Alternatives to Unite?

[The Halk]

Today Unite sent me yet another half-baked schoolboy politics rabble rousing story.

They funnel money into the labour party, they use government resources to demoagogue - my money too even though I've opted out of the political funds.

I see union membership as a sort of insurance policy in case something goes wrong at work - however I'm increasingly aware the union I'm in is a bunch of scumbags.

They're the only union my employer recognises, I've no idea what it means to be part of an unrecognised union, and if there really are any non-political unions that are for their members benefit, rather than for ****nuttery and the fattening of the union officers wallets.

Anyone any ideas if I have any alternatives?

 

[Something Else]

have you spoken to any of your work colleagues about their union membership, see if any of them are in a different one, i cant see how being with a "unrecognized" union affects your cover at work, though i dont really know much about the matter.

 

[BDEE]

Good post - I am in the same boat.

 

[PermaBanned]

If you're in the union purely because you think they might be able to help you at some point then i think you need to re-evaluate your motives.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Why do you need a union?

 

[swillsy]

Never understood why people pay money to them tbh it just go towards their managers annual champagne dinner. Over pay on your mortgage by a tender a month instead

 

[PermaBanned]

Why? Everyone in the union is there to protect their rights - it's just better to be together, as then the small amount of money everyone chips in can pay for decent representation (arguably) when people need it.

You want union membership to be an altruistic act?

A union's power comes from it's members. A union will only work for as long as employers respect this, that they do have to answer to the union because they are actually capable of enacting consequences. But if the union is only made up of people who are in it for purely selfish reasons than what can it do? It can't strike. If it can't strike then what reason would an employer have to respect it?

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Why do you need a union?

I didn't know what a union was in my old job, except that in the contract, we were discouraged from joining one. Have I've known the definition of a union back then, I could have done with one because there was a lot of back-stabbing, secret squirrels and ego / power struggles going on. So I guess that's why you need a union, for archaic companies like that.

I now work in a mental health Trust and I don't see the need for a union. I have a reasonable boss, and bosses higher up in the hierarchy. Various avenues to take up concerns e.g. a set of Intranet forums if you want to express concerns or whistle-blowing policy if you want to do it anonymously.

 

[The Halk]

If you're in the union purely because you think they might be able to help you at some point then i think you need to re-evaluate your motives.

I think that's what I'm doing?

I'm a union in case I need to be represented by the union if something happens - that's, to me, what the union is. We all club together to pay the salary of someone to represent us.

Most of my colleagues aren't in the union - some of them have said they'll join if something happens and they need the union (and I know for a fact people have been able to do it in the past).

I've been in Unite for about 8 years now, so it's about a grand of my money they've used to fund their political agenda, and seemingly nothing else.

If I felt they might in any way represent my wishes - which are for political neutrality - then I'd perhaps become a union rep, but that's hardly possible.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Why do you need a union?

To prevent, lets be more realistic, minimise, employee exploitation !

Your question is like asking Why do we need minimum wage??

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If you're in the union purely because you think they might be able to help you at some point then i think you need to re-evaluate your motives.

+1

Why not become a rep? Or get on the GEC and submit a motion to conference and tell them to stop the political campaigning? Unite are highly democratic - if enough members stand up and tell them to stop donating to Labour, they will.

As for paying the wages for someone to represent you, do the local reps not do that? - i.e. unpaid volunteers? I very rarely see full time officers take on individual cases.

I now work in a mental health Trust and I don't see the need for a union. I have a reasonable boss, and bosses higher up in the hierarchy. Various avenues to take up concerns e.g. a set of Intranet forums if you want to express concerns or whistle-blowing policy if you want to do it anonymously.

Hmm, I see your point but would it not be an idea to join a Union to ensure that your nice workplace stays like that and doesn't stray back to Victorian principles because, well, who would stop it otherwise?

 

[The Halk]

A union's power comes from it's members. A union will only work for as long as employers respect this, that they do have to answer to the union because they are actually capable of enacting consequences. But if the union is only made up of people who are in it for purely selfish reasons than what can it do? It can't strike. If it can't strike then what reason would an employer have to respect it?

Have you formed your opinion on unions from The Sun?

It's not about strikes, or the threat of strikes. It's about having someone represent you who knows what they are talking about to make sure your rights are respected and you get looked after.

 

[The Halk]

+1

Why not become a rep? Or get on the GEC and submit a motion to conference and tell them to stop the political campaigning? Unite are highly democratic - if enough members stand up and tell them to stop donating to Labour, they will.

I've already said I've discounted that. I'm don't have the time to lead a one man campaign against the union from within the union. It's easier to take my business elsewhere - if elsewhere exists - and perhaps there I might find it's something that's more suited to me.

As for paying the wages for someone to represent you, do the local reps not do that? - i.e. unpaid volunteers? I very rarely see full time officers take on individual cases.

The local reps do it, I've no idea who pays for their time. I've not spoken to one for 4 years - I don't even know who they are any more. They sometimes put a table up and give away freebies to recruit new members. I've yet to pass the table when I've got time to spare to question them.

Edit : Oh one thing they have done for me is create a fake car insurance renewal date and sell it on to car insurance people. Against my express permission.

