War on the public sector and unions

[unbeliever]

That depends on the workplace. Even union members feel aggrieved when the unions agree new terms that do not favour every employee.

The unions do hold a lot of power. In my workplace the union rep has never worked for the council, so he knows very little about our working lives.

He is a paid rep, but that is that fault of others not standing up to do the role of union rep.

 

You've just hit the nail on the head regarding the problem with unions as a whole.

If we didn't have them you'd be able to negotiate directly with your employer rather than being subject to negotiations between unions leaders and employers who may or may not have your best interests in mind.

 

I reject wholeheartedly the idea that anybody is somehow prevented from addressing their employer directly on matters of concern. The only time I've ever found this useless is when the unions have made a deal with the employer which means that they cannot negotiate with me without breaking an arrangement with the unions. This would not of course arise if the union arrangements applied only to their members but they don't.

Take unions out of the picture and let is stand on own own 2 feet and I honestly believe we'd all be much better off.

[tinfoilhat]

You've just hit the nail on the head regarding the problem with unions as a whole.

If we didn't have them you'd be able to negotiate directly with your employer rather than being subject to negotiations between unions leaders and employers who may or may not have your best interests in mind.

 

I reject wholeheartedly the idea that anybody is somehow prevented from addressing their employer directly on matters of concern. The only time I've ever found this useless is when the unions have made a deal with the employer which means that they cannot negotiate with me without breaking an arrangement with the unions. This would not of course arise if the union arrangements applied only to their members but they don't.

Take unions out of the picture and let is stand on own own 2 feet and I honestly believe we'd all be much better off.

 

The assumption there is that all employers and managers play with a straight bat, and you and I know they don't. A 50% turnout isn't a big ask though.

[unbeliever]

The assumption there is that all employers and managers play with a straight bat, and you and I know they don't. A 50% turnout isn't a big ask though.

 

I make no such assumption.

You have something they want. i.e. your labour.

They have something you want. i.e. money

Whether they want to play straight or not, they are not all powerful.

 

Look, if you want to hire a proxy to negotiate for you (which is all a union really does) I suppose that's fine.

It does annoy me though when the proxy you hired to negotiate for you insists that they have to have some kind of special protected status in law and offers nothing in return.

They also insist on negotiating for me when I didn't ask them to, and then have the gall to suggest I should be grateful for this.

[El Cid]

The assumption there is that all employers and managers play with a straight bat, and you and I know they don't. A 50% turnout isn't a big ask though.

 

Other countries allow electronic or workplace voting; my feeling is that David Cameron isnt playing with a straight bat.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 12:11 ----------

 

Look, if you want to hire a proxy to negotiate for you (which is all a union really does) I suppose that's fine.

 

Unions perform the role of management in large organisations, by sorting out workers problems; they sort them out, and only get a workers rate, not a managers rate; employers should love them.

[Berberis]

So too could the workforce of Tescos, why not have the private sector operate under the same rules?

 

You cant change everything at once, but the likes of Tesco do not have the proportion of union membership as seen in the public sector. I worked in the sector and the push for union membership was fairly strong. Most people where a member of a union. Compare that to the private sector. Most are not members these days, especially modern companies.

 

I think the UK would benefit from a higher level of Union participation in the private sector based on the German model, where unions work for the benefit if both the company and the members. The UK seems to have unions that see the employers are the enemy and so the relationship is always fraught.

 

Unions in the Private sector have dwindled because people do not like their mentality. I was a member of the AEEU many years ago. I felt pushed into joining and then felt I got nothing from being a member.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Berberis

[unbeliever]

Other countries allow electronic or workplace voting; my feeling is that David Cameron isnt playing with a straight bat.

 

There's a lot of fraud in such mechanisms but I agree that would help.

Still how hard is it to stick an envelope in the post.

 

if you want to see what happens when unions are allowed to become too strong, take a look at France.

 

You're dealing here with essentially 2 groups of people who want power. You can't go giving either of them too much. After 13 years of Labour, the unions (let's face it they're all the same bunch) have got a little bit too powerful.

 

If there really is a serious problem in a workplace, do you really think the unions are going to have trouble meeting these standards in their votes?

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 12:16 ----------

 

Unions perform the role of management in large organisations, by sorting out workers problems; they sort them out, and only get a workers rate, not a managers rate; employers should love them.

 

That's one small part of what some unions do some of the time.

Their primary role is to organise combat between management and staff.

You're suggestion that the management should love them is rather far fetched.

[geared]

It does not cover all unions.

 

The wording of the bill indicates it does in fact cover all unions.

 

You need to read the bill, and the cross-reference it with the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to which the bill relates to get the full picture:

 

Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0058/16058.pdf

 

Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/226

 

The proposed final wording will be:

 

 

2)Industrial action shall be regarded as having the support of a ballot only if:

 

(a)the union has held a ballot in respect of the action—

 

(i)in relation to which the requirements of section 226B so far as applicable before and during the holding of the ballot were satisfied,

 

(ii)in relation to which the requirements of sections 227 to [F5231] were satisfied, and

 

(iia) in which at least 50% of those who were entitled to vote in the ballot did so, and

 

(iii)in which the majority voting in the ballot answered “Yes" to the question applicable in accordance with section 229(2) to industrial action of the kind to which the act of inducement relates;

 

There is a separate part of the bill to deal with the 40% vote for important public services.

[El Cid]

 

If you want to see what happens when unions are allowed to become too strong, take a look at France.

 

 

So you are agreeing that the UK does not have a big problem, but France does?

We have much fewer strikes than years ago, unions can be a positive, they should not be wiped out because of government rules, union leaders wearing an armband is ridiculous.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 12:32 ----------

 

 

If there really is a serious problem in a workplace, do you really think the unions are going to have trouble meeting these standards in their votes?

 

There isnt much of a problem, it might even make strikes stronger; its that the public sector is being singled out.

 

 

 

 

There is a separate part of the bill to deal with the 40% vote for important public services.

 

My objection is to the public services aspect, is the supply of water and electricity covered, why not nothing or everything? Cameron is making a pigs ear out of this legislation.

Edited September 29, 2015 by El Cid

[unbeliever]

 

So you are agreeing that the UK does not have a big problem, but France does?

We have much fewer strikes than years ago, unions can be a positive, they should not be wiped out because of government rules, union leaders wearing an armband is ridiculous.

 

All I was saying is that unions in France can very very damaging. The problem is lessened here by better regulation. It could be lessened further.

 

They're not being wiped out. There's no danger of this.

Unions do not need the special status in law the UK grants them at all. They predate such laws and they exist in states which have no such laws.

[Vague_Boy]

In comparison to the private sector, we should have the same rights.

 

Can we in the private sector have the same pension rights?