Workplace sexism: TUC appoints a woman as General Secretary

[Guest]

Who would have thought it? While the apparently right-on BBC appoints yet another man to the top job, the carthorse of workers' right, the TUC, has appointed its first woman General Secretary.

Would members care to speculate about what this tells us about either/both organisation(s)?

Bea Campbell salutes the rise of Frances O'Grady

[ahinton]

Who would have thought it? While the apparently right-on BBC appoints yet another man to the top job, the carthorse of workers' right, the TUC, has appointed its first woman General Secretary.

Would members care to speculate about what this tells us about either/both organisation(s)?

No - because it doesn't tell me anything beyond the hope in either case that the best candidate for the job has been selected in either case.

What's the TUC, anyway? The Treasury Unselect Committee?

[handsomefortune]

it's the trade union congress ahinton..... where all unions gather for meetings and negotiate workers disputes over pay and pensions etc. currently, what could be more useful?

i admire and salute bea campbell in saluting o'grady.

evidently, a very tough time to be representing the tuc in many respects....the timing on handing over to a woman is just coincidence of course a move from tottenham court road might also be an idea, if tuc haven't moved hq already?

what i don't salute is o'grady imploring temp workers to join unions on her very first bbc interview. that is, without thoroughly acknowledging the appalling working conditions, wages, etc verses astronomical housing, and the basic costs of barely functioning.

as a 'congress' i'd prefer that the tuc went about putting as much pressure as possible on employers themselves ideally. i'd also prefer that the tuc had a much higher profile in the media, which might give employees more confidence in joining unions at a time when membership can mean your job mysteriously disappears. only later some may discover that no ex colleagues were actually union members.

i'd also be impressed to see a woman do what everyone should ideally offer to do in hard times, despite the appalling example of 'the usual suspects': to take a pay cut where wages/pensions exceed the national average by a specific agreed amount. all money saved might be put to a practical collective purpose, the tuc treasury might well be able to work out how this new 'participation' might operate beyond a concept of the weak being helped by the strong. which just might make collective membership seem more urgent to struggling employees.

this direction might improve tuc's image, whilst also increasing membership in very tough times. whereas what amounts to sanctimonious waffle mainly about the public sector, at a time when many have lost, are losing their public sector jobs, and are forced to work in call centres is sickening. it does nothing for the image of the tuc as a thoroughly worthwhile organisation, currently urgently needed to appear tough on employers, and specifically empathetic towards its members.

[ahinton]

it's the trade union congress ahinton..... where all unions gather for meetings and negotiate workers disputes over pay and pensions etc.

I do actually know that! My "question" (and what immediately followed it) was quite obviously meant as a joke.

currently, what could be more useful?

Abandoning House of Lords reform again?

as a 'congress' i'd prefer that the tuc went about putting as much pressure as possible on employers themselves ideally.

Presumably not to the extent of advocating the imlementationof measures that might put some of those employers out of business; let's not forget that some workers' salaries are paid party out of firms' borrowings these days...

i'd also be impressed to see a woman do what everyone should ideally offer to do in hard times, despite the appalling example of 'the usual suspects': to take a pay cut where wages/pensions exceed the national average by a specific agreed amount. all money saved might be put to a practical collective purpose, the tuc treasury might well be able to work out how this new 'participation' might operate beyond a concept of the weak being helped by the strong. which just might make collective membership seem more urgent to struggling employees.

If your suggested threshold would be that of the national average salary, most people who don't earn much more than this amount would protest at such an idea and refuse to co-operate with it because they're already struggling on their current pay and could not possibly adfford to take a pay cut; the TUC treasury would be able to work out nothing of the kmind that you mention, since this would be a case of advocating that the weakest be helped insufficiently by the slightly less weak. Furthermore, people who actually do accept pay cuts then pay less taxes, which wouldn't help HM Treausry any.

this direction might improve tuc's image, whilst also increasing membership in very tough times. whereas what amounts to sanctimonious waffle mainly about the public sector, at a time when many have lost, are losing their public sector jobs, and are forced to work in call centres is sickening. it does nothing for the image of the tuc as a thoroughly worthwhile organisation, currently urgently needed to appear tough on employers, and specifically empathetic towards its members.

But if there's insufficient revenue properly to fund the public sector (and there's no obvious reason why those public sector workers who are good a what they do should be under-funded by paying them too little), how can all those jobs be maintained? The problem with most public sector work (and this is in no sense a criticism of those who do it) is that, as it doesn't (and isn't really meant to) make a profit, its continuation is dependent upon government funding which, for the most part, is available from only two sources - taxation and government borrowings; the tougher the times economically, the less tax gets collected and the more gets paid out in benefits, which ultimately means (among other things) less and less money available to pay public sector workers and keep their jobs going.

