Unions - Worth joining?

jem16

peigi wrote: »

That is the point they will consult their legal people, reps will want to attend meetings as it is a day away from their office desk.

Sorry - you've lost me here?

You are saying that the union rep will consult their legal people. Isn't that what you want them to do?

As to having a day away from their desk, that's not my experience. Most reps would rather not attend disciplinary meetings and if they had to, would go prepared.

SarEl

peigi wrote: »

you will at least get an expert opinion as to whethe it winnable or not,.

Lets test that theory then shall we? There are two forms of "legal insurance". One form is the "call centre" approach where a company employs a huge number of paralegals, some of which may have legal qualifications. They may be relatively recently qualified general (not specialist) lawyers who have failed to obtain places to continue their training / obtained employment in either solcitors or barristers offices. They may be legal executives who have similarly failed to obtain work in practices. Or they may not even be either of those. "Expert opinion"? I don't think so.

The second approach is a "clearing house". The insurers have a huge number of solicitors and solicitors practices on the books, with whom they have cut price contracting arrangements. They offer the work at pre-set "prices" to practices, who can decide whether they will take it at that price or not. Now, what sort of practices do not make enough money / have enough clients to need to accept cases on this basis? Certainly not "experts".

I am not arguing against insurance policies for legal expenses - they have their place and provide valuable advice and support to people. But if you want an expert - you pay for an expert. And they do not come at cut-price deals or from people who can't obtain better employment opportunities.

loopy_lass

just a quick reply but yes unions are valuable, stats show that if your NOT in union you are twice as likely to loose your job or be involved in some kind of disiplinary. now im a union rep so i guess im bias, but i dont go in for all that "every body out" malarky. At the end of the day there a guidelines for employers and employees to work within and thats how it should be done. Now if something happens which takes either outside these guidelines then things need looking at, and moreso handled fairly.

if i have a member taking the whizz ill tell them i cant and wont support them, if they are in a pickle due to some misunderstanding or mistake i will work damn hard with the employee and employer to resolve the situation so we can all get on with our jobs...

loops

SarEl

peigi wrote: »

I think the 'all out' malarky days are long gone, organisation that are [FONT=&quot]unionized get a bit more from their reps than organisations that are not unonised. [/FONT]There are some very big organized that are not unionized.

I am sure that BA will be entirely happy to hear that - perhaps you could let them know when the malarku stopped, because weren't their cabin crews out on strike a few weeks ago? Which resulted in a greatly improved deal from their management.

But I realise that I am priveleged to information which others here are not since I know why you are so unhappy about your union and others here do not. I would never breach confdence (although I would have answered you had you wanted an opinion from a "union lawyer"). But your views on unions are subjective based on your own view of what the law offers you - and they are wrong. You have made claims about the employers behaviours which are in no way related to an alleged disability, you have assumed that doctors have rights to dictate matters to employers which they do not, it is in no way certain that your condition is actually a disability in law at all, and you have totally misunderstood the concept of a "reasonable adjustment". In fact, if anything, your own arguments speak to an incapacity to do the job - which is lawful grounds for the employer to consider terminating your contract. In this situation your union have very little leeway to do anything.

Unions cannot magic up arguments that do not exist. Simply because you cannot have yur own way with the employer does not mean that the union has done anything wrong. You have assumed that being granted an Access to Work assessment means that your have a disability in law - you said so on an earlier thread. It does not. There are many health conditions which may give rise to such support but which are not disabilities in law.

loopy_lass

SarEl wrote: »

I am sure that BA will be entirely happy to hear that - perhaps you could let them know when the malarku stopped, because weren't their cabin crews out on strike a few weeks ago? Which resulted in a greatly improved deal from their management.

But I realise that I am priveleged to information which others here are not since I know why you are so unhappy about your union and others here do not. I would never breach confdence (although I would have answered you had you wanted an opinion from a "union lawyer"). But your views on unions are subjective based on your own view of what the law offers you - and they are wrong. You have made claims about the employers behaviours which are in no way related to an alleged disability, you have assumed that doctors have rights to dictate matters to employers which they do not, it is in no way certain that your condition is actually a disability in law at all, and you have totally misunderstood the concept of a "reasonable adjustment". In fact, if anything, your own arguments speak to an incapacity to do the job - which is lawful grounds for the employer to consider terminating your contract. In this situation your union have very little leeway to do anything.

