Unions - join or not?

Sparky191

Sparky191

Sparky191

Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2005
Posts
787
Have you ever worked in a company with unions or had experience with them? Personally I never had any dealings with them and I wouldn't have a high regard for them. The idea is fine, the practise less so. I have had friends who have had dealings and their experiences are mixed, but the majority negative.

Anyway I currently find myself working in a highly unionised place and theres likelyhood of industrial action shortly. I'm wondering if, in such an enviroment, would be it better to in or out of the union. I'm thinking that it might be a tad awkward if I'm not and most other are if theres action. Also what impact this might have in dealings with people in the future. I have no idea if I'll be in this place for a long time or not.

Not looking for a rant or soundbites. Just some musings on it.
 
Last edited:
My team works over 2 sites. One site is in a union and one is not, so about a 4th or 5th of the team is represented by the union.

Last year the union secured their members a 1.5% payrise. This year it is still being negotiated.

The payrise for the non-union members are coming through now. I will let you know whether it was worth not being in it once it comes through!

In theory it is a noble thing, in practice less so, as you say. Nothing like performance related pay, the awful staff are treated the same as the best staff.
 
I can see the discussion being somewhat polarised on this issue. However I am a Union Rep at our place for Amicus. In all honesty it is dependant on the people who you get to represent you.

Some people are more millitant than others so what you get can be an entirely mixed bag. If the union is done in the right way then it is a good thing for the company and the workers you represent. We have five reps at our office which covers approximately 400 people. The relations with the company are good. A lot of this has come from constant communication.

The company I work for is subject to a £7billion take over which should go through by September and all in all we are all workign together for job security and to ensure that the pay and conditions are not eroded because of this.

I think the stereotype of the unions being completely against he employers is wide of the mark. If ever there is an issue with one of our members we follow a very strict policy of approaching the persons line manager and speaking completely off the record about any issues surrounding the case. We then get both sides of the picture and in most cases the real culprits are the workers themselves being irresponsible. When we then discuss the new info, it stops any potential greivances. A channel of communication is opened and in most cases we have stopped disciplinary action for what was a mistake. We also tell the worker when they are in the wrong and they should really take responsibility for their owne actions.


Of course there are people who spoil it and give them a bad image. This topic came up last year. I always point to the Piper Alpha disaster. If it was not for the lobbying of Amicus and their constant pressure at the time then there would have been no changes made to safe workign practices on oil rigs. The case would never have been proved to be negligence on behalf of the company as the families could not afford the civil case required to bring such information to the public arena
 
Good points.

Gilly said:
...Nothing like performance related pay, the awful staff are treated the same as the best staff.
Click to expand...

I don't think that performance related pay/benefits and a union have to be mutally exclusive. In fact that might lead to a better enviroment all around. However you can't always be at your best, for a variety of reasons and its those times you need not to be shafted. They shoot race horses. ;) At the same time you don't want slackers to be protected.
 
If performance related pay and unions aren't mutually exclusive then it would cause them a LOT of work to take each individual person on a case by case basis. It would be time and cost prohibitive. Basically, it wouldn't work.

And then with the poor staff that don't deserve a payrise, what would happen? They'd complain to the Union hierarchy about their rep because they didn't get them a payrise!

In my mind Unions are like Communism. The perfect society, but never really works in a real world example.
 
Gilly said:
My team works over 2 sites. One site is in a union and one is not, so about a 4th or 5th of the team is represented by the union.

Last year the union secured their members a 1.5% payrise. This year it is still being negotiated.

The payrise for the non-union members are coming through now. I will let you know whether it was worth not being in it once it comes through!

In theory it is a noble thing, in practice less so, as you say. Nothing like performance related pay, the awful staff are treated the same as the best staff.
Click to expand...


Gilly out of interest is there a two tier payrise scheme at your place (One for members and one that may be different for non members) ?
 
Loki said:
Gilly out of interest is there a two tier payrise scheme at your place (One for members and one that may be different for non members) ?
Click to expand...
Anyone in the building with the union has no choice but to be part of the union, and therefore get whatever payrise is handed to them by said union.

Elsewhere it is decided by management.
 
Gilly said:
Anyone in the building with the union has no choice but to be part of the union, and therefore get whatever payrise is handed to them by said union.

