City's influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations

[Castiel]

And you clearly have no dealings with RMT

I do. Everyday. I am very well acquainted with Bob Crow and his cohorts as other threads on this topic will attest.

On the whole the RMT are reasonable and easy to work alongside. Bob Crow is the issue within that particular Union, however he does get results for his members which is his job after all.

 

[Glaucus]

The reality within the transport industry is not that of the London Underground or what you read in the tabloid press I'm afraid. The reality is quite the contrary.

media?
I'm a member and was even a union rep for a short period, before changing jobs. I know exactly what it's like in the industry and it is far worse than the media make out, as they focus on the wrong areas.

 

[Dolph]

And I've said it before - if the company has a robust, fair and clearly defined disciplinary procedure then what good will the grievances do?

They waste huge amounts of company time, because there is a responsibility to follow them through, even when you know they are specious or malicious.

Essentially, they are trying to convert every disciplinary from taking X man hours to taking X + Y man hours in the hope of making the company shy away from dealing with issues of poor behaviour and performance by dramatically increasing the costs.

It's the same technique as challenging every dismissal with a tribunal claim, even when it's completely pointless, because it costs the company £x thousand just to get the information around the case together and attend, which can't be recovered even if the claim is pointless, meaning it's often cheaper to simply pay a settlement than attend, but which again also serves to try and force a raise in the cost of managing employees through abuse of the system.

Why do you think I fully support the coalition's work at changing the tribunal process?

 

[Dolph]

Not hypocrisy at all. I think it's grossly unfair the company discriminates against non-union members. But what can I do about it? The only option is to sign them up because the company will not, and are under no obligation, to talk to us re: non-union members.

If you cared about workers, as opposed to members, you could help challenge the fact that it is illegal.

However, as it is clear that you don't care about workers, only about members, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. You don't care about how the company treats people, only about how it treats people who pay you, so you are doing more to exploit the suffering of workers than any company, while pretending to be on the side of the workers

 

[Castiel]

Well said castiel. The reality is that there is the potential for ALL employees to overstep the mark - union member, non union member, union rep, manager, ceo et al - I'd say bullying and harassment is seen equally in all groupings. That's why you should have a fair, robust and clearly defined disciplinary policy.

Absolutely. The company policies dictate the methodology and procedures that should be followed in any given circumstance. Adherence to these policies should, if the policy is robust, legal and fairly instituted, leave little or no doubt as to the respective responsibilities of all employees irrespective of grade and the consequences for non compliance of those policies.

The vast majority of issues we have are due to that non compliance, either through poor local communication between the management and workforce or through individual non compliance.

 

[Castiel]

media?
I'm a member and was even a union rep for a short period, before changing jobs. I know exactly what it's like in the industry and it is far worse than the media make out, as they focus on the wrong areas.

Then I suggest you are the exception rather than the rule. Throughout a company with 27,000 employees within the industry we do not see significant cause for concern with how the Unions, namely the RMT, ASLEF and TSSA treat their members or the workforce at large.

I can assure you that if there was cause then we would deal with it in a robust and strictly enforced manner.

That of course doesn't mean to say that the Unions are not a pain in my butt more often than not, but that is their job after all.

 

[Castiel]

They waste huge amounts of company time, because there is a responsibility to follow them through, even when you know they are specious or malicious.

Essentially, they are trying to convert every disciplinary from taking X man hours to taking X + Y man hours in the hope of making the company shy away from dealing with issues of poor behaviour and performance by dramatically increasing the costs.

It's the same technique as challenging every dismissal with a tribunal claim, even when it's completely pointless, because it costs the company £x thousand just to get the information around the case together and attend, which can't be recovered even if the claim is pointless, meaning it's often cheaper to simply pay a settlement than attend, but which again also serves to try and force a raise in the cost of managing employees through abuse of the system.


Why do you think I fully support the coalition's work at changing the tribunal process?

That is not entirely true, a tribunal can indeed award costs to the company if the tribunal decide
the claim was spurious or malicious. We have successfully won two such cases in recent years.


And company policies are not there to keep unions happy, they are there to protect the company, it's employees, it's consumer base and the public at large. That includes disciplinary and attendance policies.

 

[Dolph]

That is not entirely true, a tribunal can indeed award costs to the company if the tribunal decide
the claim was spurious or malicious. We have successfully won two such cases in recent years.

They can, but they rarely do, and actually getting the money out of the individual can often be even harder. Convincing a tribunal that a claim is vexatious is quite a challenge in itself.

And company policies are not there to keep unions happy, they are there to protect the company, it's employees, it's consumer base and the public at large. That includes disciplinary and attendance policies.

