Ballance of power, workers vs employers

[unbeliever]

So because somebody suggested that you should lose the right to not be a member, you think it's right that everyone should lose the right to be a member?

Hypocrite.

 

I now know that supporting the right to join a union is to support taking away the right to not join. It would be madness to continue to offer that support.

Why on earth should I support another persons right to take my right away?

[Cyclone]

It isn't is it. It was just something that one person was thinking about.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 08:38 ----------

 

That is what I don't understand.

I understand why new builds have certain price.

But old ruins match those prices. Old Victorian terraced houses with no improvements other then double glazing are sold for same price as new builds.

And central heating, indoor toilet, running water, a kitchen...

There's not that much difference really.

Level of insulation, that's about the only key difference between a new build and an older one. Everything else is just details.

And some of those details favour the older homes. High ceilings for example. Solid internal walls.

Would you pay 20k for old worn to bone vauxhall omega because new insignia costs that much?

Houses don't wear out. Not like cars.

Prices don't reflect state of property, it's just - is there a house there and how many bedrooms it has.

It does not reflect size as well. Noone operates in square meters like they do all over Europe. Its all about how many bedrooms.

That I find odd. I worked out the square metreage when moving house, as I thought it mattered.

I recently had a viewing on 4 bed. Turned out to be about 75sq meters.

1,5 half bedroom and two large storage compartments with windows.

Price did not reflect that enough.

This madness must be related to shortage on market.

Personally I'd rather have 1 less bedroom if there were overall more space. But trying to work that out yourself takes effort.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 08:40 ----------

 

Ask your beloved for a dictionary for Valentine's.

 

You have nothing better to do than typo's and post about them?

 

Ask your beloved for a life for Valentine's.

[unbeliever]

It isn't is it. It was just something that one person was thinking about.

 

It's clearly seriously considered an option by the union folk.

I was not aware of this. Now that I am, it changes my views on the matter.

[sgtkate]

I don't care if the unions are the best and most perfect imaginable.

It's my choice to exclude myself from collective bargaining and I demand that right is preserved.

 

Since this is the attitude of otherwise reasonable unionists, I shall henceforth support every government step to limit the power of unions.

It is now my firm hope that unions will one day cease to exist and that anybody who attempts to form a union or engage in any kind of collective bargaining is automatically dismissed by their employer with no recourse for appeal.

This is clearly the lesser evil. As if one doesn't like one's job, one can quit. But if one doesn't wish to participate in collective bargaining the only choice is to be unemployed.

 

I had no idea that this was the end game of union supporters. Thank you for revealing it. At least now I know where I stand and I can firmly and utterly withdraw my previous defence of a worker's right to be a member of a union.

 

Nothing like an over-reaction there. So you'll be giving up all the rights obtained for you by unions then will you? Enjoy having no legal holiday rights, minimum wages or basic health and safety at work. It's no difference to not voting in an election and then complaining about the government.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 09:53 ----------

 

It's clearly seriously considered an option by the union folk.

I was not aware of this. Now that I am, it changes my views on the matter.

 

Because of what I put? Are you for real? You clearly are...thankyou for the unintended compliment that somehow MY opinion on here speaks for all the unions. I am truly blessed to have such power. You do realise I am a lowly union member right? And have nothing (yet, maybe) to do with the union other than giving them my monthly subs? Right?!?!? I think you may have been blinded by your clear union hatred that you've put 2+2 together and got 96.

 

I'm pretty sure you believe some things in your heart that you'd never actually enforce or do? As one of the 'better' posters on here who I disagree with, I am saddened that you've taken such a hostile and aggressive manner on here with regards to an opinion that I hold and by association seem to be using me to fuel your anti-union agenda which is ridiculous.

Edited January 20, 2016 by sgtkate

[unbeliever]

Nothing like an over-reaction there. So you'll be giving up all the rights obtained for you by unions then will you? Enjoy having no legal holiday rights, minimum wages or basic health and safety at work. It's no difference to not voting in an election and then complaining about the government.

