Mail masks Thatcher’s true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back: http://bit.ly/lDOmeo reports …

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back: http://bit.ly/lDOmeo reports …

@leftfootfwd "the Thatcher revolution: Longer hours, lower productivity: Something only Daily Mail could be proud of" http://bit.ly/j7xofg

.@DanielElton of @leftfootfwd on an incredibly stupid Daily Mail article on Thatcher's legacy http://bit.ly/lDOmeo

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back: http://bit.ly/lDOmeo reports …

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back http://bit.ly/lGFCnJ

RT @OtherTPA: .@DanielElton of @leftfootfwd on an incredibly stupid Daily Mail article on Thatcher's legacy http://bit.ly/lDOmeo

RT @OtherTPA: .@DanielElton of @leftfootfwd on an incredibly stupid Daily Mail article on Thatcher's legacy http://bit.ly/lDOmeo

@leftfootfwd Curiously, you didn't show a graph from 1960 to the present day? 70's productivity under Labour? UK http://bit.ly/lGFCnJ

RT @OtherTPA: .@DanielElton of @leftfootfwd on an incredibly stupid Daily Mail article on Thatcher's legacy http://bit.ly/lDOmeo

Rule Britannia – we're working longer than ever, producing less and making less money into the bargain. Shitain. http://digs.by/jiowpj

Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity … – Left Foot Forward: Left Foo… http://bit.ly/jNJm2W

I have worked in the IT industry for over20 years and since 1994 worked freelance/contract, so I have experience of a wide range of different clients. It always struck me that the more “Thatcherite” an organisation (tightly managed, long inflexible hours, fewer benefits), the less productive in real terms they are.
The most productive environment was the HQ site of a Government department; it was very structured, and ran like clockwork. The staff were well trained, supportive of each other and the working environment was excellent, with a nursery and even a social club on site!
I then moved to an Investment Bank, I was warned by a colleague that the systems were s**t, they even passed the root password for the machines around. Eventually the BoE put them on notice and very expensive consultants were brought in. The working environment was as you would expect; long hours etc but at the end of the day the output was “more heat than light”.
Another horror show was a software house which to make up the time had people working in excess of 50 hours a week, but everyone was so tired productivity was through the floor, and the number of mistakes / bugs being produced through the roof (but very good if you were paid by the hour!)
These were extremes but generally the rule is, laid back attitudes, better working environments and shorter hours produce the most productive workers and a better product. Interestingly it is the larger and more successful companies seem to have these conditions.

With all the criticism of the work place reforms and considering the huge majority in 1997 am I alone in thinking that the Labour Party, THE LABOUR PARTY did nothing to reverse this in thirteen years?

Do you think that it’s because your stupid socialist wishes have been rejected the world over and you just need to grow up?

Could be…

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back: http://bit.ly/lDOmeo reports …

Complete twaddle from start to finish.

Your second chart uses the USA as the datum. The av working week in the USA is 46 hours, but you didn’t include this in your first chart.

Why are only four minor European countries able to best the US with it’s longer week and far less holiday?

What happened to productivity in the decade prior to 1979?

And let’s combine that with a look at the contribution of your beloved unions:
________________________________________________________________
Annual Days Lost to Industrial Disputes per 1,000 workers:
________________________________________________________________

1970-1979: UK: 569 France: 286 USA: 507

1980-1989: UK: 332 France: 119 USA: 123
________________________________________________________________

( Source: http://bit.ly/mcrgdk )

The reduction in wasted man hours under Thatcher was enormous. To portray this as anything other than an achievement for productivity and output is disingenuous.

Your analysis is flawed completely by the fact that you make the phoney assumption that the only input required is measured in man-hours.

Businesses cannot exist without investors. And investors do not pay wages; they provide capital.

You forget conveniently that you need capital as well as labour to make businesses work.

And that businesses have overheads as well as operational costs.

Have you ever actually run a business?

Every day wasted by the unions, capital goes unused, R&D grinds to a halt, food spoils, textiles go out of fashion, overheads still accrue, productivity goes down, output goes down, investors get itchy feet. There are also secondary effects elsewhere in the economy. And the country as a whole loses.

To the eternal gratitude of our international rivals.

Fire up the Quattro!

@13eatie – Thanks for your comments. I’ll take two points 1) why can only five European countries equal or surpass the united states, and 2) that reduction in days lost for strikes should be set against productivity gains. 1) The main point of the article was to challenge the idea that ‘Because Thatcher meant we work longer hours, this was a good thing’ – and showing examples where people work shorter, more productive hours makes that point.

There is a seperate issue on U.S. versus European productivity, but what’s interesting is that plenty of economies with less ‘anglo-saxon’ models of capitalism get closer to the U.S. than we do, although to make a proper comparison you have to take account of differences in economic sectors.

2)The reduction of strikes was a good thing about the outcomes of the 1980s, but interestingly your data shows there was a greater proportionate reduction in France than the UK. I think there were other ways to go about it than Thatcher’s reforms. Although Thatcher was the punishment unions got for many years of irresponsibility, in particular it was commupance for their blocking of In Place Of Strife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife), which would have led to a more continental, partnership model of industrial relations. I think if it had passed the economic history of the country may have been very different.

Intressant om Thatchers "revolution": http://t.co/yCLT53K

“@OtherTPA: .@DanielElton of @leftfootfwd on an incredibly stupid Daily Mail article on Thatcher's legacy http://t.co/etS9kBD” what did u x

Daniel,

You do rather make my point for me.

The two countries you identify in your data (France; USA) as having fared better than the UK in the productivity stakes both curtailed destructive union disruption far more severely in the early 80′s than we did.

What Thatcher did was necessary for us to remain remotely competitive, and your data actually supports the argument that she didn’t do it enough.

Why did you choose “productivity” as a metric anyway? It is not something unions or their members are in the slightest bit interested in, and it does not correlate with living standards or quality of life. You could have chosen far more meaningful indices, but then they might not have to the conclusion at which you set out to arrive.

I’ll take Thatcher’s red Porsche 924 and Docklands loft over Callaghan’s power cuts and unburied dead any day of the working week (including weekends).

★ " Mail masks Thatcher’s true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back http://bit.ly/jb1sDJ "

What the hell are these Trolls up to with bogus comparisons from the 1970′s talk about playing the outdated politics of the past. Address the comparative point we work stupidly long hours for little gain. Learn to debate!

“It always struck me that the more “Thatcherite” an organisation (tightly managed, long inflexible hours, fewer benefits), the less productive in real terms they are.”

I have never seen any evidence, none, zero, zip, de nada, keines, that Thatcher was in favour of “tightly managed, long inflexible hours, fewer benefits”. Thatcher was in favour of freedom, no more, no less.

As for the main post, Worstall drilled you a new one. Dumbass. http://timworstall.com/2011/05/05/where-does-left-foot-forward-get-these-numpties-from/

Frederick,

It was the OP who brought both the unions and the 70′s into the discussion.

If you find these subjects taboo in some way, you might better direct your comments to the editor.

On a blog where every other contributor falls over himself to bring Thatcher into the proceedings you sound ridiculous.

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back http://t.co/MrkMZ2B9

RT @leftfootfwd: Mail masks Thatcher's true legacy: Unions busted, hours extended, productivity held back http://t.co/MrkMZ2B9