Union members' attitudes towards their non-union member colleagues.

[Guest sibon]

I bet you're happy to see BNP members "named and shamed" and outed from their employment, wherever it is.

 

I remember the hoohah in the news about BNP members being teachers a couple of years back - I bet you were one of the voices saying it shouldn't be allowed.

 

It is lovely of you to tell me what you think I think.

 

Sadly, you are wrong.

 

I'm not quite sure what your post was supposed to mean in relation to my point about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Perhaps you could expand. Without the projection, if possible.

[taxman]

Your bizarre yet self inflicted position is one that would make Yossarian weep.

 

Once again, people like Conrod are the future. A future where there is no need of unions.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Conrod has already stated that he would break the law by sacking someone for being a member of a union but would fabricate evidence in order to make it look as if they'd been sacked for another reason.

 

Your support for his attitude says everything we need to know about you.

[Tony]

Conrod said that his employees have no need of unions because of their working conditions. Wouldn't you say that is the best possible scenario?

 

Are you as lucky in your working conditions as you would be working for Conrod?

Your support for his attitude says everything we need to know about you.

Please elaborate.

[ricgem2002]

Conrod said that his employees have no need of unions because of their working conditions. Wouldn't you say that is the best possible scenario?

 

Are you as lucky in your working conditions as you would be working for Conrod?

 

Please elaborate.

thats the trouble conrad says this conrad says that we only have his word for that .(if any of his employees comes on and says anything he will sack them ):hihi:

[Grandad.Malky]

Conrod said that his employees have no need of unions because of their working conditions. .

 

Well they aren’t going to say my employees need to be in a union because I am a complete ********** are they.

 

I haven’t reread the whole thread but didn’t Conrod mention some kind of a workers spokesman or group ………. Call that what you want but that sounds pretty much like a “union” to me.

[Tony]

Conrod might not be everyone's cup of tea but I've never, ever, seen any evidence that he's a liar or dishonest - quite the opposite.

 

If only the same could be said of unions and employers of a lower calibre than Conrod.

 

Many people don't like the truth. That makes unions really handy because they exist in the area outside the truth.

[ricgem2002]

Conrod might not be everyone's cup of tea but I've never, ever, seen any evidence that he's a liar or dishonest - quite the opposite.

 

If only the same could be said of unions and employers of a lower calibre than Conrod.

 

Many people don't like the truth. That makes unions really handy because they exist in the area outside the truth.

so saying that he would make any excuse up to get rid of them if they joined a union is not dishonest:huh:

[Conrod]

Well they aren’t going to say my employees need to be in a union because I am a complete ********** are they.

 

I haven’t reread the whole thread but didn’t Conrod mention some kind of a workers spokesman or group ………. Call that what you want but that sounds pretty much like a “union” to me.

No, I didn't mention anything like that, other than a mention of how undesirable the 1970s mentality shop steward types are.

Running a small business, I only want first rate staff. Average and under-average staff are easy to come by, but the good ones will be known in their local trade and can walk into a job any time they want. For that reason it’s entirely in my interests, or those of any sensible employer, to keep staff motivated and happy, or they would just walk.

Some people seem to forget that the arrangement works both ways. The employee may be dependant on the wages, but the employer is just as dependant on the work the employee does. Any employer who doesn’t offer a fair package and a friendly, personable working environment is a fool to his firm’s productivity.

[ricgem2002]

No, I didn't mention anything like that, other than a mention of how undesirable the 1970s mentality shop steward types are.

Running a small business, I only want first rate staff. Average and under-average staff are easy to come by, but the good ones will be known in their local trade and can walk into a job any time they want. For that reason it’s entirely in my interests, or those of any sensible employer, to keep staff motivated and happy, or they would just walk.

Some people seem to forget that the arrangement works both ways. The employee may be dependant on the wages, but the employer is just as dependant on the work the employee does. Any employer who doesn’t offer a fair package and a friendly, personable working environment is a fool to his firm’s productivity.

back tracking now :hihi:

[Tony]

so saying that he would make any excuse up to get rid of them if they joined a union is not dishonest:huh:

 

Since he could only use legal reasons I'd have said that he was quite the opposite. Employees should know exactly where they stand but they have no need of a union anyway.

 

But I go back to my previous point - the best future is one where unions are simply unnecessary.

 

The trouble with that is that many people live their lives as the lowest common denominator. Excellence is a stranger to them. Unions only exist in that world, not in a better one.

 

Are you happy to live a substandard life?