The relationship between German trades unions and management has never really changed at all, it never needed to and as has been proved here on numerous occasions, when British unions are invloved in decision making, there's far more chance of a equitable outcome. But please don't let that prevent you from your knocking of everything related to the trades union movement

Here's a little thingie to chuck in: how much did the decision by Rupert Murdoch to ban all independent trades unions from NI titles at Wapping, and replace them with an in-hpuse staff association, contribute to a culture of criminal and unethical behaviour being allowed to continue for such a long time?

More widely, rlthis is fascinating on what Adam Smith might thing of the current situation.rl

As usual we must agree to disagree - newsnight did a piece on Karcher about two weeks ago where the issue of union influence was discussed - the boss man explained how the unions had changed their tune significantly in the last 20 years. The collective arrangement still exists but the power had shifted to the bosses, this shift was a major factor in the success of Karcher over the past 20 years. Maybe Karcher are an isolated case - unlikely given the collective bargaining arrangement that has existed for 50+ years. It will be interesting to see how the rise of the Niche unions will impact Germany along with dwindling union membership. Strange how so few people can a see such a good thing as union membership (sic)!!

rlEven Cameron's expected mates aren't happy.rl

Mind, the linked-to [iFT[/i story about whinging financiers is a hoot.

Indeed.

It's easy to see why they'd be convinced that the best option is to go, individually, to their employer, say 'please Sir, can I have some more?' and then cry on the internet when the nasty "boss man" [sic] laughs hysterically and sends them out with nothing.

Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with?
OK, take the next general election.
Having experienced a term under the handbag rule, more people voted against her than for her.
Take the next after that, after people had experienced two terms, more people voted against her than for her.


See above, I am in the majority.

Some data rlhererl shows the disparity between votes cast per (main) parties and seats won in the 1983 general election (see fig 2).

Table 2 on page 6 shows that, from 1979 to 2005, the average vote share of the winning party was 41.4%.

But this is the same for every PM post 1945, isn't it?

Whether or not that is the case does not change the fact that you were factually incorrect and El Barbudo was factually correct.

The fact is that the majority of those who cast a vote in the elections in 1983 and 1987 did not cast a vote for the Conservative Party/Margaret Thatcher.

Seeing as rlHMRC are offering bounties to tax evasion whistle blowersrl. I've just reported Barclays, Philip Green, Vodaphone and Lord Ashcroft.

I'm now popping down to the travel agents to arrange a trip to view my Seychelles retirement villa

Yes, of course.
That's the whole point.
Regardless of which PM you nominate as "the best" since, say 1945, the majority voted against them.
Hence, you cannot "prove" which one was best.

No, because we are debating whether the majority [inow[/i rank Thatcher as one of the best PM's we've had.

As a result, election results from the time cannot be used to determine whether the majority now consider her to be one of the best.

This is true. But you can offer an opinion, and mine is that she was one of the best and the polls do agree with me.

if you consider selling off the family silver and destroying the infrastructure of the country as a positive then yes, she was 'one of the best ' !

doesn't say much about the others then , does it ?

I mean, Mr Major left the economy in pretty good shape when Mr BLIAR took over so where does that rank him ?