I quite agree, which is why the abusive behaviour of unions such as that I described must be condemned and should be illegal.

 

[Castiel]

They can, but they rarely do, and actually getting the money out of the individual can often be even harder. Convincing a tribunal that a claim is vexatious is quite a challenge in itself.

Granted, however it is a cost that can be largely avoided with robust and fair disciplinary and in house appeals processes. It is very rare for us to go to a final tribunal, our in-house system is adequate for most cases when dealing with the Union who we work with to find common ground on the implementation and procedures therein.

Only once have we had to enforce a 90 day notice of changes to T&Cs.

I quite agree, which is why the abusive behaviour of unions such as that I described must be condemned and should be illegal.

Better communication and partnership between unions and management would go some way to addressing the issues, it is not only the Unions who are guilty of abusing process of policy.

We have to be careful that both the company and the employees are adequately protected by the law and in-house policy. Unions have an important role in creating and maintaining that balance.

Better communication and increased partnership go further than removing employee rights.

 

[Dolph]

Granted, however it is a cost that can be largely avoided with robust and fair disciplinary and in house appeals processes. It is very rare for us to go to a final tribunal, our in-house system is adequate for most cases when dealing with the Union who we work with to find common ground on the implementation and procedures therein.

Only once have we had to enforce a 90 day notice of changes to T&Cs.

Better communication and partnership between unions and management would go some way to addressing the issues, it is not only the Unions who are guilty of abusing process of policy.

We have to be careful that both the company and the employees are adequately protected by the law and in-house policy. Unions have an important role in creating and maintaining that balance.

Better communication and increased partnership go further than removing employee rights.

Perhaps, to make it clearer, the union is unrecognised in the situation described above, because the majority of the staff do not want it to be, preferring the robust internal setup in place every time it has been asked.

 

[Castiel]

Perhaps, to make it clearer, the union is unrecognised in the situation described above, because the majority of the staff do not want it to be, preferring the robust internal setup in place every time it has been asked.

All employees should be subject to the companies internal policy anyway. I am somewhat confused as to what point you are trying to make.

I see no reason to not recognise a Union regardless if they only hold a minority representation in the workforce, as long as all staff are treated equally whether they are members or not. If an employee wishes to be represented by a Union Official then I see no issue with that whatsoever.

If there was a better working relationship between Unions and Management to begin with then we would not have this incessant adolescent bickering between them in some industries.

We have dealt with examples of Unions instigating unreasonable behaviour as well as our own managements doing so. We have moved to intercept such behaviour regardless of the culprit and have sought to build a viable and commonly beneficial relationship with all the parties we deal with, be they local management, Unions or the employees directly. It is ultimately our company and ultimately our rules, however we would be remiss if we did not consider the feelings and needs of those with who we work and ultimately rely upon to deliver the services we provide.

Happy staff, happy public, happy union, happy management, happy me, happy shareholders. (not necessarily in that order)

This is the way to deal with such differences in my opinion, not by divisive and militant attitudes or reckless removal or institution of rights regardless of which side they are elicited from.

 

[Dolph]

All employees should be subject to the companies internal policy anyway. I am somewhat confused as to what point you are trying to make.

I see no reason to not recognise a Union regardless if they only hold a minority representation in the workforce, as long as all staff are treated equally whether they are members or not. If an employee wishes to be represented by a Union Official then I see no issue with that whatsoever.

If there was a better working relationship between Unions and Management to begin with then we would not have this incessant adolescent bickering between them in some industries.

We have dealt with examples of Unions instigating unreasonable behaviour as well as our own managements doing so. We have moved to intercept such behaviour regardless of the culprit and have sought to build a viable and commonly beneficial relationship with all the parties we deal with, be they local management, Unions or the employees directly. It is ultimately our company and ultimately our rules, however we would be remiss if we did not consider the feelings and needs of those with who we work and ultimately rely upon to deliver the services we provide.

Happy staff, happy public, happy union, happy management, happy me, happy shareholders. (not necessarily in that order)

This is the way to deal with such differences in my opinion, not by divisive and militant attitudes or reckless removal or institution of rights regardless of which side they are elicited from.

The point I'm trying to make is about the terrible conduct of some unions when they don't get their way, setting out to deliberately disrupt businesses and generally be rather disruptive. You seem to be implying that all unions always behave reasonably, they most certainly do not, and they are doing far more damage to worker's and union rights in the process than any employer could.

 

[Castiel]

The point I'm trying to make is about the terrible conduct of some unions when they don't get their way, setting out to deliberately disrupt businesses and generally be rather disruptive. You seem to be implying that all unions always behave reasonably, they most certainly do not.

