Allegations of "bullying,intimidation and harassment" at SWR depot

[whhistle]

No, it really isn't bullying.

Screaming it at them standing an inch from their face is bullying. But labelling them a scab really isn't. It isn't even anywhere near the nastiest common term for a strikebreaker.

Would calling them "The Strikebreaker" instead of "The Scab" be ok?

So if I chose to repeatidly call you another word, that many find realy offensive, that starts with a C... that wouldn't be seen as bullying in your eyes?

Bullying comes in many forms. The dictionary defines it as: a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker - I'd suggest the primary words here are influence and intimidate. But why that word particularly? Is it because a scab is something you want to pick at? To get rid of? See how the word really can be deep rooted...

My problem with the Union is simply that it's image isn't good. It doesn't come across as a force for good, rather than one from the 1970's. The Union reps I have come into contact with remind me of the bolshy bullies from the playground at school; that's not a good look. That and apart from the insurance of "protection", there's nothing else it really does for me.

Plus, all the Union are interested in is money.
Most strikes are about pay rises. Why the Union doesn't look at other benefits instead, that would perhaps be worth more in the long run than an extra £30 a month I'll never know.

 

[Bromley boy]

My problem with the Union is simply that it's image isn't good. It doesn't come across as a force for good, rather than one from the 1970's. The Union reps I have come into contact with remind me of the bolshy bullies from the playground at school; that's not a good look. That and apart from the insurance of "protection", there's nothing else it really does for me.

Plus, all the Union are interested in is money.
Most strikes are about pay rises. Why the Union doesn't look at other benefits instead, that would perhaps be worth more in the long run than an extra £30 a month I'll never know.

Can I ask, what is your role on the railway and what union do you belong to?

Agreed on the image point but I can't agree with the rest of the above post. What you describe would be a completely alien concept to most railstaff I know. Union reps as bully boys?

I'd hazard a guess that the bullying that is being discussed in this thread would not have been coming from union reps. I can pretty much guarantee they would know better than to do something that plays so neatly into management hands!

The statement that most strikes are about pay rises is also rubbish. Strikes happen rarely, despite what we have seen over the last couple of years, and to my knowledge none of the recent strikes have been about pay rises.

I struggle to think of the last time national rail drivers went on strike over pay.

 

[Sprinter153]

How do you then treat colleagues who prefer to not be in any union ?

From what I've seen, non-union members are likely to be ostracised too; at GWR the union is responsible for allocating annual leave blocks to train crew and at a depot I used to work at the union rep openly said that non-union members were last on the list for the popular blocks, and that they were theives and freeloaders.

In terms of strike-breakers being seen to 'undermine the collective interest', it is arguable that the RMT's attitude to dispute management and rather bellicose rhetoric does just that anyway. And I say that as a union member.

 

[PR1Berske]

"...and that they were thieves and freeloaders."

Blimey. I'll ask the Unison reps at my place what they think of people like me!

 

[DarloRich]

"...and that they were thieves and freeloaders."

Blimey. I'll ask the Unison reps at my place what they think of people like me!

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

 

[Robertj21a]

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

I always find this a very difficult issue.

On the one hand I quite understand why those rail staff paying union subs are miffed at non union members receiving the same benefits. On the other hand, the union itself will usually want to be able to bargain in relation to specific jobs and, by definition, all staff employed in them.
There is also the simple fact that nobody is forced, or should feel obliged, to join any Trade Union.
What's the best solution ?

 

[Clip]

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

The union want collective bargaining for all though.

So I assume you and others would be happy for those not in the union to negotiate their own pay rise/benefits package which may be better than the union could manage?

 

[Bromley boy]

I always find this a very difficult issue.

On the one hand I quite understand why those rail staff paying union subs are miffed at non union members receiving the same benefits. On the other hand, the union itself will usually want to be able to bargain in relation to specific jobs and, by definition, all staff employed in them.
There is also the simple fact that nobody is forced, or should feel obliged, to join any Trade Union.
What's the best solution ?

I think the only possible to solution to this, in the absence of a “closed shop”, is for the union to be seen to be providing value for money etc. so that as many employees as possible decide to join.

This is quite easy for the railway unions to do. The support in the event of an incident is worth the fees alone to most people - so perhaps they don’t have as much incentive as unions in other industries to “sell” other benefits of membership.

 

[DarloRich]

I always find this a very difficult issue.

