[GB]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

Obviously taking the **** when other companies have had pay freezes and redundancies, then I have issues.

If your company is still making profit, why should the union consider other companies? If the other companies are having pay freezes then that is between them, their employees and their union.

[XCDriver]

I would say in my job being in a union (ASLEF) is pretty much invaluable. You just never know when you might need them and the services the provide.

[Ivo]

Originally Posted by XCDriver

I would say in my job being in a union (ASLEF) is pretty much invaluable. You just never know when you might need them and the services the provide.

Perhaps you could detail some of the scenarios in which their services may be useful, without mentioning those that most workers (i.e. those not in a Union) just take on the chin? Like, say, a slight change to pensions (which were already generous)?

And what of them spreading stories as with the Bakerloo line today? It's almost as though Crow is trying to say the problem wouldn't have had happened had his Union's members been willing to work - when the event and strike are entirely unconnected, and the event is far less serious than he is suggesting!

Irresponsible.

See existing thread here...

[GB]

Originally Posted by Ivo

Perhaps you could detail some of the scenarios in which their services may be useful

Grievances
Disciplinaries
Unfair Dismissal
Safety Issues

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by GB

If your company is still making profit, why should the union consider other companies? If the other companies are having pay freezes then that is between them, their employees and their union.

Well for example I was pretty annoyed in November when the public sector workers went on strike. I was unemployed, shops were closing, staff were being laid off at BAE Systems but the public sector workers were striking over pension arrangements. They should have been thankful they HAD a job, thankful they HAD a pension, because the rest of us would have given our right arm for what they had.

It was summed up pretty well on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2; they had a teacher on trying to justify the strike while being subjected to a barrage of abuse from callers who were unemployed or who had taken the day off work themselves because the schools were shut. This strike was not driven by wanting to improve pay and conditions, this strike was driven by greed.

[Oswyntail]

Originally Posted by GB

Grievances
Disciplinaries
Unfair Dismissal
Safety Issues

I think a problem I have is that, while all these are perfect examples of when a union is helpful, at times we see the unions either exaggerating the issues or exploiting loopholes to get an unjust result. For instance, if a dismissal is justified but badly handled, a union might fight for reinstatement on the technical grounds, with the end result that a bad and unsafe employee is retained. (Not particularly thinking about rail here, more a local issue)

Originally Posted by Lampshade

... This strike was not driven by wanting to improve pay and conditions, this strike was driven by greed.

In many cases, the strike was backed because employees did not want their pay and conditions degraded from an already relatively low point. Not greed. But, again, what got my back up was the stance of some unions that this was a struggle to "smash the Tories", showboating and diverting attention from some serious issues.

[LexyBoy]

Looking at it from the other side, it's much easier for company management to negotiate with a union representative than with potentially hundreds of individual employees.

Also, without unions workers would once again be crushed under the foot of capitalist progress. Bear in mind a lot of the protection afforded by employment law came about from the action of trade unions.

[Seacook]

Originally Posted by Oswyntail

I think a problem I have is that, while all these are perfect examples of when a union is helpful, at times we see the unions either exaggerating the issues or exploiting loopholes to get an unjust result. For instance, if a dismissal is justified but badly handled, a union might fight for reinstatement on the technical grounds, with the end result that a bad and unsafe employee is retained. (Not particularly thinking about rail here, more a local issue)

Isn't this the same as in a court? A barrister will take the side of a client regardless of a personal view of what is just. It is not the duty of a union representative to judge a case but to get the best result for the union member. Confidential advice to the effect that a claim is unlikely to be upheld is possible, but once a decision is made to go ahead, the union would be failing its duty if it ignored any area where it might win the case.

[Oswyntail]

Originally Posted by LexyBoy

.....Also, without unions workers would once again be crushed under the foot of capitalist progress. Bear in mind a lot of the protection afforded by employment law came about from the action of trade unions.

Genuine question; is this really the case? A lot of the protection for individuals has come about as part of packages that were the result of union abuses (see 1970s, passim).
And as for the 19th century imagery, was this ever widely true in this country? True, conditions in the early industrial revolution were very poor, but they improved because of the evidence from Capitalists like Fry and Salt that improved conditions improved profits. Although there are black marks like the Tolpuddle and Peterloo incidents, these were not the norm - as were not the Luddites.

[XCDriver]

Originally Posted by Oswyntail

I think a problem I have is that, while all these are perfect examples of when a union is helpful, at times we see the unions either exaggerating the issues or exploiting loopholes to get an unjust result. For instance, if a dismissal is justified but badly handled, a union might fight for reinstatement on the technical grounds, with the end result that a bad and unsafe employee is retained. (Not particularly thinking about rail here, more a local issue)

Pretty much like people getting off speeding offences using a technicality then.

[Oswyntail]

Originally Posted by Seacook

Isn't this the same as in a court? A barrister will take the side of a client regardless of a personal view of what is just. It is not the duty of a union representative to judge a case but to get the best result for the union member. Confidential advice to the effect that a claim is unlikely to be upheld is possible, but once a decision is made to go ahead, the union would be failing its duty if it ignored any area where it might win the case.

I disagree with the parallel. The Union is there to represent ALL its members, including those whose safety might be jeopardised by the individual. It may (if a scheme exists) assist the individual in getting legal representation, but even then it should be acting in the wider context. It would be the job of the legal representative to pursue the loopholes.

[XCDriver]

Originally Posted by Ivo

Perhaps you could detail some of the scenarios in which their services may be useful, without mentioning those that most workers (i.e. those not in a Union) just take on the chin? Like, say, a slight change to pensions (which were already generous)?

And what of them spreading stories as with the Bakerloo line today? It's almost as though Crow is trying to say the problem wouldn't have had happened had his Union's members been willing to work - when the event and strike are entirely unconnected, and the event is far less serious than he is suggesting!

Irresponsible.

See existing thread here...

Oh what it must be like to be young and naive again.
So you would take getting disciplined or even sacked on the chin then. Oh well good luck in getting on in the big bad world of work

[Ivo]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

Well for example I was pretty annoyed in November when the public sector workers went on strike. I was unemployed, shops were closing, staff were being laid off at BAE Systems but the public sector workers were striking over pension arrangements. They should have been thankful they HAD a job, thankful they HAD a pension, because the rest of us would have given our right arm for what they had.

It was summed up pretty well on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2; they had a teacher on trying to justify the strike while being subjected to a barrage of abuse from callers who were unemployed or who had taken the day off work themselves because the schools were shut. This strike was not driven by wanting to improve pay and conditions, this strike was driven by greed.

I wasn't going to mention that, but given Lampshade has I might as well.

I had an entire day of University ruined by this action. Action that was driven by a group of predominantly middle-class workers who have things better than many of those who were not striking. I grew up in a poor family - one that was officially poverty-struck from 1997 onwards, and still is today - and I thus know how little money one actually needs to live on (which is just as well, because otherwise my student finance problems would be far worse). I had it hard through high school; I was again surrounded by middle-class families who had things easy. The same is true at University. And then those same people have the nerve to strike because a few Union bigwigs decide they deserve something that many others don't have! And to make it worse, I even had to put up with knowing that my Students' Union supported them! Thus, the only time in my life that a Union "representing" me actually did anything, they voted against what I would have done.

This is another reason I am being put off working in education. Most educators are from middle-class backgrounds (from a young age). I am not. They have support right through if things go wrong. I do not. They pay others to fight for them. I do not.

In fact, as I said before, I have done far more for my Students' Union than almost all other students - and they have done far less for me than they have for almost all other students.

If this is the impression I get from Unions - all take, and then strike if they don't like something - why should I put up with them?

Originally Posted by XCDriver

Oh what it must be like to be young and naive again.
So you would take getting disciplined or even sacked on the chin then. Oh well good luck in getting on in the big bad world of work

You posted that a few minutes too early. Read above for a response that was begun before you asked. I have had to fight for myself, and have now gotten to University as a result. I will never allow anyone to treat me the way my high school treated me ever again - and know all too well that enlisting the help of an organisation that scarcely understands my situation and will cry wolf at the slightest problem would be a massive backward step.

[SS4]

Originally Posted by Ivo

If this is the impression I get from Unions - all take, and then strike if they don't like something - why should I put up with them?

Herein lies the inherent problem with extrapolation. Would you like a bigger tarring brush?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by Oswyntail

And, SS4 the problem with the Marxist model today is that there is no meaningful proletariat with most of the population as bourgeois as they come. The notion that there is still a clash of the orders is a romantic dream - or a dangerous distortion of society put about by factions that use it to justify unjustifiable actions.

That's true these days. I was trying to separate those who earn the wealth and those who take it. How many of us know what the boss actually does?

[ANorthernGuard]

Ahh the joys and ignorance of youth.. Priceless