Closed Shops

I imagine that most people of a certain age, say fifty or over, can remember the closed shops operated by the trades unions in the 1970s.  These meant that all the employees at certain factories had to belong to the particular union operating there in order to work there.  Even though this arrangement with the employers contributed much to the improvement of the lot of employees, there was the sense among many people that this was a good example of a restrictive practice.  In the early 1980, Margaret Thatcher's new government, in raft of anti-union legislation, made the union closed shop illegal.  It's fair to say that the government had widespread public support for this.

After its election to in 1997, new Labour did nothing to overturn any of the anti-union laws brought in by Mrs Thatcher's government, even though the rights of working people had been curtailed substantially.

It is easy to see the class-prejudice behind all this, since the anti-union legislation was predicated upon the idea that the closed shop had a restrictive effect on business - it could be seen to tie the hands of employers; and, in some cases, this was so.  But what it certainly meant was that employers could not simply ride rough-shod over their employees.  Where the class-prejudice becomes clear is that there is no such governmental objection to the closed shops and the consequent restrictive practices of the professions.  These have been left untouched by any inhibitive legislation at all, so that the professions can charge the rest of us what they like for their services.  Indeed, it seems to me that, if anything, they are thriving more now that at any time in the past.

I was speaking to someone recently who told me that he had consulted a solicitor and been charged £150.00 for a not-very-involved letter.  We have recently had a bill for £331.00 for some not-very-extensive vet treatment for a cat.  A few years ago, my NHS dentist decided that he was going to operate only under the Denplan scheme - this meant that instead of paying around £35.00 annually for my dental treament (nearly always only check-ups) I was now going to be asked for a monthly sum which I calculated would represent a 550% increase in the cost to me.  For this, I would be allowed to attend every three months instead of every six; but given that I hardly need to go every six, represents a fatuous offer indeed.  The same dentist recently charged an elderly and not very well-off woman I know £900.00 for some treatment and then told her not to worry because she could pay in instalments.  I told this dentist to keep his Denplan, and decided instead to go to a private dentist where I just pay at the time for the treatment I have; and whilst this has so far been cheaper to me than Denplan, I've only had check-ups.  I'm sure that if I needed say, a crown, I would have to save up for it.  At my last examination, I was in the chair for around ninety seconds (yes, I timed it) and then discovered that the fee had risen to £30.00 (it was £15.00 when I started there four years ago) - nice work if you can get it.  Our parish architect has an hourly rate of £77.00 for his services, merely for consultation.

I could, of course, go on.  I cannot escape the impression that, even as most people are really feeling the squeeze, the members of the various professions are getting richer and richer.  Their practices are restrictive, in that their basic fees are set down by their respective professional bodies, so that, if (for example) I decide to use a different vet next time, I shall find the same fee-rates wherever I go.  The inescapable truth is that the professions operate far more effective and tighly organised closed shops than the trades unions ever did; and not only do they do it with impunity, they do it with the support and encouragement of successive governments.