On the one hand I quite understand why those rail staff paying union subs are miffed at non union members receiving the same benefits. On the other hand, the union itself will usually want to be able to bargain in relation to specific jobs and, by definition, all staff employed in them.
There is also the simple fact that nobody is forced, or should feel obliged, to join any Trade Union.
What's the best solution ?

I am simply giving an illustration as to why the thought line of "thieves and freeloaders" might come about. I will also point out that many of the most vehement anti union types are the first to scream for support when the there is a waste product/fan interaction. Odd that

As a manager the plus side of collective bargaining is that I don't have to do a deal with each of my staff individually. That would take time and effort and lead to unhappiness and de motivation if not dealt with correctly. The negative side as an individual is that I sometimes think that by being my usual awkward/argumentative self i could sting a better deal out of my employers than the union gets for us all. The big question is whether the effort is worth the reward or whether it is easier to sit back and let someone else do the hard work.

I think the only possible to solution to this, in the absence of a “closed shop”, is for the union to be seen to be providing value for money etc. so that as many employees as possible decide to join.

This is quite easy for the railway unions to do. The support in the event of an incident is worth the fees alone to most people - so perhaps they don’t have as much incentive as unions in other industries to “sell” other benefits of membership.

The problem we have is that many newer employees are young and southern. They have been brought up on years of propaganda and don't see that a union is a benefit or relevant. That tends to change once the first re org comes around or the first time their managers decide to screw them.................

Clarification: by Southern I mean that they haven't come from a comfortable well to do area without a recent history of union activism or membership. They haven't got that social history of fighting and being kicked in the nads that the former industrial areas have. I am sure that In Middlesbrough the response to the union will be very different to the response in Milton Keynes

 

[Tetchytyke]

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

Now that's the difficult one. I won't pretend to not be annoyed that non-union members got the same pay rise we had to strike to obtain. But the flip side of that is that it stops employers giving cash incentives to people to leave the union. They have to treat everyone the same.

With GWR, the union shouldn't be allocating holiday, and that is a failure of weak management.

 

[DarloRich]

With GWR, the union shouldn't be allocating holiday, and that is a failure of weak management.

Agreed - I manage my team. No one else.

 

[Bromley boy]

With GWR, the union shouldn't be allocating holiday, and that is a failure of weak management.

That also happens at my TOC - I believe it’s to do with the roster being negotiated and agreed by the union in the first placed.

EDIT: It is “rostered leave” being referred to here.

 

[whhistle]

Agreed on the image point but I can't agree with the rest of the above post. What you describe would be a completely alien concept to most railstaff I know. Union reps as bully boys?

The statement that most strikes are about pay rises is also rubbish. Strikes happen rarely, despite what we have seen over the last couple of years, and to my knowledge none of the recent strikes have been about pay rises.

To be fair, the two I have encountered recently, one was very bullyish and ended up getting the boot over that and other issues relating to time sheets.
The other was very... if you sneezed the wrong way there would be the threat of some sort of action. These two are in complete contrast to a third who I met a few weeks ago, who was very polite and did kindle my interest in Union support again.

And again, to be fair on you, looking at the recent strikes (apart from VWC), most have been about DOO or other conditions of working.

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

I'd be happy to negotiate my own pay/conditions when the time comes if that's what you're asking. In fact, I'd prefer it and will perhaps persue it this year. I doubt the company will entertain the idea, but I wonder if they have to provide an audience for me legally.

With GWR, the union shouldn't be allocating holiday, and that is a failure of weak management.

Local agreements at other stations also have the Union reps sorting out the annual leave to "ensure fairness". You can't tell me they would be completely fair to those they know aren't in the Union.

 

[DarloRich]

The union want collective bargaining for all though.

So I assume you and others would be happy for those not in the union to negotiate their own pay rise/benefits package which may be better than the union could manage?

If i may refer you to post #129

I'd be happy to negotiate my own pay/conditions when the time comes if that's what you're asking. In fact, I'd prefer it and will perhaps persue it this year. I doubt the company will entertain the idea, but I wonder if they have to provide an audience for me legally.

I think not with a collective bargaining agreement in place

 

[Bromley boy]

To be fair, the two I have encountered recently, one was very bullyish and ended up getting the boot over that and other issues relating to time sheets.
The other was very... if you sneezed the wrong way there would be the threat of some sort of action. These two are in complete contrast to a third who I met a few weeks ago, who was very polite and did kindle my interest in Union support again.

And again, to be fair on you, looking at the recent strikes (apart from VWC), most have been about DOO or other conditions of working.
.

Fair enough. The first one sounds bad and it’s good to know action was taken - there will always be the odd bad apple in every walk of life.

For the second, an important part of the role is choosing the right battles. Striking the balance between being assertive but not so assertive that all goodwill is lost and the culture becomes too “them and us” seems very tricky and I’m not sure I would want - or be able - to do it myself.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think the only possible to solution to this, in the absence of a “closed shop”, is for the union to be seen to be providing value for money etc. so that as many employees as possible decide to join.

This is quite easy for the railway unions to do. The support in the event of an incident is worth the fees alone to most people - so perhaps they don’t have as much incentive as unions in other industries to “sell” other benefits of membership.

I would certainly agree with this. All I would add is that the union itself (I'm thinking of the RMT in particular) needs to show that it is a responsible, professional, organisation - worthy of respect. If/when they can achieve that then I'm sure there is a much better chance of them recruiting - and retaining - new members.

 

[PR1Berske]

I assume you are happy to turn down the benefits the union win for you seeing as you don't contribute to the union.

I work in an office of 30 people. Two are Unison members. There's not quite the same "mood" in an NHS admin office as a railway mess room.

 

[kevconnor]

The unions I work with tend to do themselves a disservice by underselling just how hard to local reps work.

In situations where your dealing with a grievance or a claim of bullying or harassment the employee having the rep with them can make the world of difference.

There is a large gray area with bullying and how it might be defined, it isn't a term defined in law so it is down to every employer how it wants to interpret the definition. I've know workplaces where using vulgur language as a term of endearment is part of the culture where as others using the same language will have you leaving the building on the next thing smoking.

One person or a small group of people, not talking to someone else, on its own, is unlikely to be held up as bullying. It's only if more mendacious behaviour towards the individual(s) comes in that it is possibly going to be viewed as bullying.

 

[Bromley boy]

The problem we have is that many newer employees are young and southern. They have been brought up on years of propaganda and don't see that a union is a benefit or relevant. That tends to change once the first re org comes around or the first time their managers decide to screw them.................

Clarification: by Southern I mean that they haven't come from a comfortable well to do area without a recent history of union activism or membership. They haven't got that social history of fighting and being kicked in the nads that the former industrial areas have. I am sure that In Middlesbrough the response to the union will be very different to the response in Milton Keynes

That's a very interesting point. Out of interest, what industry do you work in? I can imagine it's hard to sell the benefits of a union if the union isn't a powerful one which is recognised and engaged with by the employer. People will probably not see any benefit in return for the subs.

I completely agree with your other sentiments. I'm a proud Southern fairy and you're quite right the message I was brought up on was very much along the lines of "the trade unions brought this country to its knees in the 1970s" etc. As you're probably aware from our previous exchanges I previously worked in white collar roles in the legal and financial services sectors and, before joining the railway, I'd never met a single person who belonged to a trade union - it's just not something that's on the radar for most people, in most industries, these days.

I actually think that's a huge pity. I think the decline of trade unionism probably paved the way for zero hour contracts, Uber/Deliveroo etc., and some truly appalling pay and conditions for some sectors of employment, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since Victorian times.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I think the decline of trade unionism probably paved the way for zero hour contracts, Uber/Deliveroo etc., and some truly appalling pay and conditions for some sectors of employment, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since Victorian times.

Well done, sir. You've hit the nail on the head. I'm an old man and remember the 1970s very well. Our country certainly had major problems then, but most people of my generation, including Thatcher idolaters, are appalled at the decline in the employment situation since then.

 

[Moonshot]

Well done, sir. You've hit the nail on the head. I'm an old man and remember the 1970s very well. Our country certainly had major problems then, but most people of my generation, including Thatcher idolaters, are appalled at the decline in the employment situation since then.

Interestingly , my own eldest offspring took up a temp contracting job the day after he left University.....it paid minimum wage but gave him a springboard of experience to land the highly paid job he has today.

 

[Moonshot]

Possibly, although there’s a massive divide between the leadership and what happens at a local level.

The union, as most members see it, does a great deal including scrutinising rosters, providing access to various pastoral services, providing representation in the event of an incident etc. It’s also a means by which concerns can be fed back to the company on an anonymous basis.

These benefits, particularly the assistance of you have an incident, would make it quite an odd decision not to belong to one of the main rail unions. The political side, and the actions of the senior team, are of little interest to most members.

This is absolutely spot on.....clearly we can vote for Union leaders......you would have to wonder whether the current incumbent would survive the next vote if a far more moderate alternative candidate was also in the race.

 

[Robertj21a]

Well done, sir. You've hit the nail on the head. I'm an old man and remember the 1970s very well. Our country certainly had major problems then, but most people of my generation, including Thatcher idolaters, are appalled at the decline in the employment situation since then.

Sorry, I can't let that go without comment.

We now have one of the lowest unemployment levels for a very long time. That's hardly a decline, indeed there's a shortage of staff for some industries.

 

[Clip]

Sorry, I can't let that go without comment.

We now have one of the lowest unemployment levels for a very long time. That's hardly a decline, indeed there's a shortage of staff for some industries.

I don't think the numbers in employment was what the poster had in mind more the decline of wages and T&Cs across the board having declined.

 

[Marklund]

Sorry, I can't let that go without comment.

We now have one of the lowest unemployment levels for a very long time. That's hardly a decline, indeed there's a shortage of staff for some industries.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/unemp...ing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7

 

[The Ham]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/unemp...ing-the-lie-used-to-create-the-numbers-2017-7

However, even that report shows that the number of inactive people (bearing in mind that there used to be a LOT more inactive women than there is now) has broadly fallen (in percentage terms) since the 1970's yet the population is also a lot bigger, meaning that now there are a lot more people in employment, which in turn means that there's more money going around the economy which means that the number of jobs that can be created is also bigger.

Also, given the total (unemployed, inactive and underemployed) is comparable (in percentage terms) to that in 2006 yet the population is something like 5 million more people (60.85 million vs 65.64 million), which means that there's something like (assuming age spread has remained constant, which it hasn't) there would be something like an extra 700,000 who would fall into this category. However given the change in age splits in that time it's only about 300,000 people. (yes 300,000 is a lot of people and for for a many people in that situation it could be very hard for them*, but it does show that things aren't as dark as perhaps the article is implying).

Even if we go on the assumption that the rate of those who are not employment rate should be four time the unemployment rate (as highlighted in the link), does anyone have any comparable figures to compare how this with how it was in the past?

*of course there could be some people for whom its not very hard, for instance those who would like a job but don't really need it for the money or those who choose not to work (even if it's a bit of a struggle and would like to work if it made sense to do so, such a parents for whom they would pay more in childcare costs than they would be able to earn).

 

[DarloRich]

That's a very interesting point. Out of interest, what industry do you work in? I can imagine it's hard to sell the benefits of a union if the union isn't a powerful one which is recognised and engaged with by the employer. People will probably not see any benefit in return for the subs.

I work in the same industry as you - however I work in the Death Star HQ

I completely agree with your other sentiments. I'm a proud Southern fairy and you're quite right the message I was brought up on was very much along the lines of "the trade unions brought this country to its knees in the 1970s" etc. As you're probably aware from our previous exchanges I previously worked in white collar roles in the legal and financial services sectors and, before joining the railway, I'd never met a single person who belonged to a trade union - it's just not something that's on the radar for most people, in most industries, these days.

I think we have a very similar background of previous employment by the sound of it! I was a member of a professional body which would be aghast to be considered as anything as vulgar as a Trades Union but did many of the same things, especially on the political side, that would be familiar to a TU. It did not, however, offer any of the pastoral care services a union would deliver in the workplace. I had a very bad and unpleasant time when I left that industry and there is no way it would have been allowed to happen in the way it did with a TU rep to assist me.

Sorry, I can't let that go without comment.

We now have one of the lowest unemployment levels for a very long time. That's hardly a decline, indeed there's a shortage of staff for some industries.

I am not sure that can be allowed to stand without challenge either. I contest that the numbers are not as high as suggested due to what is classified as "employed".

 

[abn444]

I actually think that's a huge pity. I think the decline of trade unionism probably paved the way for zero hour contracts, Uber/Deliveroo etc., and some truly appalling pay and conditions for some sectors of employment, the likes of which probably haven't been seen since Victorian times.

I have to disagree here, there are plenty of people for which zero hours, etc, suits them quite well and getting rid of them would actually make things more difficult for them.

 

[DarloRich]

I have to disagree here, there are plenty of people for which zero hours, etc, suits them quite well and getting rid of them would actually make things more difficult for them.

The response of the exploiter right there

There are many zero hours workers out of whom the employer is extracting the urine. I believe, on the whole, they are a bad thing.

 

[Moonshot]

I have to disagree here, there are plenty of people for which zero hours, etc, suits them quite well and getting rid of them would actually make things more difficult for them.

it does indeed ...and the other thing to bear in mind is that in what you might call standard jobs, there are numbers of roles which qualify for flexible hours as well.