Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

JamesTT · 11 Oct 2016

Mod Note: This thread is for discussing Unions and their status in the UK. It is not a thread for discussing DOO and any such posts are liable for deletion without further warning.

A side topic from the DOO debate, I am interested in opinions of the following.

In other countries the trade union movement is still supported by the majority of the population for example in Scandanavian countries.

In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Why is this ?

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

Because most people take the advances that came from trade unionism in the 20s and 30s, and immediately after the Second World War, for granted.

Carlisle · 11 Oct 2016

JamesTT said:
A side topic from the DOO debate, I am interested in opinions of the following.

In other countries the trade union movement is still supported by the majority of the population for example in Scandanavian countries.

In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Why is this ?

Id say more workplaces than you'd imagine still have union members, amongst them although these days it won't be almost the entire workforce , and it'll be rare for them to get the publicity of the likes of RMT as most of those members/unions will see calling strikes only as a very last resort

DeeGee · 11 Oct 2016

Because Thatcher rendered them pretty toothless.

French unions mainly provide the funding for the social security system in France. I think the German ones are the same.

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

The most recent analysis of trade union membership comes from 2015. People in trade unions earn more money than people who are not in trade unions. The longer you have been in service, and the older you are, the most likely you are to be in a trade union. People in the public sector are much more likely to be in a trade union, and people in the north are more likely to be in a union than people in the south east and in London. Very low earners and very high earners are much less likely to be in a union. Temporary staff are half as likely to be in a union. Women and disabled people are more likely to be in a union.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...on_Membership_2015_-_Statistical_Bulletin.pdf

It's interesting seeing which sectors see high union membership and which sectors see low membership. Accommodation and food service sees membership at about 2%. This is probably the most volatile of all the sectors, with the use of zero hours contracts, repeated outsourcing and subcontracting, and immigrant labour the highest.

People in volatile and short-term employment won't be in a union, because they can't afford to be and because their employers won't recognise them even if they are.

People in high value employment won't be in a union because they won't need to be, or because they're in senior management positions where it would be much more difficult to be unionised.

Younger people won't be in a union because they take the rules for granted, and are less likely to be treated badly in employment.

swt class 450 · 11 Oct 2016

JamesTT said:
A side topic from the DOO debate, I am interested in opinions of the following.

In other countries the trade union movement is still supported by the majority of the population for example in Scandanavian countries.

In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Why is this ?

Unions are still supported by many people. I support the unions myself and i know many people who are still union members and still support unions. I personally think that it is just the Tories and companies like Govia who are trying to give the unions a bad image.

Deepgreen · 11 Oct 2016

I don't think they have fallen out of favour, despite successive governments being right wing (both Labour and Tory), and the press leanings that go with that. However, many of the basic rights have already been secured, and the underlying manufacturing industry has contracted hugely, leaving a service-based economy which is naturally less rigidly aligned with unions.

If unions have a good case and articulate it properly (!) then they are still capable of winning favour with the public. In the case of the RMT vs. GTR, the RMT have managed to avoid (it seems) widespread alienation (or at least the staff have) despite the RMT's very poorly-stated campaign.

Phil. · 11 Oct 2016

JamesTT said:
A side topic from the DOO debate, I am interested in opinions of the following.

In other countries the trade union movement is still supported by the majority of the population for example in Scandanavian countries.

In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Why is this ?

Have a look at the recent R.M.T. fiasco and there's your answer. How can an organisation that's supposed to be looking after it's membership cause them so much financial suffering for so little? It wasn't about train safety, it was about guaranteeing job security which no employer can guarantee. Who outside of the rail "industry" on this forum has a written guarantee from their employer that they have a job for life?

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

Phil. said:
How can an organisation that's supposed to be looking after it's membership cause them so much financial suffering for so little?

It isn't about "guaranteeing jobs for life", it's about not sacking an entire workforce for a spurious reason. It is the same in most sectors where an employer tries to sack an entire workforce for a spurious reason. Sometimes the employer has the upper hand (e.g. Ineos in Grangemouth) in which case the union has to back down, and sometimes the union has a stronger position to make their case. But even where the union's had to climbdown massively, like with GTR, they have been able to win concessions that weren't forthcoming.

I know you are someone who is determined to defend GTR, but even here GTR have been forced into offering £2000 ex-gratia payments to try and end the dispute. That wasn't forthcoming at the start; had it have been, the dispute may have ended sooner.

