Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities - The Telegraph

The_White_Horse

all unions should be outlawed. they are outdated dinosaurs.

they did away (wrongly) with debtors prisons. they can do away (rightly) with the unions.

RabbitMad

Couldn't disagree more with some posters on here and I'm generally right wing.

I have a relative who is a union rep - has been for a while and 7-8 years ago it was less then 1 day a month he spent on paid for activities. Now its over 50% of his time, either attending consultations where the company want to change this, that or the other or attending disciplinaries.

I think there has been a lots of rubbish in the tory papers recently about unions which is propaganda. Many of us don't work in unionised industries so don't really understand. I'm generally of the view that a union is just like an insurance policy and the only time you really need a union is when you're in trouble (either done something wrong or the company is treating you wrongly).

ILW

RabbitMad wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more with some posters on here and I'm generally right wing.

I have a relative who is a union rep - has been for a while and 7-8 years ago it was less then 1 day a month he spent on paid for activities. Now its over 50% of his time, either attending consultations where the company want to change this, that or the other or attending disciplinaries.

I think there has been a lots of rubbish in the tory papers recently about unions which is propaganda. Many of us don't work in unionised industries so don't really understand. I'm generally of the view that a union is just like an insurance policy and the only time you really need a union is when you're in trouble (either done something wrong or the company is treating you wrongly).

Fair enough, but taxpayers should not be paying for it. If he is private sector then it is between him, his employer, the union and the shareholders.

lynzpower

ILW wrote: »

Fair enough, but taxpayers should not be paying for it. If he is private sector then it is between him, his employer, the union and the shareholders.

Surely the way to minimise union time is to ensure that workers are treated legally,fairly and to work to the contracts that they signed in the first place?

I dont think we should have a 2 tier system where a private sector worker is more protected than an public sector employee, after all without these negotiations, you might turn up at A&E one day to find all staff have walked out.

abaxas

Great thing about the unions is that you know exactly who to get rid of in the next round of layoffs.

ILW

lynzpower wrote: »

Surely the way to minimise union time is to ensure that workers are treated legally,fairly and to work to the contracts that they signed in the first place?

I dont think we should have a 2 tier system where a private sector worker is more protected than an public sector employee, after all without these negotiations, you might turn up at A&E one day to find all staff have walked out.

If that is the case, why are there more strikes in unionised workplaces than none unioinised?

lynzpower

ILW wrote: »

If that is the case, why are there more strikes in unionised workplaces than none unioinised?

Because people know their rights to strike, and not be disciplined in unionised workforces perhaps?

Because people feel more protected to stand up for their employment rights when backed with trained personnel at a low cost that have access to legal advice and guidance on their behalf?

Andy_L

Any employer has to provde time-off for union reps to do "union stuff". Once you get to a certain size of organisation it makes more sense, for both employer & union, to have people doing it full time rather than, say, 20 people spending 1/2 day a week out of their day jobs

lynzpower

abaxas wrote: »

Great thing about the unions is that you know exactly who to get rid of in the next round of layoffs.

you mean this?http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858787&r.lc=en&r.l3=1074038852&r.l2=1074436102&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1083790682

abaxas

lynzpower wrote: »

you mean this?http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858787&r.lc=en&r.l3=1074038852&r.l2=1074436102&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1083790682

Easy sorted if labour is removed.

Since both sides of the coin are discrimiatory. You cant win and argument where you are arguing for both sides.