 

I think you underestimate how strongly people would feel about being forced to join a union under penalty of dismissal. It's unconscionable.

 

Like I couldn't have secured those entitlements myself. Ridiculous.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 09:55 ----------

 

 

Because of what I put? Are you for real? You clearly are...thankyou for the unintended compliment that somehow MY opinion on here speaks for all the unions. I am truly blessed to have such power.

 

I'm pretty sure you believe some things in your heart that you'd never actually enforce or do? As one of the 'better' posters on here who I disagree with, I am saddened that you've taken such a hostile and aggressive manner on here with regards to an opinion that I hold and by association seem to be using me to fuel your anti-union agenda which is ridiculous.

 

Yes.

You're a active unionist and I've met several over my time.

They often talk like joining the union is a moral obligation, but never openly about making it compulsory. I always suspected that they talked about such things in private. Now I know.

[Eric Arthur]

Nothing like an over-reaction there. So you'll be giving up all the rights obtained for you by unions then will you? Enjoy having no legal holiday rights, minimum wages or basic health and safety at work. It's no difference to not voting in an election and then complaining about the government.

Talking of overreactions you do business a great disservice to suggest that unions are responsible for all those things. Employers are on the whole interested in the same things as unions. The difference is that they just do it instead of making a song and dance about it. The exceptions prove the rule and for the exceptions there are unions.

[sgtkate]

I think you underestimate how strongly people would feel about being forced to join a union under penalty of dismissal. It's unconscionable.

 

Like I couldn't have secured those entitlements myself. Ridiculous.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 09:55 ----------

 

 

Yes.

You're a active unionist and I've met several over my time.

They often talk like joining the union is a moral obligation, but never openly about making it compulsory. I always suspected that they talked about such things in private. Now I know.

 

I am not an active unionist in anyway until the last week! But carry on making assumptions. I've never even attended a union meeting as I have had no need to do so. I don't discuss anything to do with unions with anyone else, in fact this is probably the first conversation I've had about it with anyone except my OH about it.

 

I've NEVER said anyone should be dismissed for not joining a union, that would indeed be ridiculous. You have read what you wanted to see so you could have an anti-union pop, at my expense. I cannot be bothered to discuss this with you any further as you and I are clearly not going to get above bickering on this topic.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 12:00 ----------

 

Talking of overreactions you do business a great disservice to suggest that unions are responsible for all those things. Employers are on the whole interested in the same things as unions. The difference is that they just do it instead of making a song and dance about it. The exceptions prove the rule and for the exceptions there are unions.

 

As I've been saying to Unbeliever, I'm not even an active union member! I've never been to a meeting or even know who my local union rep is. I pay my monthly fees as a way to support others who do need the union as I believe it's stronger when you do that. I also considered standing as a rep to benefit others who need union support more in legal or employment matters. I work for a company who are massively positive employer and work with the union (based on the emails I get anyway!) all the time. I totally support this attitude hence why I'd be willing to assist. If either my company or union were hostile and aggressive or negative in anyway I'd not only never have considered being a rep, I'd have never joined in the first place.

[unbeliever]

I am not an active unionist in anyway until the last week! But carry on making assumptions. I've never even attended a union meeting as I have had no need to do so. I don't discuss anything to do with unions with anyone else, in fact this is probably the first conversation I've had about it with anyone except my OH about it.

 

I've NEVER said anyone should be dismissed for not joining a union, that would indeed be ridiculous. You have read what you wanted to see so you could have an anti-union pop, at my expense. I cannot be bothered to discuss this with you any further as you and I are clearly not going to get above bickering on this topic.

 

Yes you most certainly did. Perhaps you've since reconsidered, but that's exactly what you said.

See below. All bold is mine.

 

I think I'm talking more as an ideology, however, they are some legal requirements employers must meet to work so perhaps union membership should be the requirement for an employee. I'm not trying to force that position now, just thinking about what I believe would be the ideal. Currently must unions are mismanaged, self-obsessed and confrontational. But that's history. Look around the world for other examples of how unions should be and if we can get there, a collaborative and supportive style of union, then all staff must be a part of that. Perhaps even the term 'union' is what riles people, maybe they should be renamed? I think I'm doing a terrible job explaining here. More tea needed!