I've recently left my trade union because my new employer doesn't recognise the union (ironically given who I work for), but membership of the trade union secured concessions in my last job that wouldn't have been forthcoming otherwise. Sadly the gains from my union action were shared with non-union members too, which is another issue as to why many people don't join the unions. Too many people are happy to hang on the coat-tails of union members.

AnonymousUser1 · 11 Oct 2016

JamesTT said:
A side topic from the DOO debate, I am interested in opinions of the following.

In other countries the trade union movement is still supported by the majority of the population for example in Scandanavian countries.

In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Why is this ?

1. Some of the larger / more vocal unions have been taken over at a national and in some cases local level by loonie lefties becasue the Labour party pre -Corbyn saw them to be loonie lefties and undesirable for selection as candidates whether for councils or Westminster

2. Some unions engage in shroud waving to try and maintain their position - regardless of the facts - the RMT and FBU are very good at this ~

3. some unions feel that they can subvert the democratic process and engage in the 'torys are the nasty party ' / 'tories are taking us down the route of 1930s Germany line , while declaring members of the same union / political party as 'Fair Game' becasue they do not share their delusions.

4. some unions feel that organisations exist to employ their members and that the provision of service is a by-product of this ...

Some trades unions both TUC affiliated and not are doing a lot of good work day in day out promoting the welfare of the staff in their sector and providing important support to members without trying to grab headlines or bring their employers to their knees .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Carlisle said:
Id say more workplaces than you'd imagine still have union members, amongst them although these days not the entire factory or wherever and probably don't get the publicity of the likes of RMT as most of those members/unions will see calling strikes only as a very last resort

it;s more that the Shop Stewards / Convenors can't call strikes at the drop of a hat and when they do put forward for action it;s over things that justify action rather than to bully management into not disciplining / dismissing dangerous, incompetent or criminal (soon to be former) members of staff
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Arctic Troll said:
T Temporary staff are half as likely to be in a union. Women and disabled people are more likely to be in a union.

<snip>

People in volatile and short-term employment won't be in a union, because they can't afford to be and because their employers won't recognise them even if they are.

.

this is in part becasue some TUs e,.g. the CWU actively reinforce the barriers and boundaries between the ' glorious honest postman ' and ' agency scum ' ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Arctic Troll said:
I've recently left my trade union because my new employer doesn't recognise the union (ironically given who I work for),

Frankly, IMO you are an idiot, if you were changing unions because of a differing collective representation arrangement or you were previously part of a 'closed' union ( e.g. CSCSA ) it;s entirely understandable ... where there is no 'recognition' agreement for 'your' union or even any union you can still make full use of all the personal and wider services of union or professional assocation membership

but membership of the trade union secured concessions in my last job that wouldn't have been forthcoming otherwise. Sadly the gains from my union action were shared with non-union members too, which is another issue as to why many people don't join the unions. Too many people are happy to hang on the coat-tails of union members.

see previous re bullying and subversion of the democratic process when it suits the union.

Raul_Duke · 11 Oct 2016

Rupert Murdoch and a right wing slant in coverage of anything involving unions.

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

mph1977 said:
Frankly, IMO you are an idiot, if you were changing unions because of a differing collective representation arrangement or you were previously part of a 'closed' union ( e.g. CSCSA ) it;s entirely understandable ... where there is no 'recognition' agreement for 'your' union or even any union you can still make full use of all the personal and wider services of union or professional assocation membership

I'm not going to go into detail about where I work here, except to say that there is no point being in a union which is not recognised when you work for a smaller employer. It is not a decision I took lightly, given that I have been a member of that union for ten years now, and they are a very good union.

Which is another reason why membership is lower in the private sector, with many more small businesses where trade union membership is of limited value. As you can see by how few people in small businesses take up union membership.

AnonymousUser1 · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
I'm not going to go into detail about where I work here, except to say that there is no point being in a union which is not recognised when you work for a smaller employer. It is not a decision I took lightly, given that I have been a member of that union for ten years now, and they are a very good union.

Which is another reason why membership is lower in the private sector, with many more small businesses where trade union membership is of limited value. As you can see by how few people in small businesses take up union membership.

well they are fools , unless of course the legal support of a union can be purchased for less elsehwere ( never seen a comparable offering outside the kind of deals that 'high net wealth' people have with their tame law firms).

collective bargaining is pretty much a sideshow - and i've seen collective bargaining work very well with not a union staff council / advisory groups in organisations without union recognition arrangements ( and also one of the newest trades unions has a back group as a staff association - the employer has fully supported their transition to trades union recognsiing that the training from and support of the TUC for them will make co-operative workign better still - the fact it's a 'closed' union limits the chances of entryist loonie left takeover )

a good trade union rep or FTO is invaluable in making sure employers stick to the law in disputes and discips or if the employer fails to stick tothe rules in bouildingthe ET case ( and the union may of course be able to stand for the ET fees as well a legal advice / representation rather than the employee PAYG )

snowball · 11 Oct 2016

Raul_Duke said:
Rupert Murdoch and a right wing slant in coverage of anything involving unions.

Not just Murdoch but much of the press, and it doesn't let little things like facts worry it.

47802 · 11 Oct 2016

Well aside from my general view of unions that they frequently more interested in trying to run the country or trying to bring the government down if its a Tory one, rather than be involved purely in member issues, I briefly joined a union for a few years, I can not say I was particularly impressed by the union representatives many who seemed to be not particularly bright and as far as I could see had become union reps because they had not done particularly well in their own careers but it gave them a bit of power.

When a steel company I worked voted to close a major part of the plant down in Sheffield with the loss of 600 jobs at the final meeting we got a load of bull on how good a redundancy package the union had negotiated despite the fact it was broadly the same as what the company was intending to offer anyway, and then when we voted to accept the offer the guy says give yourselves a round of applause, and I'm thinking why are we giving ourselves around of applause there going to be 600 redundancies and a loss of a major part of the UK Stainless Steel industry.

Unions can be useful in the case of disciplinary issues and constructive dismissal but if unions are to be relevent going forward I think they need to change their image and direction.

wingsoveryorks · 11 Oct 2016

Personally I think it goes back to the seventies. People back then were fed up with the disruption unions caused for the silliest of reasons.

Enter Thatcher.

Thatcher brought in laws to curb union power, and the people were ready for it. But she went further, she sold people a dream. Everybody could be somebody. Shareholders, house owners, stake holders. Oh how people bought into the fantasy, even if in reality that is all it was.

Society has changed. Life for younger ones is hard now. All they can do is rack up debt in order to survive. The sad part is that when you force people into that position, they actually move away from fighting for a fairer share of what they should be entitled to. Look at zero hour contracts now sweeping the board, and nobody has banged a triangle.
But the most striking feature is fees to go to a tribunal. That was brought in and again nobody complained. It is that apathy that is is to blame. We are all Turkeys voting for Christmas.

As for the unions. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Working on the railway I would never not be in the union, it is far too dangerous not to be. But I utterly despair at some of the union antics. From LLC level upwards you find people forcing their ideas on you without as much as a consideration as to whether anyone agrees or not. Union officials do not have a monopoly in common sense, yet, they behave sometimes in the exact same manner as the worst of the bosses.

cjmillsnun · 11 Oct 2016

There are a number of reasons unions are falling out of favour.

1. Employment rights already exist. A lot of the legislation has been in place for decades now.

2. Bad press. Some of this goes back to the 80s and some more recently

3. Bad PR. This relates to point 2 but unions are not very good about putting their viewpoint across in a coherent manner. Also firms are much better in their PR (except GTR's latest campaign)

4. Employer recognition. If your firm doesn't recognise a union many people don't think there is a point in being a member.

5. Apathy. Like voting at local council elections, many just can't be bothered.

6. Cost. Many on low wages can't afford the fees

7. Ignorance. Some people genuinely don't know what a union is for.

8. Some don't agree with the concept of unions.

Phil. · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
It isn't about "guaranteeing jobs for life", it's about not sacking an entire workforce for a spurious reason. It is the same in most sectors where an employer tries to sack an entire workforce for a spurious reason. Sometimes the employer has the upper hand (e.g. Ineos in Grangemouth) in which case the union has to back down, and sometimes the union has a stronger position to make their case. But even where the union's had to climbdown massively, like with GTR, they have been able to win concessions that weren't forthcoming.

I know you are someone who is determined to defend GTR, but even here GTR have been forced into offering £2000 ex-gratia payments to try and end the dispute. That wasn't forthcoming at the start; had it have been, the dispute may have ended sooner.

I've recently left my trade union because my new employer doesn't recognise the union (ironically given who I work for), but membership of the trade union secured concessions in my last job that wouldn't have been forthcoming otherwise. Sadly the gains from my union action were shared with non-union members too, which is another issue as to why many people don't join the unions. Too many people are happy to hang on the coat-tails of union members.

1. No-one was threatening to sack any Guards until the R.M.T. tried unsuccessfully) to play hardball. They were never going to win. No-one forced GTR to come up with a £2k ex gratia payment, they were trying to end the dispute ASAP.

2. I'm not a supporter of GTR per se. What you have to realise is that companies have to move with the times or go under. The U.K. motorcycle industry was just about the biggest in the world but they didn't move on and the Japanese had them for breakfast with their modern reliable non-oil leaking 'bikes.

edwin_m · 11 Oct 2016

Only someone with a keen interest in history will be aware of the employment rights that unions did a lot to secure in the first half of the 20th century. But many people will remember, or know people that remember, the 70s and 80s when the unions appeared to believe they should be running the country. This effectively handed a mandate to the Thatcher government, who used it to do some things that were necessary but many others that were excessive and led directly to the deeply divided society we have today. There were probably also many failings due to greed and incompetence on the management side, but if so history and a compliant press have swept them from view.

So today anyone sounding like the union barons of the 70s is usually on a hiding to nothing and a blessing to their opponents. Mick Cash is a prime example - there would probably be no driverless Tube programme if unions had been less militant and not given Boris Johnson the opportunity to play the people's champion. Though interestingly the RMT has managed to retain much public support on GTR despite their safety argument being, to say the least, thin. This is probably down to the failings of GTR rather than anything the RMT has done.

Compare and contrast the German situation where by and large unions and management work together in an atmosphere of trust rather than confrontation. What's good for the company is usually also good for the workers, as long as the management don't get greedy.

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

Phil. said:
No-one was threatening to sack any Guards

Yes they were.

What you have to realise is that companies have to move with the times or go under.

GoVia- a joint venture of two of Europe's biggest transport providers- will go bust if they don't get rid of guards?

That's a huge claim to make, if true.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

edwin_m said:
there would probably be no driverless Tube programme if unions had been less militant and not given Boris Johnson the opportunity to play the people's champion.

Dubai- a city-state not exactly renowned for its trade unionism- has just built an entire Metro system without drivers.

I think trying to blame the RMT for TfL looking at driverless trains- given TfL have been running automated trains since the 60s- is an interesting perspective.

CarlSilva · 11 Oct 2016

Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

MAybe it's because of tory propaganda spouted by the media, slagging them off and trying to set other working people against them. Won't be the first time either. In a divide and rule sort of way.

AnonymousUser1 · 11 Oct 2016

47802 said:
Well aside from my general view of unions that they frequently more interested in trying to run the country or trying to bring the government down if its a Tory one, rather than be involved purely in member issues, I briefly joined a union for a few years, I can not say I was particularly impressed by the union representatives many who seemed to be not particularly bright and as far as I could see had become union reps because they had not done particularly well in their own careers but it gave them a bit of power.

When a steel company I worked voted to close a major part of the plant down in Sheffield with the loss of 600 jobs at the final meeting we got a load of bull on how good a redundancy package the union had negotiated despite the fact it was broadly the same as what the company was intending to offer anyway, and then when we voted to accept the offer the guy says give yourselves a round of applause, and I'm thinking why are we giving ourselves around of applause there going to be 600 redundancies and a loss of a major part of the UK Stainless Steel industry.

Unions can be useful in the case of disciplinary issues and constructive dismissal but if unions are to be relevent going forward I think they need to change their image and direction.

sums a lot of it up

the mis-use of 'facility time' by union reps is an issue especially when it becomes the case that the convenor and the chosen few spend their entire time on 'facility time' and don;t actually do the job they are employed to do

facility time is important to allow reps to attend meetings/ training etc and support members with disputes / grievances/ discips
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

CarlSilva said:
MAybe it's because of tory propaganda spouted by the media, slagging them off and trying to set other working people against them. Won't be the first time either. In a divide and rule sort of way.

or maybe it's becaude of the way in which the far left have seized control of some unions and are more interested in their own political agendas than in supporting workers in the sector and making the employers successful businesses which can continue to employ members ... that's before we even consider those unions who set out to reinforce the differences between substantive staff and agency scum ( despite the agency scum propping up the ridiculously generous bonus scheme for substantive staff but getting nothing fortheir efforts - and it wasn;t even as if the time line for 'high performing' agency staff to get substantive was particularly short in that setting running to several years to being offered a 'zero hour sort-of-employee scum' contract (still not in the bonus scheme) and then several more before being offered a substantive contract ... rather than 12 weeks -about a year range seen elsewhere )

Phil. · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
Yes they were.

Only because their representatives were un-moving on negotiations. Basically, the R.M.T. blinked first. Remember what happened to the U.S. Air Traffic Controllers when they refused to budge on what was a decent offer? Yep, the government sacked the lot of 'em and brought in Controllers from the U.S.A.F. until new Controllers were recruited and trained. If you're going to play hardball be prepared and do your homework. Can "your" members be done without? Yes they can, on lines everywhere. The precedent had already been set thirty years ago.

edwin_m said:
Only someone with a keen interest in history will be aware of the employment rights that unions did a lot to secure in the first half of the 20th century. But many people will remember, or know people that remember, the 70s and 80s when the unions appeared to believe they should be running the country. This effectively handed a mandate to the Thatcher government, who used it to do some things that were necessary but many others that were excessive and led directly to the deeply divided society we have today. There were probably also many failings due to greed and incompetence on the management side, but if so history and a compliant press have swept them from view.

So today anyone sounding like the union barons of the 70s is usually on a hiding to nothing and a blessing to their opponents. Mick Cash is a prime example - there would probably be no driverless Tube programme if unions had been less militant and not given Boris Johnson the opportunity to play the people's champion. Though interestingly the RMT has managed to retain much public support on GTR despite their safety argument being, to say the least, thin. This is probably down to the failings of GTR rather than anything the RMT has done.

Compare and contrast the German situation where by and large unions and management work together in an atmosphere of trust rather than confrontation. What's good for the company is usually also good for the workers, as long as the management don't get greedy.

The German unions and management can call on history. They know what right wing extremism did to their country in the 30/40s and, during the 60/70/80s saw what left wing extremism was doing to the workers on the other side of the Berlin wall in the East German worker's paradise.

northwichcat · 11 Oct 2016

JamesTT said:
In the UK the majority of workers are not in a union and many people see them as an outdated loony left etc rtc organisation.

Some unions in the UK give the impression they are against progressive change. A number of newer industries only function if progressive change is allowed. For instance, do you want a slow to load website with very little functionality? That's what you'd have if computer programmers to keep the exact roles they were originally employed in.

Tetchytyke · 11 Oct 2016

Phil. said:
Only because their representatives were un-moving on negotiations.

You keep saying this.

The RMT made many suggestions, including adopting the Ticket Examiner position as used in Scotland. GTR rejected it, and responded by taking the car park passes off anyone who disagreed with them.

Guards can be "done without", which isn't the same thing as should be done without. Most jobs- including yours, I would wager- are not as indispensable as the holder would want.

The OBS role certainly isn't, and will almost certainly be abolished as soon as this dispute blows over. If there are still OBS roles at the end of this franchise I'll eat Connex Charlie's hat.

jcollins said:
Some unions in the UK give the impression they are against progressive change.

What is "progressive change"?

So far as I can tell, it is only ever used as a euphemism for either reducing the workforce or reducing what they are paid.

Where there is change that is beneficial to staff- more flexible working, say- change is not opposed. However it is very rare that any change that is described as "progressive" is anything of the sort. It means downsizing or it means getting paid less money for doing more work.

I'm not aware of any "computer programmers" who demand we all go back to the days of the ZX Spectrum and webpage loading speeds you can use to time boiling an egg. But if they're employed as website engineers, for instance, they would quite like to keep working on websites rather than being moved to the call centre down the road for "better customer service".

As I said in response to Phil, just because something can be done doesn't mean something should be done.

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 Oct 2016

mph1977 said:
Maybe it's because of the way in which the far left have seized control of some unions and are more interested in their own political agendas than in supporting workers in the sector

I recently was accused, on the "now-famous GTR dispute" thread with its surfeit of postings, of harking back to the 1970s, when I was in my 30s, when union political agendas were in full swing and of endeavouring to draw a connection to history repeating itself in this decade of the 21st century.

AnonymousUser1 · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
What is "progressive change"?

