UK union leader Bob Crow dead

Dissolution said:
You've pointed out the work of a union, rather than the work of a union leader.
There's very little doubt that he ensured that the members of the RMT were well looked after during his tenure, which saw it's membership quadruple.
Whether you were happy about his methods is frankly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A small point of correction, membership increased by more than 20,000 to 80,000 (i.e. from around 60,000), it didn't quadruple:

Under his leadership, the RMT's membership increased by more than 20,000 to 80,000.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26527325
 
The Don said:
I suspect that the outrage comes from someone earning £145k a year and claiming to be a socialist living in a house which is subsidised by people earning considerably less than that.
Click to expand...

If it's being subsidised at all (considering the majority of social housing has already been paid for) it would be being subsidised by people earning considerably more than that as well. I think the "outrage" would be coming from those who believe social housing is only for those who can't afford to buy a home, which is not the case.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but as ever increasing numbers of people in this country are less able to afford to own their own home (or at least pay a bank for the privilege of living in their own home) perhaps more social housing needs to be built, not berating those who do live in it for not moving out to allow "poor folks" in.
 
Skepticemea said:
If it's being subsidised at all (considering the majority of social housing has already been paid for) it would be being subsidised by people earning considerably more than that as well. I think the "outrage" would be coming from those who believe social housing is only for those who can't afford to buy a home, which is not the case.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but as ever increasing numbers of people in this country are less able to afford to own their own home (or at least pay a bank for the privilege of living in their own home) perhaps more social housing needs to be built, not berating those who do live in it for not moving out to allow "poor folks" in.
Click to expand...

Especially when there are so many vacant houses in London, bought purely for the purpose of selling on at a later date for a substantial profit in many cases.
 
Skepticemea said:
If it's being subsidised at all (considering the majority of social housing has already been paid for) it would be being subsidised by people earning considerably more than that as well. I think the "outrage" would be coming from those who believe social housing is only for those who can't afford to buy a home, which is not the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the proportion of people earning over £145k is small nationally. Most of the people subsidising Bob Crow's rent were earning considerably less than him.

I have no problem with the very wealthy living in social housing, I do have a problem with the very wealthy not paying a fair rent for that social housing with the balance (over the social rent) being used to subsidise those less well able to pay.

Skepticemea said:
Perhaps a topic for another thread, but as ever increasing numbers of people in this country are less able to afford to own their own home (or at least pay a bank for the privilege of living in their own home) perhaps more social housing needs to be built, not berating those who do live in it for not moving out to allow "poor folks" in.
Click to expand...

Social housing is a double edged sword because although a good supply ensures that there is a good supply of public rental properties, it tends to reduce the amount of affordable private rented accommodation.
 
The Don said:
Yes, but the proportion of people earning over £145k is small nationally. Most of the people subsidising Bob Crow's rent were earning considerably less than him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the tax they pay is proportionately greater, something that is well voiced when it comes to discussions on tax bracketing.

The Don said:
I have no problem with the very wealthy living in social housing, I do have a problem with the very wealthy not paying a fair rent for that social housing with the balance (over the social rent) being used to subsidise those less well able to pay.
Click to expand...
Fair enough point of view, however that raises two questions:

1) How much should they pay? The same as an equivalent rental property would cost in that area? That's a large variation and would attract a large admin cost to it (I'd have thought); and

2) As per above, wouldn't someone earning c£100k already be "subsidising" lower incomes via their large tax bill? This smacks a little of "double jeopardy".

The Don said:
Social housing is a double edged sword because although a good supply ensures that there is a good supply of public rental properties, it tends to reduce the amount of affordable private rented accommodation.
Click to expand...
I live in London and see the absolute opposite. A lack of social housing means a contraction in available private properties which inflates the cost of renting. Massively. This, in turn, increases the housing benefit bill the majority of claimants, lest we forget, are in work.

I think this is an interesting discussion topic but think we might get flagged in a minute for being OT. Let me know if you would like to continue and we'll get a thread started in the Social (pun intended).
 
A means tested subsidy for the rent would be the best way to deal with the disparity of incomes in social housing. Set a "fair" (yeah right!) rent, then according to the income of the household they receive a subsidy against that rent. As you move up the income ladder you get less of a subsidy.
 
Darat said:
A means tested subsidy for the rent would be the best way to deal with the disparity of incomes in social housing. Set a "fair" (yeah right!) rent, then according to the income of the household they receive a subsidy against that rent. As you move up the income ladder you get less of a subsidy.
Click to expand...

But isn't that exactly the mechanism supposedly behind the "dependency trap"?

i.e that you disincentivize the family from trying to earn more.
 
Darat said:
A means tested subsidy for the rent would be the best way to deal with the disparity of incomes in social housing. Set a "fair" (yeah right!) rent, then according to the income of the household they receive a subsidy against that rent. As you move up the income ladder you get less of a subsidy.
Click to expand...

Could we call it something like "A benefit for housing" ?
 
angrysoba said:
But isn't that exactly the mechanism supposedly behind the "dependency trap"?

i.e that you disincentivize the family from trying to earn more.
Click to expand...

To an extent it can be one of the traps and provide a negative incentive, but it can also be used to create a positive incentive. It's getting the balance right. And in the UK the recent changes are nothing to do with a concern for the "dependency trap" they are an ideologically driven attack on the poor disguised as "deficit reduction".
 
So back to actually talking about Bob Crow rather than the UK social housing market.....

There has been a lot of positive comment about the life and career of Bob Crow from people like Boris Johnson. Does this mean that in fact the apparent discord between them was nothing but posturing for negotiating purposes, or is it just not saying anything ill about the dead ? I've heard a number of commentators mention that Bob Crow was very adept at the threat of industrial action to get the best deal for his members and was very astute at working out when the employers genuinely had nowhere else to go. Again i'm not sure whether this is true (I didn't hear it from the same commentators while he was alive) or again whether it's just painting the dead int eh best possible light.

If Bob Crow has been effective on his members' behalf and thus ensuring that in the short and medium term they are overpaid (relatively speaking) and that excessive manning levels (again relatively speaking) are maintained, is he working against the best interests of the country in general by forcing companies to run inefficiently for which the public at large has to pick up the tab ?
 
The Don said:
There has been a lot of positive comment about the life and career of Bob Crow from people like Boris Johnson. Does this mean that in fact the apparent discord between them was nothing but posturing for negotiating purposes, or is it just not saying anything ill about the dead ? I've heard a number of commentators mention that Bob Crow was very adept at the threat of industrial action to get the best deal for his members and was very astute at working out when the employers genuinely had nowhere else to go. Again i'm not sure whether this is true (I didn't hear it from the same commentators while he was alive) or again whether it's just painting the dead int eh best possible light.
Click to expand...

Probably a bit of both. They may not have liked the way that he did his job, but actually got on with him as a person.
It's hard to respect somebody that you repeatedly wipe the floor with, in any arena, so perhaps they begrudgingly admired his effectiveness?

The Don said:
If Bob Crow has been effective on his members' behalf and thus ensuring that in the short and medium term they are overpaid (relatively speaking) and that excessive manning levels (again relatively speaking) are maintained, is he working against the best interests of the country in general by forcing companies to run inefficiently for which the public at large has to pick up the tab ?
Click to expand...

I don't think that this is particularly relevant to the job that he was paid to do.
He wasn't there to get the fairest deal for all parties, he was paid by the RMT membership to get them the best terms available.
Most union leaders seem to have forgotten this in the UK.
 
Skepticemea said:
Not sure why a socialist living in social housing should invite comment, much less surprise.
Click to expand...
You're not? Well it's because social (publicly funded) housing is intended for those less able to afford market rents, and absolutely nothing to do with the political preference of the tenants.

However if Bob Crow could legitimately live in a council-subsidised house (thus creating upward redistribution of incomes--not such a good thing) then the problem lies with local authority rules, not Bob Crow (though there is a hypocrisy angle)
 
The Don said:
If Bob Crow has been effective on his members' behalf and thus ensuring that in the short and medium term they are overpaid (relatively speaking) and that excessive manning levels (again relatively speaking) are maintained, is he working against the best interests of the country in general by forcing companies to run inefficiently for which the public at large has to pick up the tab ?
Click to expand...
Well yes but the over-arching objective of the general secretary of a trade union is not to work in the best interest of the country. Any more than that is the over-arching interest of the Chief Executive of Tesco.
 
The Don said:
There has been a lot of positive comment about the life and career of Bob Crow from people like Boris Johnson. Does this mean that in fact the apparent discord between them was nothing but posturing for negotiating purposes, or is it just not saying anything ill about the dead ?
Click to expand...
Boris appears to have been a bit over-effusive (IE insincere) and could have easily paid due respect with less praise for someone he previously called demented.
 
The Don said:
........If Bob Crow has been effective on his members' behalf and thus ensuring that in the short and medium term they are overpaid (relatively speaking) and that excessive manning levels (again relatively speaking) are maintained, is he working against the best interests of the country in general by forcing companies to run inefficiently for which the public at large has to pick up the tab ?
Click to expand...
No. As has been said, that isn't his job.

However, if he does produce the situation you describe (over-paid, under-worked members) then sooner or later there will be a big reckoning, and a lot of people will lose their jobs. They will be painted by some on the left as victims of the big bad government/ Tory Party/ ruling class or whatever, when the actuality is that they would actually be victims of Bob Crow's policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom