Unions - Worth joining?

SarEl

I see it as a mathematical formula. Take (a) all the bills that you have to pay every month and add them together. Then add the costs of your favourites little treats, a social life, running your car, having a holiday etc etc. Then take your (b) income and subtract (a) from (b). If the result is a massively negative figure you are on the wrong board and should be looking at the boards about debts If you have a result that is around about balanced, or even a positive figure, take that figure and subtract £7k - 25k (the likely range of costs for a solicitor to represent a simple to moderate unfair dismissal case depending on where you live and the comlexity/ amount of work involved in the case). If you still have a positive figure, why are you working? If you don't, join a union.

Unions are not perfect, but neither are employers. The difference is that when they unfairly dismiss you they won't be broke and you very likely will be. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's too late to regret not joining when you need one.

ceridwen

Basically my view is that the one place where the Principle of Deterrence is a "good thing" is when it comes to Unions.

Join the relevant Union and the management are less likely to decide to "join battle" with you anyway on an issue.

If management goes ahead anyway and "tries to pull a fast one" - then it is helpful to have Union backing.

Doesn't mean to say that Unions are perfect - they arent. Sometimes they don't want to fight a winnable case. Sometimes you know your rights better than the relevant Union rep does.

But - having said that - its still worthwhile joining anyway. Just make sure you keep pretty up-to-date with workers rights yourself as well.:cool:

You just have to remember that no-one else will be as strongly "on your side" as you (ie the person involved) will be.

SarEl

ceridwen wrote: »

Sometimes you know your rights better than the relevant Union rep does.
.

In which case you should be standing as a union rep

lynzpower

peigi wrote: »

After my experience with unions, I think it would be more beneficial to take insurance for legal fees attached to home contents. At least then you will be more in control and get a legal opinion, which union pres will give unless they refer you to one of their panel of solicitors and I have been told by a union rep that unions will have to be between 70 to 80% sure of winning a case before that will happen.

Also paying for this with insurance is not as costly as paying union subscriptions every month.

I have both. Legal insurance wont support you ( ie come with you) to meetings with your employer ( eg grievance meetings) Certainly mine wouldnt. They will only support you really if your case is "cast iron" in terms fo court action.

I think it is useful to have both, but if push came to shove it would be the union that I relied on to support me in an employment environment.

SarEl

lynzpower wrote: »

I have both. Legal insurance wont support you ( ie come with you) to meetings with your employer ( eg grievance meetings) Certainly mine wouldnt. They will only support you really if your case is "cast iron" in terms fo court action.

I think it is useful to have both, but if push came to shove it would be the union that I relied on to support me in an employment environment.

I should point out also that:

(a) in disciplinary or grievance matters the law only permits a union representative or work colleague to accompany you; few employers extend this right to anyone else; and almost none would permit legal representation. Legal representation in such matters under the law is very much restricted to a few professions and even then only in very specific circumstances.

(b) whilst I would accept that unions and union reps are not perfect, broadly speaking they do an excellent job. That is not the same thing as achieving the outcome, or giving the advice, that you want. They suffer from exactly the same thing we see on these boards - "I only came to you to be told that I have an iron'clad case / will win lots of money / can do as I wish..." Simply because a union has not in your eyes got the outcome you wish, does not mean that they have not done an excellent job

(c) in terms of legal representation (as opposed to lay or officer representation) at such things as tribunals, unions operate in a very similar way to no-win no-fee solicitors and legal insurance. They will only take on your case if there is a reasonable chance of winning. That doesn't mean that the legal advice of any of these groups of representation is infallible - legal advice is still advice, albeit based on professional experience, and tribunals can also be perverse environments, where what you think is a clear case they don't and vice versa. Unions are not bottomless money pits - and unlike no-win no-fee solicitors they almost never get their costs paid (whatever those costs are), so they simply cannot take on those costs for every member who wants a crack at it, regardless of legal advice.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

Unions are not perfect, but neither are employers. The difference is that when they unfairly dismiss you they won't be broke and you very likely will be. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's too late to regret not joining when you need one.

On balance I agree but there is always the danger with a union that they will not fight for an individual, even with a good case, if they feel it will harm the "bigger picture".

Ideally I would have both a union membership plus, for the sake of about twenty quid, legal expenses add on to my house insurance.

jem16

peigi wrote: »

After my experience with unions, I think it would be more beneficial to take insurance for legal fees attached to home contents. At least then you will be more in control and get a legal opinion, which union pres will give unless they refer you to one of their panel of solicitors and I have been told by a union rep that unions will have to be between 70 to 80% sure of winning a case before that will happen.

Except you're not in control.

The insurance company may well turn around and say you don't have cover for employement disputes even though you have legal cover. If they agree you are covered you are often given a lawyer that is hundreds of miles away from you, although technically you can insist on your own but again it's a fight with the insurance company. They will also only take on a case where they believe it's winnable.

However again you have one agenda and the insurance company has another.

ceridwen

Uncertain wrote: »

On balance I agree but there is always the danger with a union that they will not fight for an individual, even with a good case, if they feel it will harm the "bigger picture".

.

The "bigger picture" does seem to be something Unions bear in mind - understandable in some respects - as they can only fight on so many fronts at once and they operate on the basis that they have to "let the employer win some" - so an individual may find themselves "sacrificed for the greater good" by a Union thinking "We need to save our firepower for x/y/z instead - so we'll let this one go...". Hence why its wise to join a Union BUT still "look out for your own interests" by being aware of your rights and willing to stand up for yourself - just in case YOU are the one "being sacrificed for the greater good".

Uncertain

peigi wrote: »

As for them taking on a case, before they will do that you will at least get an expert opinion as to whethe it winnable or not, if not who want to go though all that hassle at a tribunal on the bases that you are not going to win it.

This can work two ways...

You may feel a 25% chance of winning a tricky case is worthwhile.

Equally, you may feel it is worth fighting any arguable case simply in the hope that the employer will find it cheaper to settle than to fight.

In a way this is no different from employers / solicitors threatening to seek costs in cases where there is no realistic possibility of them being awarded - i.e. most of them! In a perfect world both practices would be strictly outlawed.........

jem16

peigi wrote: »

Of course you can see what cover you have before you join, is that not the case.

It should be the case. However insurance companies can and will try to wriggle out of things so no guarantee.

As for them taking on a case, before they will do that you will at least get an expert opinion as to whethe it winnable or not,

Surely this is no different to the opinion your union rep will have given you after consulting their legal people?