I accept that, of course some Unions do just that. I'm trying to illustrate however that management can be equally as deliberate in the divisive and antagonistic way they deal with Unions.

Unprofessional and antagonistic behaviour is not the exclusive remit of Unions, management can be just as unreasonable in their behaviour toward employees and subsequently the Unions that represent them.

I am trying to inject some objectivity into this line of debate Dolph.

 

[Dolph]

I accept that, of course some Unions do just that. I'm trying to illustrate however that management can be equally as deliberate in the divisive and antagonistic way they deal with Unions.

Unprofessional and antagonistic behaviour is not the exclusive remit of Unions, management can be just as unreasonable in their behaviour toward employees and subsequently the Unions that represent them.

I am trying to inject some objectivity into this line of debate Dolph.

Of course it isn't, I don't believe I have ever implied otherwise.

However (and your experience may well vary), I've witnessed far more unprofessional and antagonistic behaviour from trade unions than from management in any of the companies I've worked for. I would say that this may be because I've worked for a series of companies where the workforce rejects unionisation, and the small but vocal union members and branches that remain do not seem to take it well at all, so this could be part of it.

 

[Castiel]

Of course it isn't, I don't believe I have ever implied otherwise.

However (and your experience may well vary), I've witnessed far more unprofessional and antagonistic behaviour from trade unions than from management in any of the companies I've worked for. I would say that this may be because I've worked for a series of companies where the workforce rejects unionisation, and the small but vocal union members and branches that remain do not seem to take it well at all, so this could be part of it.

It does seem to me that was exactly what you were implying. If that wasn't your intent then I accept my impression was mistaken.

In my experience Unions are largely reactionary to what their members think is unfair treatment by management. In some cases this is the case, in others it is not.

In almost all cases regardless of the instigator it is how the management deals and reacts themselves that decides the final outcome and level of disruption caused. In my experience that is.

 

[Dolph]

In my experience Unions are largely reactionary to what their members think is unfair treatment by management. In some cases this is the case, in others it is not.

Of course, but the problems come when those members form a small subset of a much happier overall group of employees, and just set out to cause trouble.

In almost all cases regardless of the instigator it is how the management deals and reacts themselves that decides the final outcome and level of disruption caused. In my experience that is.

Capitulation and appeasement of a small minority of troublemakers is never a good management option when the bulk of the workforce agree with the management, not the troublemakers.

 

[EdwardTeach]

And equally I'm sure that there are many shareholders who don't want their company donating to political parties. But that isn't even put to a vote, unlike union dues to parties. And at least the union donations are right out there in the open.


M

Do you have any idea how companies operate? Shares carry voting rights, all companies are run democratically with the consent of their shareholders.

 

[Castiel]

Of course, but the problems come when those members form a small subset of a much happier overall group of employees, and just set out to cause trouble.

Unless there are flaws within the structure and policies of the company then all they are is unhappy. There isn't really much such a minority can constructively do.

Capitulation and appeasement of a small minority of troublemakers is never a good management option when the bulk of the workforce agree with the management, not the troublemakers.

you have a very negative attitude to management if that is what you consider the only options. There is no reason not to consider and negotiate the concerns of even a small proportion of the workforce as long as the adverse or indeed the beneficial aspects of any such negotiation and subsequent agreements are considered.

There is no reason whatsoever to enter into a situation with a militant attitude just because you are faced with one, neither does listening and considering the concerns of people, however small the minority, capitulation or appeasement.

Management's task is to manage, not to simply impose their will unnecessarily. Like I said I have only had to impose the 90 day requirement once, all other disputes have been solved by negotiation, a negotiation whose outcome is beneficial to both parties, but as the 90 day notice suggests I can and will impose changes if I feel they are necessary regardless of Union opposition as there was in this case. I will entreat with reason and goodwill, but only within a reasonable and defined framework of what our objectives as a company are.

If a union is not open to reasonable negotiation within a defined timeframe and objective framework them I will simply do what the company deems is right for the company regardless.

 

[Castiel]

Do you have any idea how companies operate? Shares carry voting rights, all companies are run democratically with the consent of their shareholders.

Not all Shares hold voting rights and not all executive decisions are voted on or necessary to be voted on.

Incidentally not all companies have shareholders and those that do, not all are run democratically either.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If you cared about workers, as opposed to members, you could help challenge the fact that it is illegal.

However, as it is clear that you don't care about workers, only about members, that's where the hypocrisy comes in. You don't care about how the company treats people, only about how it treats people who pay you, so you are doing more to exploit the suffering of workers than any company, while pretending to be on the side of the workers

I do care about non-members, I just don't have any means to do anything about it.