You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0052C 834, 825 834 3 October 2003 "Two-tier" Workforces
As with Minimum Wage, this is a subject which engages my personal perception of the operation of markets and trading systems. I disagree with the TU drive to impose public service terms and conditions upon the trading sector. "Two-tier workforce" is simply a gimmicky label given to operations that in the process of moving from the managed sector to the market sectors. Let me first seek to establish my position in terms of values, and priorities. If the maintenance of public-service terms-&-conditions is critical to the quality of any public service, that would be one good reason for not out-sourcing in the first place. I recognise the force of that, and in my view the privatisation process has already gone too far in some sectors (I would, for example, reverse prison privatisation). I also like the ingenuity of the Welsh use of retention of employment in the NHS, retaining the employment of certain key personnel within the managed sector, while outsourcing all less critical or less sensitive functions.But if the decision is made to transfer a function to the trading sector, the disciplines of that sector should be allowed to operate. We are wrong to impose upon the trading sector the distinctive rigidities and conventions of the managed sector. Both the managed sector and the trading sectors of the economy have their strengths and weaknesses - and each has its own disciplines. It is sensible that, individual injustice should be minimised by the safeguarding of terms of employment, for a substantial transitional period. That is the situation described by the term "two-tier workforce", with new staff being recurited on new terms. But the TU movement is in my judgment wrong to seek the imposition upon trading companies of terms-&-conditions developed for managed sector purposes. I respect opponents of outsourcing who oppose the very process because the remuneration dimension is vital to provision of high service levels - that is indeed a good reason for not outsourcing. But I rebel against a union-imposed managerial strait-jacket, devised for the managed sector (where the unions are strong) and arbitrarily transferred to the trading sector (where the unions are weak).
Where do you stand, on the two-tier issue? Drop me a line
3 October 2003
E-Message 2 October 2003 from Kevin Hendstock - aged 82 - British expat, former Parachute Regiment, also Australian Army, Sergeant Roger Found your website by accident - found it fascinating – well-presented - diverse - interesting – informative – innovative – enjoyable - oozes with sincerity and conviction (boy-O?) - professional - I can almost hear the soldiers yelling as they shot the miners, Winston Bloody Churchill – “How Green Was My Valley” – “To Serve them All My Days” (BBC classic, delightful show - the little Welsh village with the big memorial to the Royal Welsh Fusiliers…) The only problem with socialists they read Marx rather than Peter Drucker (on management ) - Drucker maintains that that publicly-owned enterprises merely need good managers, and quotes many organisations that are efficiently run . I say that the main tax should be on company profits. There should be no other taxes “in between”, which would reduce the prices of manufactured goods. If you seek a “new society”, company profits should be divided into three parts -
Comment? And do you know Frank Field, the MP for Birkenhead ? He strikes
me
as an idealist - congratulations - I wish you well Caboolture Queensland Australia Kevin
As for your three-way split of company profits, upon which you ask me to comment, I am more sceptical. Of course, this is in part what happens at the moment: company taxes hover around the 30%/45% mark in most countries, and although dividend payments vary greatly according to a company’s internal requirements, shareholders do receive a substantial share of what is “left over” after tax. So I do not think your suggested regime would alter very much. And in any event, the problem for Governments is not principally in collecting tax-income, but in knowing how best to spend it – to achieve a fairer society. Huge differentials of wealth and privilege are very persistent – both the poor and the rich are always with us – and the vision of the brotherhood and equality of all mankind still seems a long, long way away.But the socialist struggle continues! Roger WE What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
Letter
from Australia 