Unions - a force for good or evil?

[SexyGreyFox]

So much anticipation...

Put down your 1974 'Idiot guide to Unions' book.
What you totally fail to understand is that the Union by law is not allowed to tell workers what to do.
The workers now tell the Union what to do and they act as intermediaries.
If the workers vote 'no' that is it, the Union can't change it.
Maggie put lots and lots of protection in.
If Firemen or Postmen go on strike it's because the workers have done it and not the Unions.
If anybody goes on strike before several months of talks they can be fired and the Union can't stand in the way.
Many a time I've told workers 'Walk out that door you're on your own'.
This is not the 70s.

 

[Spektor]

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...

Quite a tirade to launch against them to end on an "I win either way" fence sitter -- also what you said about the FBU is beyond wrong, even if you tried to boil it down to an oversimplification that just wouldn't be it.

 

[Dolph]

"and frequently seem to spend their time protecting the stupid, the lazy, those who don't really want to work". Don't be an arse. If you have a point of view to make then make it sensibly.

I'm not being an arse, I'm stating an observation. That observation is from watching union representatives at work, in the correct environment, and watching some of the reasoning and excuses they use for unacceptable behaviour.

This may change if you work for a badly managed company, but in very few cases do the union do anything constructive from my observations, because most companies are fair already, and treat employees fairly without union representation, but the union will tell its members it can get them off all manner of frankly ridiculous situations as long as they keep paying their dues, and then proceeds to blame the company when the employee is caught bang to rights.

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?

I'll happily acknowledge that bad management and bad unions can frequently go together, although which is the cause and effect in the modern world is up to debate.

Let's look at a recent public sector dispute, BA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8361085.stm

Here we have a company that, at current pace, is rapidly heading towards bankruptcy, they have tried various approaches to deal with the fact that their staffing costs are much higher per head than their competitors, but so far the changes have been blocked at every turn by the union with repeated threats.

Who is being unreasonable and unrealistic in this situation?

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.

I'm unsure what relevance this actually has, this assumes that union representation always has something to add at the board level, it's like asking why there isn't a member of the cheesemakers on the board...

Put down your 1974 'Idiot guide to Unions' book.
What you totally fail to understand is that the Union by law is not allowed to tell workers what to do.

Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and not, of course, the fault of the union

The workers now tell the Union what to do and they act as intermediaries.
If the workers vote 'no' that is it, the Union can't change it.

And if most of the workers don't bother to vote, the union makes it's own decision as to what they wanted.

They voted three to one in favour of action, with 61,623 out of a total of 80,830 workers who voted saying they wanted to strike.

But the Royal Mail said 60% of the total number of postal workers working in the UK did not vote to strike.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8296660.stm

Maggie put lots and lots of protection in.

Not enough. What action could I take, as a customer, for the mail strike? I can't withdraw my custom, and I can't express in a meaningful way how unreasonable I feel the union/workers are being.

If Firemen or Postmen go on strike it's because the workers have done it and not the Unions.

So provocative speeches, leaflets etc (did you actually see the CWU literature relating to the postal strike? ) do not have any impact on the opinions/feelings/expectations of workers? Setting and confirming unrealistic expectations do not have any impact on the opinions/feelings of workers?

I do wonder why it's always the same unions that seem to have members involved in strike action...

If anybody goes on strike before several months of talks they can be fired and the Union can't stand in the way.

Considering those several months of talks, at present, can involve a man from the union sat in a room with his fingers in his ears going 'la la la, I'm not listening, I want the moon on a stick', that's not especially comforting. This is why we need an independant reasonableness test as to who should have to cover the costs of the strike. I would happily charge it all to the company if the company has been unreasonable, but the union (or the workers if you prefer) has to accept their responsibility too.

Many a time I've told workers 'Walk out that door you're on your own'.
This is not the 70s.

Can you send a memo to the various left wing unions that keep on encouraging strike action among their members opposing consumer friendly initiatives to that effect?

 

[Dolph]

Quite a tirade to launch against them to end on an "I win either way" fence sitter -- also what you said about the FBU is beyond wrong, even if you tried to boil it down to an oversimplification that just wouldn't be it.

You've not heard my tirades about bad management yet... I firmly advocate, for example, sacking the entire management staff at royal mail as well as those workers unwilling to accept that the company needs to modernise to be fit for purpose and customer focused... Both groups have proven themselves unfit to provide the service the customers deserve.

You also need to remember my final comment split the theory of unions from the current reality. I support the theory...

 

[wordy]

I hold Unions in utter, utter contempt and union members not much higher.

Calm down princess, you'll get yourself all worked up.

 

[ColdAsIce]

I was a Union Rep for 20 years so I don't really want to get into an argument.
I also worked during the 70s when Unions were at their peak of power.

Err are you not exactly the right person to be answering in this thread?

 

[horseunderwater]

With out the unions fighting for the workers people employed today would not have half the employment rights and protection they do have

 

[NoIdea]

I used to be a member of Unite until last month. I cancelled my membership as they fund the UAF fascists.

I will be no part of that.

I think there was a need for them back in the day, however now days they just take the mick. Middle of recession and then demand pay rises above inflation.

Then go on to hold the train companies to ransom and make commuters lives a misery.

 

[Surfer]

In theory unions = good. Doesn't work out that way a lot of the time but atm they are necessary.

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?

Good post Meridian.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Depends on the Union IMO

 

[-Ad-]

Rail unions =

That is all!

 

[Surfer]

when im in a more "radical" frame of mind i would even say that much of work nowadays is a kind of "indentured service"....slavery even.... Certain things have changed since those times...more "worker rights" more "freedoms" but the actual "work-equation-balance" has not. Exploitation has its various forms...and isnt really eradicated if the equation is still the same.

Don't ask me to explain this ta

 

[Huxon]

I have been an employer and employed and have seen both ends of the spectrum.

If it were an ideal world, we would not need unions; unfortunately, some companies are run by people who would be to the right of Ghengis Khan and the workers need collective protection; the unions today have evolved into much less militant organisations, who provide support and help in many ways for their members, not just strike ballots but education, insurance, legal representation etc, etc.

It's a bit like insurance, it's only useful when you need it.

This.

 

[I get around]

You pretty much need to be in a union in my place, it's impossible to not argue with the managers unless you're completely spineless or an idiot, they're incompetent morons and they're not even nice about it. The crap I have to deal with for the money paid isn't worth it, so I aint buttoning my lip.

If I don't get sacked within the next year by some 19 year old manager not fit to shine my shoes i'll be amazed, though I'll probably leave before that happens. Just good to have to union there incase **** kicks off, it's a few quid a month.

 

[s-man]

Toughie...in IT and in my own experience many people do not see Unions as being relevant anymore. This was a view I shared until my last firm went down the tubes and the workforce ended up pursuing unpaid salaries etc through the legal system. Those people who were members of the union fared MUCH better than those trying to battle on their own. For that reason as soon as I joined my next company I signed up.

It's interesting to read some of the comments above because the criticisms being levelled at unions and the assertions being made about management being 'generally fair anyway' are the complete opposite to my own experience. As someone has said it must come down to specific unions and employers and their relationships.

Working for one of the countries largest banks for example, you'd think that, as per the above assertion, everything would be done above board, transparently and fairly. Yet in my experience that is definitely not the case. Big companies are great at telling you how things should and will be done, providing the necessary soundbites and page after page of detail on the supposed process but dig deeper and an awful lot of it is just for show in my experience.

On the union side my experience echoes some of the earlier posts - I think unions are generally toothless these days and contrary to the suggestion that they defend workers to the hilt rightly or wrongly...in my experience they do anything but and are really just a mouthpiece for management...a rubber stamp if you will.

My own thoughts on the matter are that Unions should be a force for good but rarely are. Management, however, are not the shining lights of fairness and respectability suggested by some of the above posts either. Too many companies are so focussed on short termist methods and cost cutting strategies such as offshoring to care one jot about their employees. I truly believe that many big organisations look on employees as nothing more than numbers and bums on seats these days and with that sort of support a union might be the only ally you have...

 

[Tummy]

I have been an employer and employed and have seen both ends of the spectrum.

If it were an ideal world, we would not need unions; unfortunately, some companies are run by people who would be to the right of Ghengis Khan and the workers need collective protection; the unions today have evolved into much less militant organisations, who provide support and help in many ways for their members, not just strike ballots but education, insurance, legal representation etc, etc.

It's a bit like insurance, it's only useful when you need it.

This is quite a good comment.

The Education union I'm involved in is fantastic, and is there as an insurance to help employee if they need the help, and for some management. Offering constant support.

Some Schools are really ran like **** by people on power trips (first hand expirence), a lot of people just seem to think that Unions are there to strike and get pay rises, far from it.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Can you send a memo to the various left wing unions that keep on encouraging strike action among their members opposing consumer friendly initiatives to that effect?

As a Union Rep AMICUS told me it was against the law to tell workers what to do or even to tell them how I would be voting.
You go to the workers and give them choices.
The days are long gone when Arthur Scargill or Red Ken could make 1000s of people walk out with a cry of 'All out'.

 

[Ziggy]

All unions are evil except Soviet Union!

 

[DominicStar]

Middle of recession and then demand pay rises above inflation.

They always start higher than they think they know they will get. Management always start far lower than they know they will give, even in the good times. Unions tend to represent a disproportionate number of the lower paid, where inflation is far higher for them than workers higher up the scale. Such as the c.double figure food price inflation, soaring property rental, soaring domestic bills so it's no wonder they ask.