When fighting the system trumps fighting for your members
Via Croydonian, this bizarre press release from the GMB
LITTLE CHEF VICTIM OF THE CURSE OF THE VENTURE CAPITALISTS SAYS GMB
Now, unions misunderstanding basic business and economic principles is nothing new, and neither is their taking a somewhat blinkered view of their members' interests, but the tone of this press release is unusual.
The main complaint they seem to have is that Permira bought a company, added shareholder value through restructuring, and sold it at a profit.
Their complaint isn't even at the level of the profit (which, at less than 9% per year, is hardly excessive) but that the company made one at all.
What they seem to be railing against is the basic system that keeps all businesses going.
And what of their members' interests? A secondary concern of course.
They acknowledge that jobs were lost but this is relegated to a single sentence in the penultimate paragraph.
Surely for an organisation that purports to represent its members' interests, fighting against sackings should be the primary focus of this release? - mitigating the effects of business restructuring on their members, rather than railing against capitalism itself?
If I were a union member I'd be asking the GMB exactly how they though this was serving my interests.
LITTLE CHEF VICTIM OF THE CURSE OF THE VENTURE CAPITALISTS SAYS GMB
Now, unions misunderstanding basic business and economic principles is nothing new, and neither is their taking a somewhat blinkered view of their members' interests, but the tone of this press release is unusual.
The main complaint they seem to have is that Permira bought a company, added shareholder value through restructuring, and sold it at a profit.
Their complaint isn't even at the level of the profit (which, at less than 9% per year, is hardly excessive) but that the company made one at all.
What they seem to be railing against is the basic system that keeps all businesses going.
And what of their members' interests? A secondary concern of course.
They acknowledge that jobs were lost but this is relegated to a single sentence in the penultimate paragraph.
Surely for an organisation that purports to represent its members' interests, fighting against sackings should be the primary focus of this release? - mitigating the effects of business restructuring on their members, rather than railing against capitalism itself?
If I were a union member I'd be asking the GMB exactly how they though this was serving my interests.
Post a Comment