Now in case any of the above sounds as though I am not in favour of trade unions, I can confirm that nothing could be farther from the truth (I was, after all, a member of one myself for 35 years continuously); however, the very useful input that a healthy trade union climate can encourage (now there's a useful kind of climate change!) has to be one in which the combative "us and them" attitude betwen union membership and employers is cast aside by both "sides" in favour of constructive discussion as to how best to address the problems that union members and employers face.

[scottycelt]

Who would have thought it? While the apparently right-on BBC appoints yet another man to the top job, the carthorse of workers' right, the TUC, has appointed its first woman General Secretary.

Would members care to speculate about what this tells us about either/both organisation(s)?

Bea Campbell salutes the rise of Frances O'Grady

Now, there's a surprise, amsey ...

It's only true 'sexists' or 'feminists' who would give a damn one way or the other whether it were a man or woman and, as ahinton has correctly stated, it tells us absolutely nothing about either/both organisation(s), as very few people outside of both organisations might have previously even heard of either appointed candidate.

[ahinton]

Now, there's a surprise, amsey ...

It's only true 'sexists' or 'feminists' who would give a damn one way or the other whether it were a man or woman and, as ahinton has correctly stated, it tells us absolutely nothing about either/both organisation(s), as very few people outside of both organisations might have previously even heard of either appointed candidate.

Well, for the sake of accuracy, whilst I did indeed state that this tells us absolutely nothing about either/both organisation(s), I didn't add that "very few people outside of both organisations might have previously even heard of either appointed candidate", nor was that my reason for writing as I did.

[scottycelt]

Well, for the sake of accuracy, whilst I did indeed state that this tells us absolutely nothing about either/both organisation(s), I didn't add that "very few people outside of both organisations might have previously even heard of either appointed candidate", nor was that my reason for writing as I did.

I was merely adding my own comment quite separate from yours ... apologies for any misunderstanding ... and I have absolutely no idea what your reason was for writing as you did then, or indeed on any other occasion, and I'm delighted to make that perfectly clear, ahinton!

[JohnSkelton]

It's only true 'sexists' or 'feminists' who would give a damn one way or the other whether it were a man or woman

That's odd, because 13 / 05 / 12 you were convinced the only reason Rebekah Brooks became editor of a tabloid newspaper was because she's a woman http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...Inquiry/page26

The most ridiculous comment for me was Brooks complaining of the treatment she has recently received from parts of the media because she is 'a woman' and not 'a grumpy old man'.

She might have pondered that, in today's selectively sexist and ageist world, 'a grumpy old man' wouldn't even have had a snowball-in-hell's chance of ever being in her former post in the first place.

You've changed your mind, then?

[Pianorak]

. . . Bea Campbell salutes the rise of Frances O'Grady

As Mandy Rice-Davies might say: "Well, she would, wouldn't she".

[handsomefortune]

ahinton, perhaps if you're going to misconstrue so many points there's hardly any ontopic discussion left?

firms

? since there aren't many of these around, and not just a couple of people are losing a means to support themselves, where might large numbers of newly unemployed work..... other than 'a firm'? i find the mindset your post reflects the small time firm, and anticipates much lower levels of unemployment frankly.

evidence suggests large numbers of newly unemployed find temp jobs in eg marketing, shops, picking and packing warehouses etc which have many outlets, ....rather than being 'firms'. simultaneously, workers themselves have to negotiate a culture which discourages union membership, or any form of collective activity - other than hard work, often in poor conditions, on a minimum wage. is there anything the tuc can actually do about this? therefore, small firms have little to do with this.

Abandoning House of Lords reform again?

but why 'joke'? or conflate with this issue, which clearly benefits the 'father' and his lords, as per the structure of the hols? it's absolutely no surprise that the lords aren't overseen by a 'mother' obviously.

i'd also be impressed to see a woman do what everyone should ideally offer to do in hard times, despite the appalling example of 'the usual suspects': to take a pay cut where wages/pensions exceed the national average by a specific agreed amount. all money saved might be put to a practical collective purpose, the tuc treasury might well be able to work out how this new 'participation' might operate beyond a concept of the weak being helped by the strong. which just might make collective membership seem more urgent to struggling employees.

to quote myself - i'm introducing the idea that in difficult times, a woman leading by example might just work? that prior, a succession of male appointments in the upper echelons of the tuc, leaves o'grady with immense challenges. the appointment is possibly a hollow victory for equality! yet this doesn't seem of relevance despite the thread title, and my central point.