Elsewhere it is decided by management.
Click to expand...

Wow Im suprised by that.

I know when it comes to pay negtiation time at our place this always causes arguments. Basically the union negotiates a pay rise on behalf of all staff. So it gets the members backs up when the non members say words to the effect "Why should I pay for membership when loosers like you pay your membership and negotiate it on my behalf"
 
It was my understanding that you didn't *have* to join a union if there was one present within the site.

However personally, i'd say it's worthwhile for most things, can get some nifty discounts too ;)

Always nice to have some backup if something does go pete tong through no fault of your own.
 
Membership isn't paid for by their members either, as far as I'm aware. Thats also negotiated directly with the company.
 
Gilly said:
If performance related pay and unions aren't mutually exclusive then it would cause them a LOT of work to take each individual person on a case by case basis. It would be time and cost prohibitive. Basically, it wouldn't work.

And then with the poor staff that don't deserve a payrise, what would happen? They'd complain to the Union hierarchy about their rep because they didn't get them a payrise!

In my mind Unions are like Communism. The perfect society, but never really works in a real world example.
Click to expand...

I don't get you mate. If the union agrees performance metrics for everyone en masse then I don't see the problem. Why would you have to do it individually? Only in the case you have everyone doing a completely different job perhaps.
 
Sparky191 said:
I don't get you mate. If the union agrees performance metrics for everyone then I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...
Performance metrics? What are you talking about?
 
No, you weren't listening. They negotiated everyone a flat rate. Everyone in their building got 1.5%
 
As someone said before, it kind of depends on the Union representative but in general terms, there are many benefits and few drawbacks to being a member of a Union.
No one has to be a member of a Union any more but if you are happy to reap the benefits negotiated by the Union, then join and pay your fees.
 
I have never belonged to a union, nor would I do so.

But, unions have their places. Historically, in the absence of organised labour, employers ran roughshod over people. Then, with highly organised unions and a sympathetic environment, unions caused all sorts of damage, and damn-near single handedly destroyed several industries in the UK and took the country into the economic doldrums for years.

Now, the attitude shown by loki seems to be much more prevalent, and the working environment in the UK is world's apart from what it was in the '60s and early 70s. It is more likely that unions defend their members interests (as indeed they should), but that they are aware that the company has to prosper too, and that not everything they want is possible or practical. "Working together" is a far cry from "all out, brothers".

My personal experience with unions is based on the experiences of a family member. He had a union target his company, and they managed to get their grips on it, and then started to make totally unrealistic demands. Had they got their way, the company would have gone bankrupt. NO amount of negotiation mollified the idiots in the union, though. So the employees were presented with a choice, leave the union or lose their jobs. They didn't believe the threat and called the "bluff". My relative closed the company, made everyone redundant and emigrated. He'd built that company from the ground up over nearly 30 years, and the unions destroyed it in 18 months. :( :mad:

I would never join a union, and no union sets foot in any of my companies. If they try, they same will happen as my relative did. But, I run my companies with a very firm eye on employee welfare. Not every employer does. Unions have their place .... but that place isn't anything to do with me.

As for sparky's predicament, I can see that could get awkward. Personally, I'd have nothing to do with the union, but then, you aren't me. I can't advise you on how best to deal with this situation, because I've never been in it, or anything like it.
 
Gilly said:
No, you weren't listening. They negotiated everyone a flat rate. Everyone in their building got 1.5%
Click to expand...

We've crosswired mate. I'm not taking about YOUR specific case but the practise of performance related pay in general. :)
 
I think were going along the route of is the union, and its reps, a good or bad. Ultimately its not the union model itself that really the issue but is it run in sensible way by people with common sense.
 
I work for my local Council and I have to say unions are both a good and a bad thing.

On the one hand they negotiate company wide pay rises on a yearly basis and I've seen first hand how helpful they can be when a friend of mine was going through a (imo unjustified) disciplinary procedure.

On the other hand they can sometimes have too much power, to the extent that the Council is too scared to actually fire people who are incompetant at their jobs. Thanks to union involvement it's now a 6 month consultation process to get rid of a useless member of staff, it's no wonder people complain that local government is inefficient...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom