Belonging to a Union

[Mike_Ayling]

My Union is called The Institute of Chartered Accountants.

[francovendee]

It's interesting how many have been a Union members.
It is perhaps a sign that Unions have changed since the 70's.
My mates dad worked for British Leyland in the 70's and had to join the Union when he started there.
He lost faith in Unions when the team he was in complained to the supervisor that one man wasn't pulling his weight. The upshot was that the man was suspended. The Union rep called a walk out so my mate's dad found himself on strike in support of the very man who had caused the problem.

[Carlton green]

If you are not in a union you will need an exceptional skill set to make a decent living .In general Man makes more progress collectively than would be the case alone eg farming and retail cooperatives, unions and mutual/friendly societies .As for industrial action ,you vote and abide by that decision .The nauseating people oppose action but retain the benefits won when successful.

Less than 25% of employees are unionised. So you're saying 75% of employees have an exceptional skillset? Or that those in unions don't? And farming co-operatives. at least in UK , and which l have some experience of, are nothing like unions.

Some interesting examples there of how we all live within out own bubble. I think it fair to say that the influence of Unions on the way society and employers function spreads way beyond those who are in Unions.

To paint Unions as all black - or red - is, I think, wrong. A family member had a difficult member of staff who complained to their Union. A meeting was set up between employer, Union and said member of staff. The outcome was the employer being exonerated and the staff member having explained to them by their Union that their employer had given them (the employee) care and support way beyond what was reasonable to expect.

The nauseating people oppose action but retain the benefits won when successful.

I don’t have an issue with people who oppose action but (who also) abide by the majority decision. People who are not in The Union don’t have a say in the vote and might feel not bound by it’s outcome and hence might choose to cross picket lines, IMHO if you don’t act in-line with the Union’s action then you should not receive the benefits won. However, for reasons many, employers don’t see it that way.

[PedallingSquares]

I have recently decided to retrain as a rep because.
1.We are allowed 2 reps to cover the depts I'm associated with.
2.One recently took early retirement.
3.The other is basically useless/in it for himself.
4.The dept is actually 2 separate units under 'one umbrella' and the remaining rep works in the other and has no real understanding nor care about us.
Unfortunately since I was last a rep,with a different company but same union and industry,reps have changed.They seem to be in it for what they can get rather than what they can do for everyone.My employers generally as a rule try to make reps team leaders which weakens their union status imo.I was also a team leader years ago but after I'd stepped down as a rep.There are certain managers who are opposed to me being a rep as they know I have no desire to be a team leader so they can't sway my opinions.I've had a few thinly veiled threats regarding the matter.I only have a few more years so they can threaten all they like.I won't be intimidated.Suprisingly,or maybe not,one of these 'managers' was part of our shopfloor team who basically got hand picked and fast-tracked to T/L and then shift manager because he is easily manipulated.He is the main opposer and is trying to impliment changes he would not have accepted when he was on the shopfloor.I have made it clear that these written agreements are not negotiable.I guarantee within 12 months they will try to get me to accept a T/L position.It is how management works.
It isn't how I work though

[francovendee]

I have recently decided to retrain as a rep because.
1.We are allowed 2 reps to cover the depts I'm associated with.
2.One recently took early retirement.
3.The other is basically useless/in it for himself.
4.The dept is actually 2 separate units under 'one umbrella' and the remaining rep works in the other and has no real understanding nor care about us.
Unfortunately since I was last a rep,with a different company but same union and industry,reps have changed.They seem to be in it for what they can get rather than what they can do for everyone.My employers generally as a rule try to make reps team leaders which weakens their union status imo.I was also a team leader years ago but after I'd stepped down as a rep.There are certain managers who are opposed to me being a rep as they know I have no desire to be a team leader so they can't sway my opinions.I've had a few thinly veiled threats regarding the matter.I only have a few more years so they can threaten all they like.I won't be intimidated.Suprisingly,or maybe not,one of these 'managers' was part of our shopfloor team who basically got hand picked and fast-tracked to T/L and then shift manager because he is easily manipulated.He is the main opposer and is trying to impliment changes he would not have accepted when he was on the shopfloor.I have made it clear that these written agreements are not negotiable.I guarantee within 12 months they will try to get me to accept a T/L position.It is how management works.
It isn't how I work though

A variation of divide and rule maybe?

[Ben@Forest]

Eddie Dempsey, the RMT deputy leader, has an interesting history of supporting pro-Russian warlords. He's keeping schtum now of course.

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/20 ... ic-warlord

[Carlton green]

It's interesting how many have been a Union members.
It is perhaps a sign that Unions have changed since the 70's.
My mates dad worked for British Leyland in the 70's and had to join the Union when he started there.
He lost faith in Unions when the team he was in complained to the supervisor that one man wasn't pulling his weight. The upshot was that the man was suspended. The Union rep called a walk out so my mate's dad found himself on strike in support of the very man who had caused the problem.

An interesting management action that unsurprisingly caused bother and then discontent amongst Union members. The thing about Trade Union reps is that some of them aren’t the brightest of folk and some managers are both smart and nasty, pitting one against the other isn’t going to end well for Union members.

[PH]

Eddie Dempsey, the RMT deputy leader, has an interesting history of supporting pro-Russian warlords. He's keeping schtum now of course.

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/20 ... ic-warlord

That's it then, don't be giving those train cleaners any more money

[reohn2]

Meanwhile the Tory government and Tory media are doing their best to try and put the blame for the Rail strike on Keir Starmer and the Labour party!

Whilst they remove the cap on bankers pay.

[Psamathe]

Meanwhile the Tory government and Tory media are doing their best to try and put the blame for the Rail strike on Keir Starmer and the Labour party! :?

Whilst they remove the cap on bankers pay.

Their rather pathetic efforts to blame Labour for the strikes seems to illustrate they regard it all as a game of brinksmanship and are completely overlooking the reasons behind it and the likely additional sectors soon expected to be striking as well. They seem to play games rather than actually address real problems.

Ian

[simonineaston]

The banking crisis of 2008 was a gift to the hard right neoliberals. Privately owned and unregulated, not only were the banks allowed to take colossal risks and fail, but the tax-payer was volunteered to bail them out! The right spotted a spendid opportunity and once they'd inserted themselves into the Tory party, like them parasitic wasps you see on YT, the consequence was a stripping back and monetising of practically every single service you care to mention. Two fabulous mottos were used to cover the extent of their deceit and hypocrisy. The first - "We're all in this together...", the second, "The cut backs are to increase efficiency..."
15 years later, we live in a country where full time workers have to claim benefits and families can't afford to feed their children properly.
As a sleight of hand, you got to give it to them. They managed to make us all into cash cows while ruining the services we depend on, while we've all stood by and let them do it!
What's left of the unions may be all that stands between these ghastly venal individuals and a much worse future...

[richards]

Yes


No

NUT then Unison.

[simonineaston]

Re-reading my last post, I was reminded of the paper put out back in 2012, by many of the actors who now run the country (god help us). Interested readers can refer to Britannia Unchained. Its authors include familar names - Dizzie Lizzie Truss, Ugli Patel and the unspeakable Raab.
I recall thinking back then that these people seemed unreasonable - extreme even. But then I relaxed, thinking how unlikely it would be for such individuals to be in postions of power...

[reohn2]

Simon
I agree with your last wo posts only to add that the stupidity of the UK electorate has been a gift to these charlatans.
Maybe by the next election we'll have learned our lesson though I wouldn't bet on it

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

If you are not in a union you will need an exceptional skill set to make a decent living .In general Man makes more progress collectively than would be the case alone eg farming and retail cooperatives, unions and mutual/friendly societies .As for industrial action ,you vote and abide by that decision .The nauseating people oppose action but retain the benefits won when successful.

Less than 25% of employees are unionised. So you're saying 75% of employees have an exceptional skillset? Or that those in unions don't? And farming co-operatives. at least in UK , and which l have some experience of, are nothing like unions.

Some interesting examples there of how we all live within out own bubble. I think it fair to say that the influence of Unions on the way society and employers function spreads way beyond those who are in Unions.

To paint Unions as all black - or red - is, I think, wrong. A family member had a difficult member of staff who complained to their Union. A meeting was set up between employer, Union and said member of staff. The outcome was the employer being exonerated and the staff member having explained to them by their Union that their employer had given them (the employee) care and support way beyond what was reasonable to expect.

The nauseating people oppose action but retain the benefits won when successful.

I don’t have an issue with people who oppose action but (who also) abide by the majority decision. People who are not in The Union don’t have a say in the vote and might feel not bound by it’s outcome and hence might choose to cross picket lines, IMHO if you don’t act in-line with the Union’s action then you should not receive the benefits won. However, for reasons many, employers don’t see it that way.

If you refuse to vote or damage your voting paper then you should never receive any benefits from the outcome?
in that world, I wonder what the balance of union/non-union members would look like?
Would the union grow in percentage, or would it fail Because a minority group would be receiving all the benefits.