perhaps o'grady might stress the levels of her own awareness of the current crisis a lot more convincingly? perhaps it might benefit her, and the organisation she leads, to make some personal gesture in the form of leading by example?

evidently, like many large orgs, the tuc has a bureaucratic layer, of which a proportion might also choose to lead by example, and do something practically useful with any money contributed to a fund? all actions (rather than rhetoric) might contribute to the basic concept of the value of 'membership', and 'strength in numbers' under pinning the union movement. perhaps a 'pay cut' isn't the right terminology..as maybe a wage decrease should be a 'contribution' (other than the ones govt collects via ni or tax).... a comparable situation is perhaps echoed in the history relating to the minors' strike, where contributions helped people survive very tough times.

the financially fit assisting those suffering ill fortunes is topical - and is often met with cynicism. imv it's precisely this reaction which actively prevents change, and specific problems are often masked by 'charity'. imv this cynicism also allows banks etc to carry on with a dimwitted form of 'logic' revolving around supposed 'merit' - which bob diamond's bonuses surely prove as a tissue of lies. yet, everyone maintains the 'merit' theory as fact, until it turns out that bob has possibly been criminal...rather than being respected on the basis of any 'merit' whatsoever. criticism logically extends to other large orgs, such as the public sector unfortunately. which means that those employees who are considered of 'low merit' as reflected in their low salaries, may well receive no sympathy for cuts/job loss...even though they possibly worked a darn sight harder than those on huge salaries, or those did little real work, but are crucially willing to promote a corporate style, despite being funded by the tax payer. (ring any bells)?

far too many well heeled people are too easily satisfied by sponsoring a goat in africa ....which seems more and more odd when trouble is right under their nose.

tbf, my post is an ideal....rather than a reality, basically because reality no longer works. imv these commonplace sentiments are precisely what o'grady is up against, as a leader. this simultaneously illustrates a specific point about the tuc's 'miraculous' u turn historically, as far as the gender of its leadership.

[Beef Oven]

Who would have thought it? While the apparently right-on BBC appoints yet another man to the top job, the carthorse of workers' right, the TUC, has appointed its first woman General Secretary.

Would members care to speculate about what this tells us about either/both organisation(s)?

Bea Campbell salutes the rise of Frances O'Grady

Wasn't it Toxteth O'Grady?

[scottycelt]

That's odd, because 13 / 05 / 12 you were convinced the only reason Rebekah Brooks became editor of a tabloid newspaper was because she's a woman http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...Inquiry/page26



You've changed your mind, then?

No, I haven't changed my mind, but you obviously haven't read it properly, or quite deliberately omitted the rest of the post to which it refers.

Instead of making the outrageously sexist and ignorant remark that you claim, I merely pointed out that Ms Brooks had complained of her treatment because 'she was a woman', and I noted that in today's world 'a grumpy old man' might have never got as much as an interview for her lucrative post in the first place (albeit in slightly more colourful language).

I was criticising Ms Brooks' own apparent claim to being a victim of 'sexism', and that is perfectly clear to anyone who can be bothered to read the whole post. The members who responded seemed to understand it easily enough.

If you still doubt this, would you be so kind as to now highlight the part of my post where I am alleged to have claimed that Ms Brooks got her job 'because she's a woman'?.

Thanking you in advance ...

[JohnSkelton]

would you be so kind as to now highlight the part of my post where I am alleged to have claimed that Ms Brooks got her job 'because she's a woman'?.

"in today's selectively sexist and ageist world": what does the first part of that sentence mean if it doesn't mean she got the job because she was a woman?

quite deliberately omitted the rest of the post to which it refers.

I didn't omit any of your post. And i gave a link so that the rest of conversation could be accessed by clicking on it. What's wrong with that? I accept that you only thought she became editor of a tabloid newspaper because she was a woman and because she was young-ish. Is that OK?

[ahinton]

I was merely adding my own comment quite separate from yours ... apologies for any misunderstanding

No apologies needed, for I understood that perfectly myself; I just thought that I ought perhaps to separate those things out for the benefit of anyone who might not have done so.

[amateur51]

My point in posting originally was that it has taken about 200 years for the TUC to manage to appoint a female General Secretary & I resolutely refuse to be believe that this is simply because this is the first time that a woman candidate was also the best candidate.

The BBC however has been around for a much shorter time so its significant refusal to appointment a woman as DG maintains its proud tradition of failing to employ women who with a little encouragement might become the best of their generation. And as for looking outside the organisation - surely not?!.

Harken! :yikes; What is that low rumbling noise? ;erm:

Oh it's just scotty & ahinton roaring at each other across a Paleolithic chasm





Short odds are being offered as to how many posts will be needed for ahinton to turn this thread into one about tax