uncompetitive, even in the luxury car market. They used to build cars twice: an individually ordered car shell would be produced in bare metal, all doors, boot, bonnet etc would then be fitted and made sure that they fitted properly. The car would then be disassembled and all the tin would go for painting etc and was then reassembled again. An electric loom, particular to the individual chassis would also be produced, with only the electrical connectors, according the the individual build sheet. On the production line at Sindelfingen, you would see a C180, followed by an S600, followed by an E200 etc.

They rationalised production methods by employing universal wiring looms, they stopped fannying around building cars twice and simply did what every other manufacturer in the world did.

The end result was a lowering of unit costs but this did not come at the expense of redundancies or lower wages.

I watched a documentary on Triumph Motorcycles recently, in particular their production line, which operates pretty much in the same way as you described the Merc one working previously.

Although they are going through a boom time (apparently) and have a bigger range of bikes now than they have ever had, they still build in batches according to what orders have come through from the resellers, so the line from one day to the next will be totally different and you'll often get two of one model followed by a one-off from another model, then three of another etc and all of the workstations have to have the correct batch of parts, spares, nuts and bolts according to what is coming down next, all to hand in the correct boxes - each assembler has to be able to work on several different models and each workstation needs a couple of assistants to keep the assembler stocked up.

Despite sounding inefficient it is apparently the most efficient way for a company like Triumph to work, they build very little for stock and its their flexibility that has caused the rebirth of the original company which was in mothballs for many years.

Oh good god.
What point have I made that requires evidence to back it up?

Where have I questioned your education? Unless you really did fail GCSE maths.


Again, what point have I made that requires evidence to back it up?

You have basically rubbished every opinion poll he has offered without anything but your opinion as justification. Then in typical RLfans stylee you changed tack when found wanting and started to question the personality of someone you know nothing in the slightest about.

Yep, according to the EC Germany's average wage is roughly 3,000 Euros higher than the UK, and the average hourly labour cost is roughly 10 Euros per hour higher in Germany than in the UK.

My opinion as justification for what? That the opinion polls he quoted are rubbish? What "evidence" should I have provided to prove that? It's obvious and doesn't require evidence even if such evidence were available.
He kept continually referring to the same ridiculous polls as if somehow saying it over and over again makes them more legitimate, he changed the basis of his point several times, mis-represented the nature and results of the polls and has repeatedly asked me for evidence of a non-existent point that I have never made.

I'll ask the question again, since neither you nor Ajw seem able or willing to answer it...
which point have I made that required evidence to back it up?

If you cannot answer that, kindly do not respond.

Mainly because they were either self selecting, a very narrow pool of respondents or wooly questions.

If you ask an eight year old if the want some sweets you know what answer you are going to get more often that not.

Please tell me you are bright enough to see that the "polls" are a reflection of the question and the pool of respondents rather than any popularity contest.

Thing is though, I didn't just offer one or two polls, there were nine that all rank Thatcher highly. If I had offered one or two then I could appreciate that they might be questionable.

However every one of the polls ranks Thatcher highly. This is in stark contrast to what you and others on here believe in that she was no good etc.

If yours was a widespread belief (altough I appreciate it may be in certain areas of the UK) in the UK population she simply wouldn't rank so highly in every poll on the issue. She certainly wouldn't be ranked the 16th best Briton.

Now, I appreciate that you may not like her. Fine, but surely you can see that many people do and consider her one our best PM's?