Ditto
Unions - a force for good or evil?
- Thread starter dangerstat
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,377
In theory unions seem like a good idea but anybody who remembers them from the 1970s will realise that power corrupts. Moderation in all things ...
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Waiting for Dolph so all I have to do is quote and agree!
These managements are part of the union, usually "worked" their way up the ladder. So much of the workforce is incompetent or lazy.
This.
Checks and balances. Same as separation of executive and judiciary. And a free press.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
What the hell -
Unions have had no power for a very long time, in fact all the way back to Maggie.
I came through the 70s when people would strike because they'd broke their flask or because a fitter had put a bulb in a light socket.
Maggie took the Unions and squeezed them dry and I agreed with her.
No longer could people strike until they went through loads of ballots, meetings and the strike was eventually made legal.
Since Maggie, Unions have basically been there for Health & Safety reasons which we should all agree is a good thing.
Yes, we still went in and fought for more money but basically workers would give up before the first day of a strike.
Some people in here seriously think the Unions say 'Go on strike' and the people do the following day - it takes months & months to get to that stage and it's always the workers who force it that far.
Union Reps are basically like Counsellors - we listen to people but we aren't allowed to tell them what to do (I was told it was against the law).
The only other 'power' is defending people but once again I've sat with many a worker who hadn't got a leg to stand on because they had broke their contract/absenteeism rule.
So basically Unions are now Counsellors, Health & Safety Reps and sit with you when you're being told off.
Unions have had no power for a very long time, in fact all the way back to Maggie.
I came through the 70s when people would strike because they'd broke their flask or because a fitter had put a bulb in a light socket.
Maggie took the Unions and squeezed them dry and I agreed with her.
No longer could people strike until they went through loads of ballots, meetings and the strike was eventually made legal.
Since Maggie, Unions have basically been there for Health & Safety reasons which we should all agree is a good thing.
Yes, we still went in and fought for more money but basically workers would give up before the first day of a strike.
Some people in here seriously think the Unions say 'Go on strike' and the people do the following day - it takes months & months to get to that stage and it's always the workers who force it that far.
Union Reps are basically like Counsellors - we listen to people but we aren't allowed to tell them what to do (I was told it was against the law).
The only other 'power' is defending people but once again I've sat with many a worker who hadn't got a leg to stand on because they had broke their contract/absenteeism rule.
So basically Unions are now Counsellors, Health & Safety Reps and sit with you when you're being told off.
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5,060
- Location
- In the ether
Why did you hang back from posting that?? Seem like reasonable comments.
I think that unions are too political at the moment, to willing to look after themselves and not enough for the people that pay their wages.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Unions are basically now working for the management or that is what most people who you represent believe.
You go into a meeting with management and then come out giving options to the workers for them to decide.
Because you can't tell them what to do you basically stand there shrugging your shoulders.
I think they're a bit weird in this country. They always seem to be in the press for inane things, like the cwu hindering modernisation and the like just to keep people in jobs.
I think it's a bit of a joke compared to other countries where worker really are mistreated and they're not allowed to unionise.
Mind you, I wish I'd had someone to support me when my employer were messing me around over my depression.
I think it's a bit of a joke compared to other countries where worker really are mistreated and they're not allowed to unionise.
Mind you, I wish I'd had someone to support me when my employer were messing me around over my depression.
Well said DMP.
I was a Union rep for Amicus for five years and working in a highly industrialised environment where Health & Safety was the absolute priority for both the company I worked for and the the employee's. Both working hand in hand I might add to make sure that everyone is safe.
I have represented people because they have been bullied and harassed and because the correct disciplinary procedures by the company was not followed by their own management. People put on last written warnings simply because certain managers didn't get on with some of their subordinates.
I'm also old enough to remember the tragedy of the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster twenty years ago where 167 men lost their lives through shoddy work practices and unsafe working conditions. Amicus ensured that there was a fair, open and transparent inquiry on behalf of the victims families (which they could not afford on their own) which resulted in new legislation protecting off shore workers. The latter would never have happened without Union support.
Always makes me laugh when people go out of their way to outdo each other with the vitriol but have very little understanding of what unions actually do.
So much anticipation...