 

[Floogie]

It's not about strikes, or the threat of strikes. It's about having someone represent you who knows what they are talking about to make sure your rights are respected and you get looked after.

Do strikes, or the threat of strikes, have nothing to do with making sure your rights are respected and you get looked after then?

If all you want is representation then call on a competent colleague. I'm pretty sick and tired of trade union members thinking of their membership as some sort of insurance scheme. Or if that's what you want, get income protection insurance maybe?

 

[craarc]

im in unison as a safety measure..

i thought all employes had to recognise all unions if they were represented not say we recognise this one or that one ?

 

[The Halk]

Do strikes, or the threat of strikes, have nothing to do with making sure your rights are respected and you get looked after then?

If all you want is representation then call on a competent colleague. I'm pretty sick and tired of trade union members thinking of their membership as some sort of insurance scheme. Or if that's what you want, get income protection insurance maybe?

I have income protection insurance.

The threat of strikes is the nuclear deterrent, if you like, it shouldn't ever come near to it, and it's not the first response to anything. If my employer was going to do something ridiculous I'd vote for a strike, and strike if all other things failed, but it's really not what I expect to happen.

I'm more concerned about the mundane things - I develop a medical condition and middle management decide to try to bully me out of the door to save on costs. That type of thing is far more common and that's where I think the union would be useful.

I have income protection insurance - ironically from my employer. It doesn't cover me if I'm dismissed for misconduct. And that's how I'd be dismissed if they tried to get rid of me following a medical condition.

 

[Floogie]

The threat of strikes is the nuclear deterrent, if you like, it shouldn't ever come near to it, and it's not the first response to anything. If my employer was going to do something ridiculous I'd vote for a strike, and strike if all other things failed, but it's really not what I expect to happen.

But I thought you were complaining that your interests were not being served? What should it matter how easily strike days are threatened or undertaken providing you gain from it?

In any case, I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion here that strikes are called easily. You do realise that fewer working days are lost per year now than in 1989 (let alone 1984 or 1978/9)? I mean I'm not happy about that particularly, but it certainly proves my point...

I'm more concerned about the mundane things - I develop a medical condition and middle management decide to try to bully me out of the door to save on costs. That type of thing is far more common and that's where I think the union would be useful.

Ok, so let's run with this hypothetical situation. You develop a medical condition that is covered by disability discrimination legislation.

The government seek to loosen that legislation which makes it far easier to shed disabled workers.

Would you prefer a union that basically ensured this oppressive policy was followed in getting you out the door?

Or do you think it would be much more successful and preferable for a union to campaign against the legislation before it was enacted?

If you want the former then essentially what you get is a cardboard cut-out union full of box-tickers. If you think that best serves your interests then I'd recommend re-evaluating your views.

I have income protection insurance - ironically from my employer. It doesn't cover me if I'm dismissed for misconduct. And that's how I'd be dismissed if they tried to get rid of me following a medical condition.

Normally it would be under capability, not misconduct unless you have a particularly dodgy employer (or silly enough to take out their own IPI scheme).

 

[Dolph]

you don't need to pay the union their protection money, and raise an immediate complaint if they duo their usual blackmail...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The local reps do it, I've no idea who pays for their time.

Your company pays for their time via a facilities agreement. Any other time they do above that is voluntary.

you don't need to pay the union their protection money, and raise an immediate complaint if they duo their usual blackmail...

Good 'ol Dolph! Who said anything about blackmail?

But you do have a point - if the op just wants someone to "be on thier side" when the **** hits the fan any half decent employment lawyer/solicitor is more than capable of handling that, no need for a union.

 

[The Halk]

But I thought you were complaining that your interests were not being served? What should it matter how easily strike days are threatened or undertaken providing you gain from it?

I view strikes as extreme. If the first step the union does is threaten a strike they're not looking after my interests effectively.

In any case, I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion here that strikes are called easily. You do realise that fewer working days are lost per year now than in 1989 (let alone 1984 or 1978/9)? I mean I'm not happy about that particularly, but it certainly proves my point...

I do, and I'm pleased that is the case. I didn't bring up strikes, in fact I tried to dismiss strikes when someone else brought them up - Unions aren't just about strikes.

Ok, so let's run with this hypothetical situation. You develop a medical condition that is covered by disability discrimination legislation.

The hypothetical situation is that I'm managed out the door based on performance/conduct and they avoid talking about the medical issue.

The government seek to loosen that legislation which makes it far easier to shed disabled workers.

Would you prefer a union that basically ensured this oppressive policy was followed in getting you out the door?

Or do you think it would be much more successful and preferable for a union to campaign against the legislation before it was enacted?

If you want the former then essentially what you get is a cardboard cut-out union full of box-tickers. If you think that best serves your interests then I'd recommend re-evaluating your views.

You're now arguing for unions to be political. I don't want them to be political, I want them to look after me. If you consider it cardboard cut out to fight a lying middle manager then I simply think you're wrong.

Normally it would be under capability, not misconduct unless you have a particularly dodgy employer (or silly enough to take out their own IPI scheme).

I'm not silly to take out their IPI scheme - why did you jump to that conclusion? In fact, it'd be an act of monumental stupidity not to take it out.

It's normally done as conduct, rather than capability - if it's middle management trying to get rid of a problem by shady means.