Expat owl Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 You have it the the wrong way around, union leaders are led by their membership. They have to remain accountable or they wouldn't be elected. As for what they are doing with union funds.... as others have pointed out that is determined by Union Conferences. Union leaderships powers are limited by democratic accountability. Yeh right......and I've seen pigs fly. Take a look at the RMT and the way it conducts it's business and honestly tell me that members have a free vote !!! http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23411139-inside-the-loutish-and-macho-world-of-the-rmt-henchmen.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I hear than one TUC affiliated union leader earns in excess of £1 million per annum. Which one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 No. My points illustrate that business is more flexible and therefore beneficial to it's employees without Unions. Increased productivity also benefits the company and therefore the workers. Perhaps you's like to illustrate exactly why unions are better for workers than not !! Look locally in the steel industry, the pay and conditions for workers in the heavily unionised larger plants esp BSC earned FAR more than their counterparts in smaller, often non-unionised firms. In the case of BSC workers, many had final salary, index linked pensions, whereas those in the smaller / private companies would have been lucky to have had a pension at all! ......................and then there were the working conditions, much better in the larger plants than the smaller private sector companies, who's employees also enjoyed sick pay for when they were ill, again, a benefit not afforded in the smaller non-unionised firms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expat owl Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Look locally in the steel industry, the pay and conditions for workers in the heavily unionised larger plants esp BSC earned FAR more than their counterparts in smaller, often non-unionised firms. In the case of BSC workers, many had final salary, index linked pensions, whereas those in the smaller / private companies would have been lucky to have had a pension at all! ......................and then there were the working conditions, much better in the larger plants than the smaller private sector companies, who's employees also enjoyed sick pay for when they were ill, again, a benefit not afforded in the smaller non-unionised firms. And the majority of those jobs no longer exist as they priced themselves out of the market as opposed to those smaller non-unionised companies who are still in existence and whose workers are still working. I know which I'd prefer.................A bad example there I feel !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Yeh right......and I've seen pigs fly. Take a look at the RMT and the way it conducts it's business and honestly tell me that members have a free vote !!! http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23411139-inside-the-loutish-and-macho-world-of-the-rmt-henchmen.do Since ballots are conducted by Electoral Reform Services what exactly are you alleging? Your link of unsubstantiated allegations bears no relation to your claims. I note that of those that voted for their industrial action it says "98.3 per cent of those taking part in the ballot. Except only 51 per cent of members eligible to vote actually did so." That is an extraordinarily successful result considering low turnouts in elections since work place ballots were made illegal. The journalists "only" betrays the bias that runs through the piece.... If only there were such strong votes in favour of our Government... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 And the majority of those jobs no longer exist as they priced themselves out of the market as opposed to those smaller non-unionised companies who are still in existence and whose workers are still working. I know which I'd prefer.................A bad example there I feel !!! If you knew anything then you would know that tthe Sheffield private sector was effectively NATIONALISED under Thatchers rationalisation programmme and closed down (Firth-Brown, Hadfields etc) to keep the BSC plants going!!! Some of the former nationalised plants are still going and employ many more than the tiny no of small firms that are still left, wiht much better conditions and rates of pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 And the majority of those jobs no longer exist as they priced themselves out of the market as opposed to those smaller non-unionised companies who are still in existence and whose workers are still working. I know which I'd prefer.................A bad example there I feel !!! Just like the comment made in the metro earlier on this week, the response to which was that the outsourced work to Germany and Japan went to unionised employers offering guaranteed 30 days annual leave and better terms and conditions. Bad example indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expat owl Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 If you knew anything then you would know that tthe Sheffield private sector was effectively NATIONALISED under Thatchers rationalisation programmme and closed down (Firth-Brown, Hadfields etc) to keep the BSC plants going!!! Some of the former nationalised plants are still going and employ many more than the tiny no of small firms that are still left, wiht much better conditions and rates of pay. And I think I'm right in saying that they have minimaL union involvement being private sector firms now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expat owl Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Just like the comment made in the metro earlier on this week, the response to which was that the outsourced work to Germany and Japan went to unionised employers offering guaranteed 30 days annual leave and better terms and conditions. Bad example indeed. German and Japanese unions who looked after their workers not UK unions who overpriced our businesses and only looked at very short term gains and ultimately lost the lot. I agree that some overseas unions are very good and I've dealt with a number of them. Sadly we're talking about UK unions who are not very good !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I agree 100%. Independent thinker who doesn't like to see the little man downtrodden and have a very nice lifestyle due to my own hardwork. I have a large circle of friends and can enjoy the nicer things in life !! Therefore you trying your 'smart' comments means absolutely nothing to me and just shows that you are incapable of genuine debate !! End of !! Smart comments? If that is what you class a smart comment then SF is not for you. Now breathe deeply and chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.