The entire history of british unionism in one sentence. The insane belief...etc...
is as sweeping a statement as one could make, which was my point.
And you consistently talk here as if developments were always somehow natural and inevitable: as if there were no powers at work pushing the levers of change ("technology" is not always a neutral force that just happens to change things, it can be applied to effect change in favour of the interests of a category or class).
So what would you have unions do but fight? OK, they didn't and don't always choose the right fights or the right way of fighting. But I don't understand your angry dismissal of them. Try getting mad at the capitalists instead?
(And don't get mad at me because I snark at one of your comments ;))
Your criticism is valid, but equally I would argue that all technology change is driven, to a greater or lesser extent, by a vested interest of category or class. Change has a cost to implement, you don't do it if it doesn't make changes that reflect greater bang per buck.
What should unions do ? Accept change, embrace change, own change. Be a part of the process. Negotiate with an honest acceptance that the more the business thrives, the more chance there is of continuing employment.
However, the relationship between unions and management in much of the anglo-economy is based on an atagonistic zero-sum game where, to prevent unions gumming up the works entirely, the rules have been gamed to ensure only the management win nowadays.
you must remember that the most awful example of unions "protecting" differentials and jobs was in councils where the unions and management were in unholy alliance to prevent sex equality legislation from being implemented fairly. This resulted in huge legal payouts against the unions and the councils that nearly bankrupted them (and they whined all the way). And they did it because they were more interested in preserving the old-fashioned status quo than in helping work practices enter the 21st century. keep to the Fen Causeway
