Fighters for Justice

I once went to a church where we prayed for the Unions as 'fighters for justice' in the same week that they tried to block companies from offshoring (i.e. sending western money to poor countries). It was the second time that the church in question inserted some socialist drivel into the liturgy, and I've never been back. Their comments on the Unions were admittedly better than the previous week where they compared Thatcher to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. In the name of transparency, it was St Giles, Camberwell, and I'll never set foot in it again.

Anyway, the Unions and I have form. I loathe them; they tried to destroy the country, and I appear to have mentioned them already this year. So, I won't devote much time to their latest transgression in the BA affair, in which I have a very personal stake. A is on tenterhooks, knowing if this strike goes ahead a) we may not get to go on holiday and b) she'll have to listen to me shout about Unions for much of the year.

However, it's worth me just outlining precisely what I object to here. Firstly, this isn't about Unions per se:

• I have no problems with Unions as collective associations for all manner of things, essentially like a building society for employment-type insurance, legal advice, action against bullying etc.
• Nor is this about the political campaigning and block funding, though I have issues with those. However, they're a little complex and not relevant.

So, let's look at striking. There are a number of issues here:

• Contractual and legal protection: existing staff have a protected contractual position and a host of - for the most part - good legal protection in the body of Employment law. These protections have multiplied in the last half century, and especially the last 15 years. These are well protected workers from unfair actions by management, in a way that may well not have been the case in the past. These are not the exploited masses of yesteryear.
• Nor would I stop them withholding their labour. I defend their right to stay at home, just not their right to get their job back afterwards. It's not a defence the company can use: sorry, we've decided not to pay you today, but we will tomorrow. The company, quite rightly, would be sued, and would lose.
• To this last, it will be protested that their is essentially asymmetric power, viz. people are powerless and companies powerful, so they need protection. Here the law - in my limited understanding - is now simply unfair. Unions are sanctioned collusive behaviour, companies are not allowed to operate in a a cartel-style; employees are protected by a growing body of law; management has only limited procedural options with regard to a strike, regardless of the merits of the case. The best management outcome in a court is therefore the status quo, yet must invest significant time on these matters. Industrial relations is a legitimate cost of doing business for companies, but should be based on engaging with the grievances of individual workers, not the ambitions of Union barons.
• Finally, the leaders of these Unions should be ashamed. Anna points out that the membership is probably stupid and unable to understand the recession will bankrupt them soon. Heartening though it is to see that A has adopted many of the principles of my general theory, it's a damning assessment of the leaders of the Union. They know the context, the massive losses, the bleak economic outlook, and they press on with this. History does not judge overbearing and destructive Union leaders kindly (though, unlike Scargill, they appear to have balloted their members properly this time)

I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of this particular case, though I note that the cabin crew in BA are exceptionally well paid for their job, as much as twice as much as some competitors (the Times discusses it here, the table is here), but that's not really the point. I'm sure there are problems, but legal protection is now imbalanced, this is not the right response, and the law should not allow it.

Two final observations:

• If this does ahead, BA will be bust or taken over in a year. And the the scale of job losses will be greater and benefits cut more. The unions won't know what hit them - good riddance.
• A is holding the socialist line on the right to strike on this very well. Even though its her holiday that will be damaged, she's still defending them. Like so many times before, she proves herself consistent and willing to take the hit from from her own logic. That's why she is better than other socialists, who too often turn in the wind; and one of the many reasons why I love her

Sleeping at night

I don't have time to really meditate on this, but I'd recommend everyone who missed it listen to this very moving interview with Denis Avey this morning. There's some backstory linked to on the site about his role in the war and his actions in the camps. He's obviously an astonishing man, but more importantly, represents a sense of moral obligation that I don't think we've lost exactly, but we don't really consider in same way.

When he speaks of what he did, he explains that without doing it, he couldn't sleep at night; now, when we are called to do something as trivial as give some money to the poor, we expect the state to organise it for us, which - of course, they don't. We shouldn't exaggerate this, plenty of people volunteer and do an enormous amount, and not all men in the 40s were heroes. But, we do miss that feeling of moral obligation, obfuscated by a discomfort about moral absolutes, which is both facile and dangerous. Stories like this remind us of the prize for not thinking like that.

I'm not entirely a fan of a British national commemoration of the holocaust, and I'm glad these cases are - as is proper - being looked at by Yad Vashem as well. For Mr Avey though, I'm delighted, and much moved.