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.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Unions - good or bad?
- Thread starter Ivo
- Start date
- Status
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.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Minilad
Established Member
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
Established Member
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...
Lampshade
Established Member
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 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)
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Minilad
Established Member
Pretty much like people getting off speeding offences using a technicality then.
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.
Minilad
Established Member
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
Established Member
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?
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
Established Member
Herein lies the inherent problem with extrapolation. Would you like a bigger tarring brush?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
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
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Ahh the joys and ignorance of youth.. Priceless
Minilad
Established Member
Then quite simple. Don't join a Union. No one is forcing you to. There are no closed shops anymore. I just hope for your sake you never get into a situation where a Union may help you.
You seem to have made up your mind about the benefits of being in a Union already so I can't really understand why you have started this thread. I for one have been in Unions virtually all my adult life. I have never been on strike. ever. I believe that my pay and terms and conditions of my job would be infinitely worse without Union involvement. They are there for me should I need support or guidance. For example after my recent fatality.
But its OK its your choice not to join a Union. But seeing as you have never been in employment (As far as I know) you really cannot understand what benefits being in a Union can have
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
I agree that the early industrial revolution was atypical, as working conditions were changing so quickly neither employers nor employees knew what would be best for their own needs.
There's no need to look back to the 19th century - places with poor union representation nowadays generally have worse protection for workers. China is the obvious example; the US another. Of course I'm not directly comparing the two, but certainly (from speaking to people from the US or who have worked there) the rights you have as an employee there are pretty poor compared to what we enjoy.
Whilst I can't think of examples of union lobbying directly bringing about new legislation, the protection afforded in law wouldn't have been politically acceptable without the unions having stood up for them within their particular trades in the first place. And of course the trade unions were key in founding the Labour Party.
I don't claim to be an expert in any way BTW! (how did you guess?)
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,421
Butts
Veteran Member
And in the meantime the poor remain unrepresented exploited badly housed and short of money for basic essentials
I am no expert either...I just love a good discussion!
I do think it is invalid to compare systems in other countries with those here. In their own sweet ways, the US and China - along with many other ostensibly more enlightened countries - have a history of absolutist government, where you unquestioningly obey the person above you - and get your revenge on your subordinates. This is not the tradition in the UK (obviously there have always been exceptions), which probably dates back to King Alfred. IMHO, this is why we did not suffer from the revolutionary tendencies of the rest of Europe in the 19th Century, and why the essentially Marxist model of having to protect the workers against the iron boot of capitalism is not totally relevant here. We may posture about the demons we imagine - I love the mouth-foaming that bubbles forth whenever the labour reforms of T******r are mentioned - but the truth remains that labour law has been improved steadily regardless of which party is in power. In the eyes of the world, the UK is a somewhat pinko state.
And I think you are being a bit unkind in reminding us that the Unions were responsible for the Labour Party - the party of Milliband, Brown, Blair, Kinnock, Callaghan, Wilson....
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
I wonder if those who reject the idea of unions would also reject the pay and conditions improvements if the union got them on principle? I thought not.
I've said 'don't care', for which please read 'ambivolent'. There are good unions and bad. There are some that seem to be protecting privilaged positions (such as the BA cabin crew strike) and others who seem to be standing up for the oppressed. Similarly, there are good bosses and bad. Some are reasonable and think of their workforce, others are unreasonable and don't care. Still, it's always worth having someone on your side, even if it's just an insurance policy. At school, I tried to start a union, which is one of the reasons I didn't remain at that school very long. Recently, I've known a few people who were very active in the NUS. So will I join the ATL (for instance) one day? Maybe, but I haven't made up my mind yet.
Last edited:
And in the meantime the poor remain unrepresented exploited badly housed and short of money for basic essentials
Which has nothing to do with rail workers and their unions fighting for a better deal for their members so please dont try and use that arguement in this thread again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Dont forget the free legal advice you get for any matters outside of yoru employment.
Probably the only reason I joined the RMT years ago.
Smudger105e
Member
In my view the Unions should be concentrating on helping the poorest members of society rather than trying to improve the pay and conditions of people who are largely already better off in comparison.
This is not exclusively a responsibilty for them to shoulder but they should be at the forefront of the fight.
It's quite galling to see people arguing about slight changes to index linked pensions when a lot of workers have no pension at all.
A lot of employees have no sick pay schemes either and poor working conditions.
This is before you even start mentioning low rates of pay.
Perhaps we should be concentrating efforts (and sacrificing if necessary) in order that everyone has at least reasonable leave , pension, sick pay and a living wage.
Comrade Butts signing off
That is exactly what Trade Unions do, and it is not just coincidental that people who are members of Trades Unions have pension, sick pay etc...
And how would my Trade Union not agreeing a below inflation wage rise for me mean that someone who is unemployed will get a wage rise?
I have been paying in to my pension for 35 years, and now my employer says "you have to pay lots more in to the pension fund and you will also get a lot less out". Are you saying that because some people do not have jobs the Public Sector workers should say "OK then, we will take this deterioration in our terms and conditions on the chin"?
The reason that people strike is exactly to cause disruption, it highlights their case.
So the cabin crew should roll over and have their travel facilities reduced? Would you accept a strike by Rail Staff if their travel facilities were withdrawn?
I have been a Trade Union member since 1976 (NUR, AUEW, TSSA, RMT) and have only been on strike once, for one day. Bob Crowe cannot call a strike, he has to have a mandate for strike from his members, who are the most important part of any Trade Union...
If, for example, Westrail staff had far better travel perks than anyone else in the industry, and happened to be my favourite TOC, and was at risk of going the way of GNER (or PanAm) if they did not cut costs, then I might just suggest that their union should stop trying to defend a privilaged position (i.e. being selfish) and risking their employer's future. On the other hand, if BuscoTrains tried to pare their staff perks even more to the bone, then I would be right behind the union in defending the staff, because it is not a privilaged position. Life may not be fair, but surely we should be more worried about defending the downtrodden than the privilaged.
Smudger105e
Member
Correct, life is not fair. I fail to see why the Trade Unions should possibly penalise their members (the ones who support the Union financially) in order to improve the lot of a random underprivilged group? Life is not fair...
And as for the 'selfish' comment, surely we all work for the money, and want the best we can for us and our families. If we were not selfish we would all spend what we needed to live and donate the rest to charity.
An interesting angle to come from, particularly the bit about a 'favourite' TOC. This indicates a certain degree of selfishness in itself does it not? At least in as much as if theyw er enot a favourite you wouldn;t care so much to see them survive?
Anyway, the main point is that unions exist primarily to protect, defend and improve the working conditions and rewards of their members. This can, and does, include agreeing to measures that will protect jobs where possible. If I remember rightly,some freight companies agreed to temporarily reduce the working week (and therefore pay) when the recession began in order to avoid redundancies.
On eof the things that saddens me in this type of union thread is the recurring theme that employees have no right to expect improvements in conditions while anyone is earning less or working longer hours, or does not have a job at all.
Maybe I am an exception, but when I was made redundant in 2009, and was looking for work, I did not feel any envy, bitterness or hatred towards those in employment who had managed to secure a small pay rise. Nor do I feel in any way guilty that I have just had a £15 a month rise while there are people who are out of work, or getting no rise at all this year.
- Status