Er - who wrote those rules? Who is in charge of their implementation? If they are being implemented differently to how they were intended, whose job is it to tighten the interpretation up? Here's a clue: the answer to all those questions is the same, and it's not the unions.
And I have a chip on my shoulder about managers in the same way as you mindlessly support them. To quote Scott Adams: I'm not against managers, I'm against bad managers. And whenever you see bad industrial relationships, I'll show you bad managers. You can't make a happy workforce militant, and you can't make an happy workforce unhappy, by anything unions might say in isolation. You can't make up grievances that don't exist and expect the workforce to use that to lead to industrial action. In order for workers to go down that route, the quality of management will generally be pretty poor and the grievances be genuine. Good old-fashioned us-versus-them, bosses handing out redundancy notices and then raking bonuses - that sort of thing. Playing favourites and making up jobs for the blue-eyed boys. Making sure cuts hit the workers, not themselves. Making up more support jobs whilst cutting front-line staff. Taking the credit for other's success and blaming others for their own failures. You get the picture.
Bye and large both sides want the same thing: a successful company. If there's a conflict then someone started it, and my money is on the group with most of the power. Because there are plenty of unionised large companies who have excellent industrial relationships, so it's neither scale nor unions causing the problem.
M
The problem always boils down to workers wanting more, for less.
Which is fine when its easy to do ie making large profits etc. When that stops the managers suddenly become "bad managers" because they cant give what the workers want.
Tip, its not the workers/trade unions who decide who is a good manager, its the people who pay said managers wages.
Businesses offer a salary and package for a job, when accepting that job you decide if thats good enough for you. What level of profits the company makes is really of no concern to said worker, they are paid to do a job.
If your unhappy about said wages go work somewhere else, how is that hard to understand? Thats the bit that gets my goat about unions, if your unhappy with the working conditions **** off and work somewhere else. If the company cannot accept that they will offer you more. If the company is genuinely paying so badly it will struggle to recruit and have to up the wages/benefits.
Over history when you look at what the unions did they did great for their initial period, they really benefitted workers and dragged the country forwards. But then they basically became greedy, over a long period they slowly destroyed our global competitiveness (excessinve wage demands and strikes etc) and by their own actions destroyed the jobs of the people they sought to protect.
I personally do not see the need for unions in the modern world, EU directives, even our own goverment will not let standards fall below certain levels. They always seem to forget its about global competitiveness in the world we live in.
The fact he quotes redundancy then says about bonuses, wow, welcome to the real world. Not making those redundancies may have caused the whole company to go under.
