Possible fuel distribution strike, Army in training just in case

Yes, very commendable of you. But the strike isn't about money so why do you keep framing the debate as if it is?

And how much better off would my workforce be on the dole?
I might be a reluctant capitalist, but capitalism is the only game in town unfortunately, the way forward IMO is redirecting excessive profits back into the system to help the worst off

Why not address ymu's point that the proportion of GDP paid in wages has dropped by 12% in the last half century. The obvious implication being that there is a lot of money that has been removed from the working class' collective pocket (and this during a time of increased productivity); where do you think it's gone? Shouldn't workers try to be securing rather more of the wealth they have produced and not simply acquiescing to what some might describe as robbery?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Its not? champion, best of luck to them, heres me thinking they were demanding more money.

I have absolutely no problem with that however though while I appreciate your points, another factor is the huge drop in relatively well paid jobs in the manfacturing industry, and also anybody who takes industrial action in order to protect jobs and T&Cs or safety in the workplace etc gets my support. However this seems(on the face of it) about money with a thin veneer of concern regarding other issues

It's not. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.

You have no problem apart from the one you have with people trying to reduce their level of exploitation by increasing the proportion of the wealth they produce that they actually receive in wages.

Also the loss of 'well paid' manufacturing jobs doesn't necessarily explain the drop in the proportion of GDP paid out in wages. It might be more accurate to talk about the loss of well organised unionised jobs having an impact on this.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Show us a) where it's about money and b) why pay isn't part of terms and conditions.

Why should workers have to apply for benefits in order to be able to survive on their wages?

All companies should be properly taxed. Vital industries that cannot cover costs whilst paying proper wages need public subsidy - and the public should have part-ownership in return for that. Non-vital industries that cannot cover costs whilst paying proper wages do not have a viable business plan and, according to the rules of capitalism, cannot survive.

No one has a right to make a profit. Profit is what's left over after everyone's been paid for their work.

Your attitude towards workers is that they are the same as commodities - to be bought for the cheapest price possible. This leads to one of the huge problems for capitalism - you can screw your workers into the ground when they have no other way to make a living, but if every employer does it there won't be enough consumers with enough disposable income to buy what you're selling.

Which is why every rich country in the world has an advanced welfare state. It's not because the capitalists went all fluffy in the 1930/40s and have regretted their error ever since - it's because it sets a basic level of remuneration which no company can sink below whilst still being able to recruit a workforce. The repeated attacks on the welfare state over the last 30 years has left us in the godawful mess we're in now.

You need your workers in more ways than one, and you have no grounds to demand that the state subsidises your wage bill. If your company needs government subsidy to survive, then you should make an application and see if your product is considered important enough to get it.

It's dropped by 12% of GDP in absolute terms - it's an 18.5% fall in what is paid out in wages.

1-(0.53/0.65) is the calculation you need.

You seem to have made some assumptions(in bold) can you explain them? where have i suggested any of the stuff you are going on about?

I asked how much of your turnover was down to the fact that you had a workforce, and you responded that they were better off working for you than they were on benefits. That is treating workers like commodities - buy for the cheapest price possible. This is what poor sweatshop economies like India and China allow to happen, and it's what rich consumer economies like the UK and US cannot afford to allow to happen if they want to remain rich consumer economies.

It is, in fact, what the coalition are doing to us with their idiotic economic policies. Austerity has only one way to succeed when interest rates are low and unemployment high - the rest of the world has to believe that our government is so utterly inept that sterling plummets, making our exports more affordable for the rest of the world and our imports unaffordable to virtually everybody here. If we allow them to carry on, immigration is going to start heading in the opposite direction very soon - the working-class will need to emigrate to get a decent job and huge swathes of the middle-class will need to emigrate to get any job at all.

I asked how much of your turnover was down to the fact that you had a workforce, and you responded that they were better off working for you than they were on benefits.

Aye, of course they are better off, the point I am making is that without SMEs there would be a lot more on the dole, that is an inescapable fact, however where do you arrive at the conclusion I regard those working for me as 'commodities' and that and I am paying them as little as possible? also where do I expect subsidies?

No one has a right to make a profit. Profit is what's left over after everyone's been paid for their work.........you could also try explaining that?

And you never got round to explaining why the tanker drivers getting a nice rise would benefit the rest of us?

She did. Capitalism is driven by consumerism. Higher wages means people have more money to buy things (perhaps from your company). If it's Capitalism that you want, Unemployment helps profit margins as it drives wages down as higher availability of workers competing for positions does this. But it is short-sighted, as it also means there's less money sloshing about to be spent, which sends businesses to the wall as a result also (perhaps yours?).

All I can suggest is that you read the thread. Carefully. Everything you're asking is addressed in it.

Profit is, by definition, what is left over after everyone has been paid for their work (including the wages paid by your suppliers, right back down the chain to where someone was paid for digging the raw materials from the ground or growing it in the fields). What is there to dispute about this? Dishonest company owners who also do actual work for the company might pay themselves in dividends instead of salary to avoid tax, but that's just fraud, nowt to do with profit. Profit goes to idle shareholders, who might or might not also earn an income from working for the company.

Henry Ford knew this, when asked why he didn't mechanise his production lines to increase profit he replied something like, 'because robots don't buy cars'.

Precisely. Oddly, that key element of Fordism is rarely mentioned by the right. I can't for the life of me understand why ...

So a couple of thousand tanker drivers get a rise paid for by hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who are presently having their wages frozen, thats going to unleash a consumer boom?

I wonder what they plan to do with the military. Perhaps they only plan to fuel emergency supplies but the union has already said they will do this. If they plan to fuel the whole network that would be quite a large undertaking.

No one has a right to make a profit.
I know what profit is (or in my case isnt)the above is the bit I was querying

where comes the value added to a commodity during the process of it being made?

The strike isn't about fucking money for the millionth time.

But as you pushed and pushed (and still are) ymu made an argument for higher wages in general.

Do you not understand what we mean by "race to the bottom", Coley?

What happens when you manage to cut your wages? Your workers start to look for better paid jobs elsewhere, which puts downward pressure on wages elsewhere, and eventually we are all paupers apart from the 0.1% who own most of the wealth.

Buses in Cambridge have trouble finding drivers because the pay is too shit to be able to live in the area. Bus drivers in Oxford are the best paid in the country - over £30k with overtime. The difference is that Cambridge is surrounded by science parks - Oxford has Cowley Works.

Everyone (including the bosses who aren't in the 0.1%) benefits from a successful strike. It protects all our pay and conditions, and the economy as a whole. It's only the poor buggers on strike that take any financial hit. Public opposition to strikes is utterly illogical and testament to the power of propaganda.

You think people should have the right to get paid a small fortune for sitting on their arse doing nothing?

Please join the threads on the benefit cuts. We need people like you on our side.

When is the strike if it does go ahead?
I just put a half a tank in today, had I been aware I would have filled up.

Again where have I said that? as to benefit cuts I think I have already mentioned taxing exorbitant or excessive profits

You say that you understand what profit is, but you don't see why no one has a right to earn a small fortune by sitting on their arse doing nothing?

Who mentioned supporting a cut in wages?
Depends on who is striking and why, now if this is purely about protecting P&Cs pensions etc as I have said, crack on best of luck, if its more about people who are reasonably paid demanding more, knowing it will directly affect the worst off? then they can get stuffed.
if it was a group of workers being exploited by a rich successful company then they would have my total support.

I cannot deal with the total head-fuckery of that post, sorry. You don't seem to be grasping the argument - just little random disjointed bits of it, that lead you to make points that were refuted earlier.

Do some reading. Get better at it. Might help.