Earnings rise 2.9%

[unbeliever]

Women like them, the unions got them equal pay, each woman got thousands.

 

I'm not crediting the unions with that either.

[ricgem2002]

I wasn't proposing to ban unions.

 

My ideal situation would be that unions would exist, but be entirely voluntary. If the unions negotiate a structured pay deal and other terms with an employer (often the state) then I want to be left out of it and free to negotiate myself.

If the unions want their members to be difficult to sack, then their other members can pay the price for this and not me.

 

If a union calls a strike, they should be completely free to do so (without hindrance from the state), but the employer should be free to sack the striking employees for doing so. And most importantly they should not be allowed to try to prevent me from going to work during their strike. I'm content to have a law saying that a person cannot be fired for simply joining a union as it does not automatically affect their job performance.

Union organisers can do their union work in the free time without using their employer's resources or expecting their employers to pay them to do it.

 

The special status of unions in law and their presumption to negotiate on behalf of non-members is my issue. Get rid of that and I shall cease to have a problem with them.

The public sector in particular suffers from a decoupling of performance from remuneration and advancement and the unions are a big part of that.

so you want a union in just name then ? have you asked yourself how many non union members have seen their working conditions get better, off the backs of their union paying member workmates? how many of the non paying union members have said "no we don't want a raise ":loopy: you don't say what job you do but I bet you in some way you get paid by the public purse

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2015 at 08:29 ----------

 

I'm not crediting the unions with that either.

so are you saying it was the employers ?

[unbeliever]

so you want a union in just name then ? have you asked yourself how many non union members have seen their working conditions get better, off the backs of their union paying member workmates? how many of the non paying union members have said "no we don't want a raise ":loopy: you don't say what job you do but I bet you in some way you get paid by the public purse

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2015 at 08:29 ----------

 

so are you saying it was the employers ?

 

It's partly a matter of legislation.

 

Conditions improve as employers look to attract better employees.

Collective bargaining can sometimes be effective but there's no need for unions i.e. collective bargaining organisations to have special status in law. They could just be.

 

Conditions improved in non-unionised work, and in weakly unionised work, as well as unionised. The idea that the unions are responsible for all improvements in the lot of employees, or indeed any of the important ones, is so preposterous I can't believe you even suggested it.

[El Cid]

have you asked yourself how many non union members have seen their working conditions get better, off the backs of their union paying member workmates?

 

Unions in some workplaces do the role that management once did, they can be an asset to an employer.

[ricgem2002]

It's partly a matter of legislation.

 

Conditions improve as employers look to attract better employees.

Collective bargaining can sometimes be effective but there's no need for unions i.e. collective bargaining organisations to have special status in law. They could just be.

 

Conditions improved in non-unionised work, and in weakly unionised work, as well as unionised. The idea that the unions are responsible for all improvements in the lot of employees, or indeed any of the important ones, is so preposterous I can't believe you even suggested it.

legislation brought about by union involvement to improve working conditions for employees. take a look here at what Cameron proposes to do with the unions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/tories-war-on-trade-unions-public-support-strike-sajid-javid but then someone like you will agree with this and give less power to the working man

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 07:35 ----------

 

Unions in some workplaces do the role that management once did, they can be an asset to an employer.

hey el cid I agree its when the gov are trying to make the unions less powerful and change how they can operate that worries me.

[unbeliever]

legislation brought about by union involvement to improve working conditions for employees. take a look here at what Cameron proposes to do with the unions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/tories-war-on-trade-unions-public-support-strike-sajid-javid but then someone like you will agree with this and give less power to the working man

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 07:35 ----------

 

hey el cid I agree its when the gov are trying to make the unions less powerful and change how they can operate that worries me.

 

It's exactly this kind of attitude, that unions are somehow responsible for all improvements in working conditions, that makes me resent the whole union culture.

It's completely false to say that employees cannot get and would not have got, improvements in pay and conditions without unions. I'm not joining a union and I don't like people trying to bully or guilt me into it.

If you want to join a union, you go right ahead, but I don't accept that the union of which I'm not a member helps me in some way. If anything they create a monopoly on employer negotiations and I resent their presumption of negotiating my pay and conditions when I did not give them permission to do so. This should not be allowed.

I should have the right to negotiate on my own behalf, just as others have the right to negotiate collectively though a union.

What's wrong with that?

[ricgem2002]

It's exactly this kind of attitude, that unions are somehow responsible for all improvements in working conditions, that makes me resent the whole union culture.

It's completely false to say that employees cannot get and would not have got, improvements in pay and conditions without unions. I'm not joining a union and I don't like people trying to bully or guilt me into it.

If you want to join a union, you go right ahead, but I don't accept that the union of which I'm not a member helps me in some way. If anything they create a monopoly on employer negotiations and I resent their presumption of negotiating my pay and conditions when I did not give them permission to do so. This should not be allowed.

I should have the right to negotiate on my own behalf, just as others have the right to negotiate collectively though a union.

What's wrong with that?

take them blinkers off mate if it wasn't for union involvement we would still be sending kids up chimneys. like I asked you earlier about how many workers have seen their wage increase off the backs of their union paying workmates ? or would you have them not getting it ? remember there is usually safety in numbers and a lone worker demanding changes imo wouldnt get anywhere

[unbeliever]

take them blinkers off mate if it wasn't for union involvement we would still be sending kids up chimneys. like I asked you earlier about how many workers have seen their wage increase off the backs of their union paying workmates ? or would you have them not getting it ? remember there is usually safety in numbers and a lone worker demanding changes imo wouldnt get anywhere

 

 

Right. That does it.

Ban all unions outright. Anybody joining a union should be automatically fined and fired. Anybody organising for a union should go to prison.

I was prepared to tolerate them until now. But no longer.

Happy now?

[Fogey]

I'm not crediting the unions with that either.

 

You are correct that in this case legislation was already in place. However it would probably have required individuals to bring their employers to court at vast personal expense to force the employers to pay the amount they should have been paying all along. The Unions were able to pool resources and bring an effective case on behalf of members. The resulting high profile case convinces employers to play fairer and highlights to people across the board that these abuses happen and can be dealt with effectively. The Union can also act as an intermediary between employer and employee to reduce the kind of personal grudges that might otherwise develop.

 

I think Unions have been a good thing on the whole and just for info, I am not in one.

 

I find it ironic that the conservative party smashed British manufacturing industry in the 80's to destroy the Unions who were effectively fighting for better pay so people didn't have to rely on state handouts. The Conservatives effectively created a dependance on state handouts, destroyed the economic base of the UK that had been set in manufacturing/production, and then 30 odd years later have the cheek to dump on benefits claimants and suggest employers should really be paying higher wages so people don't rely so heavily on state handouts.

[ricgem2002]

Right. That does it.

Ban all unions outright. Anybody joining a union should be automatically fined and fired. Anybody organising for a union should go to prison.

I was prepared to tolerate them until now. But no longer.

Happy now?

not happy no but should people in the past be denied a job because they were members of a union? should big companies have a blacklist of workers who for years workers couldn't get a job take a look here http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-blacklist-building-firms-secret-information-on-workers . remind me again who you work for ?