I don't know perhaps it's Nurses and Paramedics being able to directly admit patients , or Pharmacists and Nurses being able to write / modify prescriptions if they have demonstrated competence to do so ...

or maybe it's an electrician or pipe fitter fixing a mechanical fault found as part of what they were originally called for or a fitter or plumber being allowed to reconnect a loose wire .

perhaps it;s training someone else to drive the crane/ (road) shunting tractor so production doesn;t stop when the crane driver / shunter is off

So far as I can tell, it is only ever used as a euphemism for either reducing the workforce or reducing what they are paid.

funny how progressive change in Healthcare has meant that career progression routes have opened up at higher grades while retaining a mainly clinical pattern of work rather than the only promotions beign to drive a desk ...

Where there is change that is beneficial to staff- more flexible working, say- change is not opposed. However it is very rare that any change that is described as "progressive" is anything of the sort. It means downsizing or it means getting paid less money for doing more work.

except when it means job demarcation beign removed means that certain groups of staff can no longer sit on their backsides when work piles up because 'it's not in my job description guv ' / ' different department mate '

edwin_m · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
Dubai- a city-state not exactly renowned for its trade unionism- has just built an entire Metro system without drivers.

As you say the issues in the Middle East are different - shortage of the type of skilled labour that would work as train drivers. And once the technology was developed (Dubai is based on the Paris system I think) pretty much every new Metro has gone driverless.

Arctic Troll said:
I think trying to blame the RMT for TfL looking at driverless trains- given TfL have been running automated trains since the 60s- is an interesting perspective.

The technology and public acceptance for fully driverless operation probably weren't there in the 60s - not so much the driving itself but the response to an emergency, particularly on an infrastructure lacking many modern safety measures. After that developed (in Paris again) TfL didn't and doesn't seem particularly keen on adopting it but it was Boris with his politician hat on who was pushing it.

northwichcat · 11 Oct 2016

Arctic Troll said:
What is "progressive change"?

So far as I can tell, it is only ever used as a euphemism for either reducing the workforce or reducing what they are paid.

Where there is change that is beneficial to staff- more flexible working, say- change is not opposed. However it is very rare that any change that is described as "progressive" is anything of the sort. It means downsizing or it means getting paid less money for doing more work.

I'm not aware of any "computer programmers" who demand we all go back to the days of the ZX Spectrum and webpage loading speeds you can use to time boiling an egg. But if they're employed as website engineers, for instance, they would quite like to keep working on websites rather than being moved to the call centre down the road for "better customer service".

As I said in response to Phil, just because something can be done doesn't mean something should be done.

I have worked on Flash based projects for clients including some major high street names and some football clubs who've played in the Champions League. However, Flash is now redundant and many of the features can be achieved more simply using programming languages which more people know. That was bad news for me but good news for the industry. Would you rather have a website that is quick to load and works on your mobile or one that is slow to load and can only be viewed on a PC? It was Steve Jobs who started the demise of Flash so would you have liked to have seen a trade union with members waving placards outside shops whenever a new Apple product was released? Do you think all union members would have boycotted Apple if there had been a union representing many web developers skilled in Flash?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

cjmillsnun said:
There are a number of reasons unions are falling out of favour.

1. Employment rights already exist. A lot of the legislation has been in place for decades now.

2. Bad press. Some of this goes back to the 80s and some more recently

3. Bad PR. This relates to point 2 but unions are not very good about putting their viewpoint across in a coherent manner. Also firms are much better in their PR (except GTR's latest campaign)

4. Employer recognition. If your firm doesn't recognise a union many people don't think there is a point in being a member.

5. Apathy. Like voting at local council elections, many just can't be bothered.

6. Cost. Many on low wages can't afford the fees

7. Ignorance. Some people genuinely don't know what a union is for.

8. Some don't agree with the concept of unions.

9. People not being on collective contracts. If you are the only receptionist at your place of work the union won't discuss pay rises with management on your behalf even if you are in a union.

10. There's insurance firms offering redundancy policies and if you are eligible for a payout from one of them it can be better than getting union support through a consultation process.

AnonymousUser1 · 11 Oct 2016

jcollins said:
9. People not being on collective contracts. If you are the only receptionist at your place of work the union won't discuss pay rises with management on your behalf even if you are in a union.

10. There's insurance firms offering redundancy policies and if you are eligible for a payout from one of them it can be better than getting union support through a consultation process.

9 - depends on the circumstances and also if a Equality Act 'safe' job evaluation scheme is in place - when you weill be part of a wider pool of people in your grade / pay band / work level

10 - an insurance payout isn't continued employment after redeployment though is it ...

Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Guest

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member