 

I think everyone working should be in a union. It should be enforced and supported by the company you work for. This them and us culture is what does the damage. Unions trying to get one over on the company and the compant vice versa. No company can exist without it's staff and no staff member can earn anything without a company. The 2 sides are mutually beneficial and great benefits for all can be achieved by having the unions and the company working together to find solutions and not simply to make a name for themselves!

 

Germany has a better, not perfect but better, union system, where the aim is to find some middle ground rather than the confrontational style system we have here.

 

 

Would you support forcing me to join the union under penalty of dismissal or legal action?

 

As things stand, with unions being more about themselves than about the staff, then no I wouldn't force anyone to join them. However, if the unions start being a force for good for both the company and it's staff then yes I do. Unions only succeed when they have high membership. Ironically I've just applied to become a union rep, something I never thought I'd have done in the past, the reason is because my union actually works with my company to find solutions. My company listen to the union, even get their advice on employee relations and how we are all feeling about things so they can change policies or better communicate with staff. It's a real two-way deal and works very well. I work for a big company as well, not a small one who you might think would have this culture.

 

My union holds my employer to account and equally the company holds the union to account too. How it should be. My company actually strongly encourage people to join the union and support anyone who wishes to go for a union position. It is looked upon favourably as caring about your workplace and colleagues. Such a shame so many companies and unions fail to grasp this.

Edited January 20, 2016 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

Yes you most certainly did. Perhaps you've since reconsidered, but that's exactly what you said.

See below. All bold is mine.

 

I said that JOINING a company should have a requirement to join the union. That is different. New joiners should perhaps, if the unions change their culture etc. get auto-enrolled into the union by default. And maybe there should be an opt-out. Maybe But no-one should lose their job by not joining a union that's something we totally agree on. However, if the terms of that new job you were going for included union membership then you'd either accept those terms or not take the job. Any company who did that would be foolish, as things stand, so I was talking purely ideologically, and honestly, this isn't the position of any union, well it might be but I don't know and I really don't discuss this with union people. Actually, I lied accidentally earlier, I also discuss unions with my dad on occasion as he's seen both good and bad by unions. The worst was when the unions managed to negotiate a WORSE deal than the company offered in the first by just being stubborn minded. While we still have union culture like that, I can understand people's hostility.

 

It is interesting to see how strongly people are against the unions, I'm genuine. I've always been ambivalent until recently when I changed my mind and decided to join up.

 

I take back what I said about us not being able to discus this, I like talking to you even if we disagree

[unbeliever]

I said that JOINING a company should have a requirement to join the union. That is different. New joiners should perhaps, if the unions change their culture etc. get auto-enrolled into the union by default. And maybe there should be an opt-out. Maybe But no-one should lose their job by not joining a union that's something we totally agree on. However, if the terms of that new job you were going for included union membership then you'd either accept those terms or not take the job. Any company who did that would be foolish, as things stand, so I was talking purely ideologically, and honestly, this isn't the position of any union, well it might be but I don't know and I really don't discuss this with union people. Actually, I lied accidentally earlier, I also discuss unions with my dad on occasion as he's seen both good and bad by unions. The worst was when the unions managed to negotiate a WORSE deal than the company offered in the first by just being stubborn minded. While we still have union culture like that, I can understand people's hostility.

 

It is interesting to see how strongly people are against the unions, I'm genuine. I've always been ambivalent until recently when I changed my mind and decided to join up.

 

I take back what I said about us not being able to discus this, I like talking to you even if we disagree

 

On those terms, I'm content for unions to continue to exist.

If you do get more involved in the union, I'd be interested to hear what their opinions are on whether it is acceptable to require people to be members of a union as a condition of employment.

It doesn't happen here, but it does elsewhere in the world.