War on the public sector and unions

[ricgem2002]

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.

I bet you took the pay rise that the unions got for you thou .like I said in the other thread, if you were to take on your employers on your own you would be very brave and like you keep saying to others you can allways change your job

[unbeliever]

I bet you took the pay rise that the unions got for you thou .like I said in the other thread, if you were to take on your employers on your own you would be very brave and like you keep saying to others you can allways change your job

 

You're missing the point. I don't have the option of negotiating directly with my employer because the unions are preventing it.

Furthermore, my job pays more in the private sector so to suggest that the unions have negotiated well on my behalf is blatantly untrue.

[I1L2T3]

You're missing the point. I don't have the option of negotiating directly with my employer because the unions are preventing it.

Furthermore, my job pays more in the private sector so to suggest that the unions have negotiated well on my behalf is blatantly untrue.

 

I have a potential solution for you. Get the same role in the private sector so you can get more pay and the opportunity to negotiate directly with your employer.

 

Why don't you do it?

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 19:37 ----------

 

I think that's a very important point, which is the forest not being seen (for ages) behind the tree: British (and generally 1st world-) unions and the bulk of their political power arose a long time before British laws about employment and health and safety (I'd argue, the core pillars of what unions are about) became heavily permeated by EU Regulations that are heavily biased towards employees' best interests.

 

The take-away point being that, although not entirely irrelevant of course, they have far less relevance for the individual employee nowadays: essentially, they have achieved most of what they originally set out to do, their current job is more to preserve and build on the acquis than anything else.

 

Which will go some distance to explain why strikes have, for a while now, been increasingly more of a tool used by unions for their political gain, than a legitimate act of last resort in the defence of their member's interests.

 

Holding on to what has been achieved is very important. Like you say it is a key role of the unions now and in some sectors they have a real fight on.

 

Retail is an example with the rise in zero hours contracts. Is it any coincidence that USDAW membership has been rising rapidly over the last few years?

[unbeliever]

I have a potential solution for you. Get the same role in the private sector so you can get more pay and the opportunity to negotiate directly with your employer.

 

Why don't you do it?

 

We've been over this.

I have other motivations.

 

My personal situation is just an example.

It demonstrates that unions are far from perfect and not for everybody.

 

I don't mind that they exist. I don't mind that they are recognised by employers. It's important that people should have the right to join together and bargain collectively if that's what they want to do.

 

I don't like that unions insist on negotiating on my behalf without my consent and I don't like that they have elevated special status in law.

 

My ideal arrangement would be that the law should protect an employee from persecution of any kind for joining a union, but in return union-employer deals should only affect union members.

The major change would be that the employer would have the right to sack strikers. This is the case in other states and the unions still exist.

 

It's not complicated, and it's just my preferred arrangement.

[I1L2T3]

We've been over this.

I have other motivations.

 

My personal situation is just an example.

It demonstrates that unions are far from perfect and not for everybody.

 

I don't mind that they exist. I don't mind that they are recognised by employers. It's important that people should have the right to join together and bargain collectively if that's what they want to do.

 

I don't like that unions insist on negotiating on my behalf without my consent and I don't like that they have elevated special status in law.

 

My ideal arrangement would be that the law should protect an employee from persecution of any kind for joining a union, but in return union-employer deals should only affect union members.

The major change would be that the employer would have the right to sack strikers. This is the case in other states and the unions still exist.

 

It's not complicated, and it's just my preferred arrangement.

 

You can get everything you ask for in the private sector, in a company that doesn't recognise unions or at least only does so in very specific circumstances.

 

You have to understand this important fact: everything you want is already out there.

 

I've missed what your motivation is for avoiding work in the private sector. Can you summarise or point to a post where you explain why.

[unbeliever]

You can get everything you ask for in the private sector, in a company that doesn't recognise unions or at least only does so in very specific circumstances.

 

You have to understand this important fact: everything you want is already out there.

 

I've missed what your motivation is for avoiding work in the private sector. Can you summarise or point to a post where you explain why.

 

 

My job is unusual and provides job satisfaction that I would find hard to reproduce in the private sector. It combines 2 general areas of expertise and if I took an alternative position which only called for one of them, I would miss exercising the other.

My most marketable skills are mostly the basis on which my position is funded and command much higher wages in the private sector.

[El Cid]

I've missed what your motivation is for avoiding work in the private sector. Can you summarise or point to a post where you explain why.

 

The unions have shaped how councils work, so saying that you like working for the council, but not what the unions do is ridiculous.

[I1L2T3]

My job is unusual and provides job satisfaction that I would find hard to reproduce in the private sector. It combines 2 general areas of expertise and if I took an alternative position which only called for one of them, I would miss exercising the other.

My most marketable skills are mostly the basis on which my position is funded and command much higher wages in the private sector.

 

Fair enough. There will be millions like you who have a job in the public sector that they would never get in the private sector. The trade-off is often lower pay but they get the job satisfaction, perhaps tenure of service, enhanced redundancy terms, perhaps more flexible working hours and decent pension too.

 

People don't do these jobs because doing so means they can join a union. But it is important to remember that a lot of the good stuff I just listed is continued because the unions prevent removal. In a bizarre way the fact that the unions prevent removal of these things actually benefits the public sector employers. It helps them retain staff.

 

I'm not sure you have ever worked in the private sector. Have you?

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 20:15 ----------

 

The unions have shaped how councils work, so saying that you like working for the council, but not what the unions do is ridiculous.

 

I totally agree

[unbeliever]

Fair enough. There will be millions like you who have a job in the public sector that they would never get in the private sector. The trade-off is often lower pay but they get the job satisfaction, perhaps tenure of service, enhanced redundancy terms, perhaps more flexible working hours and decent pension too.

 

People don't do these jobs because doing so means they can join a union. But it is important to remember that a lot of the good stuff I just listed is continued because the unions prevent removal. In a bizarre way the fact that the unions prevent removal of these things actually benefits the public sector employers. It helps them retain staff.

 

I'm not sure you have ever worked in the private sector. Have you?

 

 

I've been in my current job for quite a long time, but before that I was in the private sector.

 

I'm well aware of the value of public sector pensions, and I do take that into account when I say that the private sector pays more.

I had tenure in my private sector position, but I don't in my public sector job. I know that's unusual.

 

I suppose its a matter of opinion as to what we would have and not have if not for the unions. We may just have to agree to disagree. Without re-running history in the absence of unions (or perhaps just in the absence of the special legal status of unions) we can't really know.

[ricgem2002]

I've been in my current job for quite a long time, but before that I was in the private sector.

 

I'm well aware of the value of public sector pensions, and I do take that into account when I say that the private sector pays more.

I had tenure in my private sector position, but I don't in my public sector job. I know that's unusual.

 

I suppose its a matter of opinion as to what we would have and not have if not for the unions. We may just have to agree to disagree. Without re-running history in the absence of unions (or perhaps just in the absence of the special legal status of unions) we can't really know.

so you left a private sector job to take a public sector job with better conditions (probably brought about by union involvement) and then knock that same movement .