Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities - The Telegraph

lynzpower

abaxas wrote: »

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.

What do you mean?

abaxas

lynzpower wrote: »

What do you mean?

Is it discrimatory to both union members and non members.

lynzpower

Is that a question?

abaxas

lynzpower wrote: »

Is that a question?

????

I'll rephrase.

There are two parts to employment, contractual obligation and law.

Someone who has removed labour is subject to a breach of contractual obligation while being inside the law.

It is perfectly fine to 'discrimiate' on the basis of contractual obligation.

Many people have been layed off due to ill health, attendence etc etc.

ILW

lynzpower wrote: »

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?

So why should these employees not be paying for this themselves, through union subs?

harz99

ILW wrote: »

So why should these employees not be paying for this themselves, through union subs?

Because it is not neccessary under present law!

If you want to start a campaign to change the law, feel free, and maybe also start a thread on the subject?

ILW

harz99 wrote: »

Because it is not neccessary under present law!

If you want to start a campaign to change the law, feel free, and maybe also start a thread on the subject?

It may be a grey area as to whether public funds should be used. I believe the majority of non union taxpayers would strongly object.

I thought it was the subject of this thread.

harz99

ILW wrote: »

It may be a grey area as to whether public funds should be used. I believe the majority of non union taxpayers would strongly object.

I thought it was the subject of this thread.

No, the OP is simply a copy of an article in the press with no opinion expressed or given.

Nothing at all about changing the law, hence my suggestion that you may wish to start a thread on that subject.................

marklv

drc wrote: »

Aren't trade unions basically redundant in this day and age where there is so much protection in law for the worker anyway?

These socialist monoliths are a remnant of a bygone age. I don't see why the taxpayer should be paying Bob Crow and his ilk to go on strike every year.

Nonsense. What protection? For the first year of employment you can't even make a claim for unfair dismissal if your employer suddenly wants to dispense with your services, on a whim. Go to France for employee protection, there is virtually none in the UK.