My feelings on the union movement are fairly well know, and my feelings on the behaviour of many of the unions in the UK certainly are. Unions are frequently unreasonable, irrational and short-termist, and frequently seem to spend their time protecting the stupid, the lazy, those who don't really want to work, from being treated any differently from the best worker in the business. Perhaps it's the socialist roots of many of them, I'm not sure.
I'm on record as saying that I would like to see strike action result in damages, following an impartial assessment of which party is being unreasonable, because striking, to many unionised workforces, appears to be nothing more than a blatant bullying tactic to which the employer and the customer has little defence. The history of union bullying and harrassment of those who do not wish to strike doesn't help their case (and even today, my mother in law, who is a union rep, has gone on strike solely because of this demand for solidarity, irrespective of how stupid she believed the reason for the strike to be.
The real problem though, is that it doesn't have to be this way. There is enough protection within employment law that employers can't really screw over their employees any more, which is why union demands have become more and more irrational (eg the CWU postal strike, against the fact that RM are trying to drag the service out of the 19th century, or the FBU strike over the fact that firemen were going to be expected to actually work the hours that they are paid for). Unions have fallen out of favour in most competitive industries because they are damaging to their members prospects (see MG Rover and the refusal to modernise that led to BMW selling it), and now mainly remain in the public sector, and in former public sector, low competition areas, where their behaviour has less commercial impact (and therefore less employment impact) because the customers can't punish the company the same.
What is needed is for the unions to grow up, to move into the 21st century, and start working with employers, rather than fighting everything they do. Actually try looking at the facts, looking at the needs of the business, and then working out the best way for employees to provide that need, rather than ignoring the need, or demanding that the customers have to adapt to the wants of the employees. Where I work, We have an internal staff working group that does just this, and it is very effective in managing the two and getting the best deal for the employees without damaging the business (which will, over time, lead to redundancies). It works because the members all have an interest in seeing the company do well, something that is sorely missing from the modern trade union (which is a business in itself), which is more concerned about raising it's own revenue than anything else.
Are unions a force for good or evil? the idea is neither, the reality depends very much on the union and the business in question...
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
He did. Did you read his post? I agree with him, too.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
Um, yes. That's why I'm in a position to say that I agree with his points.
Most unions would love to work with management. The principle obstacle is the management, who still want to run companies like Nineteenth Century mills. If the management treat their workforces like ignorant children - and most do, for larger companies at least - they can hardly be surprised when the workforce kick back. This is typical of many: they don't even bother to negotiate about things like pay and terms; just say: "We're offering you this". This will be followed by pathetic bleating about the terrible financial circumstances, followed in turn by figures announcing large profits, much of which then get creamed off as management bonuses. As if somehow it was solely down to them. The people who actually do the -ing work that brings the money in would seem a little justified in their grievances, it appears to me. Managers in the UK have the wonderful skill of taking credit for all the good stuff - along with said bonuses - and for blaming the bad stuff on others. Usually their own workers. The people's who's work actually mean the managers getting their bonuses. And you wonder why the workforce might find this a little annoying?
And now a short test to make my point: name five British companies of more than 100 people that have union representation on their boards. If you actually succeed, I'll bet most or all are foreign-owned.
M
Last edited:
So there you have it: the arrogant, self righteous management lackys and the reds under the bed.
To be serious, as has been pointed out, it depends on the firm and their policies; if they include the workers in the management process and make some attempt at attending to their welfare etc, there will rarely be any problems, if they run their business like a nineteenth century mill owner, there will always be problems.
Come to Bradford and just drive around some of the old buildings housing small businesses; most (but not all) are run by Pakistani families and the conditions are primative and downright dangerous but because they are using ethnic labour that is frightened, for one reason or another, they get away with it: that is where there should be both unions and H&S officers.
To be serious, as has been pointed out, it depends on the firm and their policies; if they include the workers in the management process and make some attempt at attending to their welfare etc, there will rarely be any problems, if they run their business like a nineteenth century mill owner, there will always be problems.
Come to Bradford and just drive around some of the old buildings housing small businesses; most (but not all) are run by Pakistani families and the conditions are primative and downright dangerous but because they are using ethnic labour that is frightened, for one reason or another, they get away with it: that is where there should be both unions and H&S officers.