Ballance of power, workers vs employers

[Eric Arthur]

Here's the thing, voluntary union membership tends to attract the people who are attracted to the sort of things that unions do. Like golf clubs attract plaid wearing middle aged social climbers, unions attract agitators.

 

Here's the other thing, if union membership was compulsory, unions would reflect the wider population, and act accordingly.

 

There is some merit in discussing compulsory union membership, not least because certain militant unions would hate the idea, and the moderate constructive unions would benefit.

[unbeliever]

Here's the thing, voluntary union membership tends to attract the people who are attracted to the sort of things that unions do. Like golf clubs attract plaid wearing middle aged social climbers, unions attract agitators.

 

Here's the other thing, if union membership was compulsory, unions would reflect the wider population, and act accordingly.

 

There is some merit in discussing compulsory union membership, not least because certain militant unions would hate the idea, and the moderate constructive unions would benefit.

 

 

I presume the unions would still charge a fee. In which case you've just invented a tax, and effectively nationalised the unions.

[Eric Arthur]

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

Just a tip, but a dictionary also explains the meaning of words, not just their spelling. You need to look up hypocrite quite urgently.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 15:21 ----------

 

I presume the unions would still charge a fee. In which case you've just invented a tax, and effectively nationalised the unions.

 

I never said that it was a good plan, just that there was some merit in discussing it. I'll suggest a new law that increases the dividend paying share capital of every active company by 1% which is then used to fund democratic workplace unions. I'd go for that personally.

 

The idea of nationalising and funding unions against their will is quite sweet don't you think.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[sgtkate]

Here's the thing, voluntary union membership tends to attract the people who are attracted to the sort of things that unions do. Like golf clubs attract plaid wearing middle aged social climbers, unions attract agitators.

 

Here's the other thing, if union membership was compulsory, unions would reflect the wider population, and act accordingly.

 

There is some merit in discussing compulsory union membership, not least because certain militant unions would hate the idea, and the moderate constructive unions would benefit.

 

As I've said I'm very lucky to work for a decent employer who I don't think would do that much different if we didn't have a union, but the fact we do and my employer strongly encourages staff to join speaks volumes. Perhaps I'm blind to some 'poor' union practices as I don't work in industries where unions might have too much power and I don't really know anyone who does if I'm honest. Most of my friends either work in the same company as me or small IT startups that don't have any union affiliation!

 

Unbeliever, I will happily report back what I find out both good and bad. I'm still thinking long and hard about it and you've made me question myself in this thread as to whether I should stand or not...

[Cyclone]

Just a tip, but a dictionary also explains the meaning of words, not just their spelling. You need to look up hypocrite quite urgently.

 

No, I think I've got it nailed thanks. Perhaps I should explain to you why I used it in that context if you're struggling.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 17:32 ----------

 

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.

 

So SgtKate on this forum is somehow representative of "union folk" is she?

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 17:33 ----------

 

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

 

Yeah.... You couldn't.

[unbeliever]

 

So SgtKate on this forum is somehow representative of "union folk" is she?

 

We've long since settled this.

 

---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 17:34 ----------

 

Yeah.... You couldn't.

 

Any chance you could go back to arguing with Eric about who's more literate?

[Cyclone]

Sorry, catching up with the thread, work has been interfering with my forum use today.

[Mister M]

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 ----------

 

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.

 

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.

 

What you need to consider is the conditions of the society in which unions fought for basic freedoms and rights. It's very easy to take things for granted.

 

1. 9 to 5: Without trade unions promoting the aim of a 40-hour work week, there would have been no pressure on employers to limit the amount of time employees spend working.

While of course employees are free to choose how long they spend working, trade unions worked to ensure this was the choice of a worker, not their boss.

The movement for an 8-hour work day peaked at the turn of the 20th century, just before the First World War.

 

2. Forced employers to abide by contracts: Before the Employers and Workmen Act 1875, workers were the only ones who could be sued for breach of an employment contract.

 

3. Tackled discrimination: Unions were instrumental in campaigning for equal pay and rights on the basis of gender, race, disability and sexuality. Laws were changed in the 1970s, 1980s to more recent times, when women workers were groped, gay men were beaten at work and called 'puffs', and black people being discriminated against and refused employment was normal.

 

4. Allowed us to talk to bosses about pay and conditions: In the 1840s, unions that were highly centralised and which employed full-time officers brought about negotiation and arbitration as their preferred method of achieving a good deal for their members.

This had a significant effect in improving worker/industrialist relations, and while not always successful, they fundamentally changed workplace relationships for the better.

 

5. Gave us the weekend: The history of the working week lies in industrial practices, and in Britain factories operated 6 days a week to maintain efficiencies of scale.

Sundays were always the day of rest.

But trade unions fought to secure the Saturday for workers, too. And now the Monday-to-Friday work week is accepted across industries.

(Huffington Post)

 

-----------

 

It should be added that people nowadays also think 'we've got everything, we don't need unions nowadays'. Today, In the building trade, the statistics of accidents and deaths at work is shocking. In our public services, millions of workers are enduring unacceptable levels of stress caused by their jobs - check the HSE stats.

We still need unions.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Mister M

[unbeliever]

Can't we just disestablish the unions.

Perhaps the reverse of what we've been discussing up to now.

 

If unions had no special status in law, there'd be no debate over whether on strike or another were legal or argument about whether they should be more or less restricted by law. They'd operate as perhaps charities or at least non-profits.

 

We have all this law buzzing about, constantly under reform, on the subject of unions. If we just bin it, they can run their own affairs without interference and in return they'd have no special protections.

[Mister M]

Can't we just disestablish the unions.

Perhaps the reverse of what we've been discussing up to now.

 

If unions had no special status in law, there'd be no debate over whether on strike or another were legal or argument about whether they should be more or less restricted by law. They'd operate as perhaps charities or at least non-profits.

 

We have all this law buzzing about, constantly under reform, on the subject of unions. If we just bin it, they can run their own affairs without interference and in return they'd have no special protections.

 

I don't know what you mean by 'disestablish the unions' Trade unions are membership organisations, possibly have the largest members of voluntary organisations (unlike say political parties).They are, in effect, practicing the 'BIG SOCIETY' which Cameron preached a few years ago!

Unions, like charities, non profit organisations, and every other individual or organisation HAVE to abide by the law. In fact, a good case can be made that UK strike regulations are among the toughest of European advanced industrial states.

A few years ago George Osborne, the Chancellor, in a speech entitled "Workers of the World Unite" floated the idea of employees to give up some of their workplace rights in exchange for owning tax-free shares in their companies. Osborne said:

 

"Workers: replace your old rights of unfair dismissal and redundancy with new rights of ownership. And what will the government do? We will charge no capital gains tax at all on the profit you make on your shares. Zero percent capital gains tax for these new employee-owners. Get shares and become owners of the company you work for. Owners, workers and the taxman, all in it together. Workers of the world unite."

 

Needless to say the proposals were wound up as so few people were prepared to sell hard-won workplace protections in exchange for a few lousy shares. Speaks volumes.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Mister M