The TUC and inequality

It's always worth actually reading these reports that come out you know? Sure, we get newspaper articles saying that the report claims this or that.

The study by the TUC union found that while disposable income for the wealthiest in society has risen to more than £700 a week, that of the poorest has only gone up marginally - and is still less than £200.

It claims more Britons are living below the breadline than 20 years ago, and that no other European country has such a gulf between rich and poor.

The report also claims inequality dramatically affects children's chances in life, with babies born to poor mothers more likely to develop health problems in later life, and working-class pupils half as likely to get five good GCSEs as their wealthier classmates.

OK, everyone's getting better off but some are doing so faster than others. Inequality is rising.

Yawn.

It's the effects of globalisation, the higher premium upon skills, superstar and tournament economics, greater returns to human capital, yes, we've heard it all before.

But let's go and look at the actual recommendations to deal with this, shall we? You can download the .DOC paper here (can the TUC really not work out how to make a .pdf?).

One thing to note is that much of their argument about the effects on children is that pile of piffle which was the "UNICEF" report. That one that showed that the UK was one of the worst places in the world to be a child. This isn't unusual of course, it's par for the course: a questionable report, one based on absurd assumptions, one that everyone laughed at when it came out, is a building block for the next piece of political chicanery.

Firstly, that we should have more trade unions. This of course is essential: every report of this kind contains the line that the solution is to spend more money on those who wrote the report.

Secondly, that we must strengthen the employment rights of agency workers. Thirdly, that we must remove the pay penalty that workers face if they work part time.

Hmm, you know, two and three are actually part of the same thing. Agency workers and part timers are less likely to be unionised than full time permanent workers. There are also significant differences in the costs of employing them from the businesses' point of view. Part timers (as the Women at Work Commission pointed out) do cost more to employ per hour than full timers: that's why they're paid less per hour. Agency workers can be more expensive per hour, but they don't have the long term costs of those employment rights.

So, if we strengthen the agency rights and make part time wages the same as full time, well, what will happen?

Correct, there will be fewer agency workers and fewer part time workers. Thus benefitting those full time workers who are more likely to be union members at the expense of those who are not members.

Remember, unions exist to benefit their members at the expense of everyone else. And, of course, to strenghten the unions themselves.

Four is addressing discrimination against women workers: fine by me.

Five is raising skill levels: similarly fine by me. Although I rather doubt that my preferred solution, education vouchers and the abolition of national wage scales for teachers will be a method they'll agree to. The teacher's unions might have something to say about that.

Hmm, so, the report comes out, the suggestions are that we should hand over more power and more money to those who wrote the report.

Excellent, and of course, it's all for the children isn't it?

Nothing at all, not one tiny, meeniest iota, to do with the aggrandisement of those who wrote the report.

No, really, not at all.

Actions: Print this article   |   Email to a friend   |   Permalink   |   Comment

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved