Who pays the union leaders?

[Bedders]

The only issue I've got with Unions is their leaders don't feel the pain of their members (financially) when they encourage / ballot members to take strike action.

 

Arthur Scargill never fell out with people in his family, had his house repossesed & even to some extent, got divorced as happened to many miners & their families.

 

That said I'm not sure how else they could be run...but point I'm trying to get at, as in the example above, is that only the members suffer.

 

Perhaps they could link union leaders pay with the success of negotations & or success of strike action.

 

BTW I'm in a union & we haven't managed to get a pay rise for 2 years!

[Wildcat]

I didn't say that it was. The point is that it is completely ineffective as a union except when the union leaders want to make a point of their choosing by shutting down a business yet lots, of people work for free or penury rates in their industry. That is as close to the definition of useless as I can imagine.

 

 

Sorry it still makes no sense to me.

 

You are comparing amateur productions with professional ones. There will be a grey area in between where a hobby generates some pocket money. That is a fact of life, not a failure of the professional union.

[Wildcat]

You misunderstand me on that one Artisan. I do think that there is a valuable place for unions but I reckon that a belligerent union is an ineffective beast that only serves itself, not its members.

 

You've been in senior positions before, you know how it works. Confrontation is rarely if ever a sustainable solution whereas a good negotiation usually gets both parties to the place where they are both the least disappointed. A negotiation where somebody is especially happy usually means that the other party isn't and that it will all fall apart in due course.

 

And yes, PFI's are stupid.

 

Unions need to have a balance and know what they can achieve, in many cases this means reducing the expectations of their members, in others it means organising solidarity for the workers facing the problems.

 

The unions in the UK that have retained and recruited members most have been the active ones, like the RMT, like the FBU, like PCS. Fighting for what they can win, through campaigning, lobbying mps, work to rules etc the whole range of activities that can support negotiations and using strikes sparingly when necessary to improve negotiating positions.

 

Inactivity only leads to people being walked on, a union is only ever as strong as its members, and if they aren't interested in asserting their rights then no matter how good the negotiator is they will be walked all over.

[Tony]

Nope, confrontation is the way of the past. The future lies in transparency, openness and honesty. That's how to put unions and their self-serving leaders out of business. After all, self serving union leaders are the point of this thread yea?

 

 

Sorry it still makes no sense to me.

 

You are comparing amateur productions with professional ones. There will be a grey area in between where a hobby generates some pocket money. That is a fact of life, not a failure of the professional union.

It's OK, don't apologise, just re-read my post and check the link. Yes I know that 'company' can have two meanings in this instance but that isn't what it means. It is asking for volunteers for a 'self funded' business venture. I'm sure that you would frown on a regular business asking their employees to work for free with only the prospect of a mention on the letterhead.

 

I'm not criticising the offer of the business at all because I understadn where they are cmoing from adn the limitations that they have, it's just as an example of the failure of an 'all out' union (Equity) at grass roots in contrast to the actors mentioned previously who were paid handsomely because of their box office draw.

 

There's a bit about footballers too but it's already contrived enough

[artisan]

You misunderstand me on that one Artisan. I do think that there is a valuable place for unions but I reckon that a belligerent union is an ineffective beast that only serves itself, not its members.

 

You've been in senior positions before, you know how it works. Confrontation is rarely if ever a sustainable solution whereas a good negotiation usually gets both parties to the place where they are both the least disappointed. A negotiation where somebody is especially happy usually means that the other party isn't and that it will all fall apart in due course.

 

And yes, PFI's are stupid.

 

Yes, I have run the show, in the past.

But I would not do it today

I am an engineer, not some public school fart.

[TeaFan]

Union leaders should be paid the average wage of their members. Otherwise, how can they really be in solidarity with them and understand their situation?

[Wildcat]

Union leaders should be paid the average wage of their members. Otherwise, how can they really be in solidarity with them and understand their situation?

 

Unions are in the business of fighting for a decent wage for all, something that includes increased rewards commensurate with duties and workloads.

 

My union is led by someone on £50,000 a year. It may be more than double the average pay of a union member, but no one begrudges him that pay because he earns it.

[Wildcat]

Nope, confrontation is the way of the past. The future lies in transparency, openness and honesty. That's how to put unions and their self-serving leaders out of business. After all, self serving union leaders are the point of this thread yea?

 

The only self serving union leader I can think of was Barry Reamsbottom, who was a right winger that spent most of his time undermining the democratic will of the membership. His attempt to hold on to power is mentioned here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/beware-marxists-throwing-themselves-on-tables-652707.html

 

He cost the union a lot of money in a court case that he eventually lost, because it was totally without merit.

 

The union since then has improved no end, because it is open and listens to its members and strikes when they feel it is necessary.

 

It's OK, don't apologise, just re-read my post and check the link. Yes I know that 'company' can have two meanings in this instance but that isn't what it means. It is asking for volunteers for a 'self funded' business venture. I'm sure that you would frown on a regular business asking their employees to work for free with only the prospect of a mention on the letterhead.

 

I'm not criticising the offer of the business at all because I understadn where they are cmoing from adn the limitations that they have, it's just as an example of the failure of an 'all out' union (Equity) at grass roots in contrast to the actors mentioned previously who were paid handsomely because of their box office draw.

 

There's a bit about footballers too but it's already contrived enough

 

May be you need to reread my post because your example has nothing to do with Equity. If someone wants to do an independent film and people want to work on it for free then good luck to them. I don't remember Equity complaining when its members do charity work for free. You really don't seem to have grasped the point.

 

No comment on whatever the football allegory was, I am afraid my brain switches off when it is mentioned.

[llamatron]

 

Do you think £100,000 too much?

 

Do you think the same of Chief Execs of similar sized companies, who get paid far more and do less? If so then you would probably best getting involved in and promoting a union campaign on Fat Cat pay.

 

 

Leaving is a form of complaining? I suppose it is, but it isn't a very productive one.

 

 

 

In which case you can vote against striking, but obviously only if you are a union member.

 

 

 

Lots of people say that, until they find themselves being victimised.

 

 

 

It was only a short video.

 

Joining a union helps on climate change because A) you will be part of a collective voice arguing for a sustainable and ethical purchasing policy and B) you will be a part of a group of people sharing news and campaigning information on the subject.

 

Joining a union helps workers in other countries because we can negotiate for ethical procurement practicesm and because it is through trade unions that workers around the world, like we have and continue to do organise for our rights.

 

This gives you a current idea of what trade unions are doing internationally:

http://www.labourstart.org/

 

You may well feel comparatively privileged compared to a worker in India for example, certainly examples like this put a perspective on the situation workers face in the UK,

 

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main45.asp?filename=Ne030710coalchild.asp

 

but workers in India rely on their unions and international solidarity work from unions in the rest of the world for the support they need to highlight and campaign against their treatment.

 

Yes its too much and how on eart can you compare a union rep with a company that makes money. They are entirely different. If a company makes billions it can pay whatever it wants to its chief executives as its their money.

 

A union isn't a business although I think thats what the union bosses think.

[llamatron]

 

Do you think £100,000 too much?

 

Do you think the same of Chief Execs of similar sized companies, who get paid far more and do less? If so then you would probably best getting involved in and promoting a union campaign on Fat Cat pay.

 

 

 

Leaving is a form of complaining? I suppose it is, but it isn't a very productive one.

 

 

 

In which case you can vote against striking, but obviously only if you are a union member.

 

 

 

Lots of people say that, until they find themselves being victimised.

 

 

 

It was only a short video.

 

Joining a union helps on climate change because A) you will be part of a collective voice arguing for a sustainable and ethical purchasing policy and B) you will be a part of a group of people sharing news and campaigning information on the subject.

 

Joining a union helps workers in other countries because we can negotiate for ethical procurement practicesm and because it is through trade unions that workers around the world, like we have and continue to do organise for our rights.

 

This gives you a current idea of what trade unions are doing internationally:

http://www.labourstart.org/

 

You may well feel comparatively privileged compared to a worker in India for example, certainly examples like this put a perspective on the situation workers face in the UK,

 

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main45.asp?filename=Ne030710coalchild.asp

 

but workers in India rely on their unions and international solidarity work from unions in the rest of the world for the support they need to highlight and campaign against their treatment.

 

I don't believe this one although Im happy to be proved wrong. It is however irrelevant to me as I use my purchasing power to the same end!