That Starmer fella...

Is there a union for landlords and/or company directors?

the Conservative Party?

probably the easiest tap-in you’ll ever get : )

The strength of the unions is currently in the state sector. Civil servants, LAs, firemen etc. The demands of Unite and Unison are essentially statist with little union interest in enterprise. A chokehold of spending demands.

i'm not proud of it.

Is there a union for landlords and/or company directors?

Heh, no, because they have no need for collective bargaining :)

Plenty of associations around that try to represent their interests.

the labour party

... I don't think it was an actual question

Meh

Hah.

From some of the Facebook groups I’ve seen, some landlords appear to think they are the ones being exploited!

Businesses lobbying a political party on behalf of their shareholders interests is not comparable to unions lobbying on behalf of their (collectively, millions of) members interests.

As several people have tried to explain to you, if Unions ‘hold the whip hand’ (oh please) it’s entirely qualified by the weight of their collective membership.

If you don’t understand why it’s important to draw distinction between business and labour interests, TBH I’m not entirely sure you’re in the right party.

These days, the vast majority of businesses are publicly traded and passively owned by a wide range of funds. Very rarely are they owned by the dude with the top hat from the Monopoly box (a game which is is at best an incomplete guide to the modern economy).

So when you say 'shareholders' try to think beyond the Monopoly box, and think about investment funds. And what are the most widespread form of investment funds? Pensions. My pension. Your pension. Ordinary people - many of whom would not think of themselves as shareholders - are who we're talking about. The distinction you're referring to - between business interests and labour interests - was largely erased when pension funds started to become major shareholders in those businesses.

(And if we're talking numbers, I'd tentatively suggest that more people have a pension than belong to a union. Businesses - and their shareholders - have a right to a voice.)

This is important, because one of the key reasons that Labour aren't trusted with the economy (and therefore why we've been out of power for a decade) is that our most active and vocal parts of our base don't UNDERSTAND the economy.

It's the financial illiteracy stuff that fucks Labour every time.

Ah, so when loads of young workers are getting fucked over on zero hours contracts to save more cash for shareholders, they should be pleased that their pensions are being looked after instead.
#massiveoversimplification

I can only find ONS data from 2018 so maybe things have changes since then but it doesn't look good.

1 Attachment

some landlords appear to think they are the ones being exploited!

There's been some fiddling with the tax laws around it for years now, and all the murmurings around licensing. All a bit 'guess what, the good times don't last forever'.

Is it right that the majority of businesses are listed? Certainly the majority by number aren't, majority by trade volume could be but hard to say (and that may be dominated by a few massive businesses anyway).

I think, and this is very vaguely remembered, about 5% of businesses are PLCs.

Ah, so when loads of young workers are getting fucked over on zero hours contracts to save more cash for shareholders, they should be pleased that their pensions are being looked after instead.
#massiveoversimplification

This is one of the left's three comforting myths and it does us damage on a daily basis. If someone disagrees with us we assume they are either:

• being paid
  
• evil
  
• ignorant
  
  

We can debate on the last one but I can assure you I'm not either of the first two. Look, I know it's not exactly par for the course when it comes to inter-factional discussions within Labour, but would you mind assuming good faith on my part for a few minutes? It'll really make the discussion pop.

I 100% care about people on zero-hours contracts. I have done those jobs. It is miserable. I also know that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts are not members of a union. It is therefore my belief that the union model does not work for people on zero-hours contracts.

You know what MIGHT work for people on zero-hours contracts? Labour being in power and ensuring that the conversation with businesses is two way, based on trust, and therefore having the credibility to remind businesses of the social contract they have with their employees. It's what Blair did when he introduced minimum wage. It's also literally Starmer's approach.

These days, the vast majority of businesses are publicly traded and passively owned by a wide range of funds. Very rarely are they owned by the dude with the top hat from the Monopoly box (a game which is is at best an incomplete guide to the modern economy).

try to think beyond the Monopoly box, and think about investment funds.

This is your analogy. Just because my post had brevity doesn't mean I don't understand the implicit and explicit nuance of what a shareholder is. You have a tendency to try and condescend and undermine other people on here by misrepresenting their position.

The distinction you're referring to - between business interests and labour interests - was largely erased when pension funds started to become major shareholders in those businesses.

This is a bold, sweeping assertion that has very little basis in economic or political fact. More importantly you've totally missed the point by only assuming economic interest. How would you ever expect "business" represent the non-economic interests of workers? Even if they wanted to – the biggest pension funds, or the businesses they are invested in – lack any of the apperatus or impetus to perform that role.

It's the demands of business and profit that drives worker exploitation – and you've somehow also managed to highlight how "ordinary people" are in a way perversely invested indirectly in their own exploitation through pension funds.

And if we're talking numbers, I'd tentatively suggest that more people have a pension than belong to a union.

Businesses - and their shareholders - have a right to a voice.

Please kindly, check here.

It's the financial illiteracy stuff that fucks Labour every time.

Lol ok buddy. I'll put this on the pile with "20 pts ahead", "the grown ups are back in charge", etc.

The most glaring irony of Blair's New Statesman piece is that the supposedly revolutionary economic policy positions that Blair alludes to in such airy vagueries about emerging tech and green sector opportunities are totally in step with the vision for the economy outlined by McDonnell in 2017/19. The charlatan is 4 years behind, being heralded as a visionary. Even Rishi's policy has been drinking from the same cup. Green Revolution? Furlough? These are economic concepts founded on ideologies originated by the left.

but would you mind assuming good faith on my part for a few minutes?

Ironic, at best.

You are being well aggro.

And yet.
Here we are.

You have a consistent tendency to try and condescend and undermine other people on here by misrepresenting what their position.

This is true.

This is one of the left's three comforting myths and it does us damage on a daily basis. If someone disagrees with us we assume they are either: being paid, evil, ignorant.

I also know that the vast majority of people on zero-hours contracts are not members of a union. It is therefore my belief that the union model does not work for people on zero-hours contracts.

There are significant legal and cultural barriers to labour organising, especially for precarious, informal workforces that operate predominantly on the 0-hour model. Those barriers exist because unionising works, not the other way around.

You know what MIGHT work for people on zero-hours contracts? Labour being in power and ensuring that the conversation with businesses is two way, based on trust, and therefore having the credibility to remind businesses of the social contract they have with their employees.

Yes, absolutely. Though you are now talking about "trust" and "social contract" which are relatively washy terms in context of business, and certainly not a concrete legal backbone to ensuring rights are upheld and betterment achieved.

It's what Blair did when he introduced minimum wage.

Minimum wage had been debated in the Labour Party for years – and originated as a position on the left. It was opposed by business at the time and seen as a vulnerability rather than a winning policy.

OK the multi quote was bad enough but DOUBLE multi quote replies? I don't have the time for that.

This is true.

So what you are saying is that you would suck off Tony Blair?

.

1 Attachment