Unions cannot magic up arguments that do not exist. Simply because you cannot have yur own way with the employer does not mean that the union has done anything wrong. You have assumed that being granted an Access to Work assessment means that your have a disability in law - you said so on an earlier thread. It does not. There are many health conditions which may give rise to such support but which are not disabilities in law.

couldnt agree more, i couldnt have put it quite like that tho ;-) we had a woman trying to say she had a disability on the mobility side of things, so we negotiated reasonable adjustments i.e. ergonomic chair and an extra break. She had some time off due to back pain but on her return she was telling everyone one lunchtime how she had a part time job gardening and had been out all the previous day!

on being questioned she walked out and tried to take company to a tribunal... silly woman.

Another person has been off 5 months and doesnt attend occupational health appointments nor sends in sick notes, now shes been called in to explain herself she wants me to defend her! er no way i said. they have grounds to let you go.

like i say stick to within the rules and things are "generally" workable, although there are exceptions...

loops

SarEl

loopy_lass wrote: »

couldnt agree more, i couldnt have put it quite like that tho ;-) we had a woman trying to say she had a disability on the mobility side of things, so we negotiated reasonable adjustments i.e. ergonomic chair and an extra break. She had some time off due to back pain but on her return she was telling everyone one lunchtime how she had a part time job gardening and had been out all the previous day!

on being questioned she walked out and tried to take company to a tribunal... silly woman.

Another person has been off 5 months and doesnt attend occupational health appointments nor sends in sick notes, now shes been called in to explain herself she wants me to defend her! er no way i said. they have grounds to let you go.

like i say stick to within the rules and things are "generally" workable, although there are exceptions...

loops

I agree entirely. Both employers and union reps know when people are being genuine and when they are not, and in 95% of cases they can work something out where an employee genuinely needs support. The problem with boards like this is that we seldom hear of the 95% of cases - only the others - and it scews the reality. It makes employment sound like a war zone, when generally it isn't at all, and problems are managed quite well. Especially in workplaces with unions, because problems can get nipped in the bud before they get out of hand.

Union reps work very hard for their members, but they are in a no-win situation often, because they cannot "get someone off" if the member have crossed the line or they want something they can't have, and they are "useless" if they don't get the result the member wants no matter how unreasonable the result wanted is. It's a thankless task most of the time, and I take my hat off to those many people who do this on top off their day job, as volunteers, and regularly put themselves in the firing line because they believe it must be done and not because they get anything out of it.

SevenOfNine

I was a member of Unison during a restructure which cost me my job. The union rep was ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS. My employer was not following their own Employment Stability Policy properly, I was obliged to point out a step they'd missed from my consultation process - something my rep should most certainly have been aware of, but clearly wasn't.

It meant my consultation had to be started all over again (did lead to more weeks employment though), but sadly he continued to be clueless. The icing on the cake was when he started discussing the position of temps who still hadn't got permanent contracts after 2 years employment..........at MY consultation meeting. Honestly, do I give a stuff about anyone else's (completely different) situation, these meetings were about my situation.

So, dumped the rep, dumped Unison (given that I'd told them I was unhappy with my representation) and handled the whole process myself. 10 times better.

Do I think it's worth joining a union - my experience is an unequivocal NO. 4 years of paying and when I needed them I got an untrained, numpty, who, if he'd bothered to even read the Employment Stability Policy, might have at least been a modicum of help.

I told Unison in no uncertain terms I'd NEVER join again, wherever I worked. EVER!

Jeff_Bridges_hair

SarEl wrote: »

I agree entirely. Both employers and union reps know when people are being genuine and when they are not, and in 95% of cases they can work something out where an employee genuinely needs support. The problem with boards like this is that we seldom hear of the 95% of cases - only the others - and it scews the reality. It makes employment sound like a war zone, when generally it isn't at all, and problems are managed quite well. Especially in workplaces with unions, because problems can get nipped in the bud before they get out of hand.

Union reps work very hard for their members, but they are in a no-win situation often, because they cannot "get someone off" if the member have crossed the line or they want something they can't have, and they are "useless" if they don't get the result the member wants no matter how unreasonable the result wanted is. It's a thankless task most of the time, and I take my hat off to those many people who do this on top off their day job, as volunteers, and regularly put themselves in the firing line because they believe it must be done and not because they get anything out of it.

Exactly this and the majority of the time unions are involved is because the employee has done something grossly wrong and wants to 'get off' and keep their job.

I wouldnt want to be a rep mind - hard enough being a bloody employed

Jeff_Bridges_hair

peigi wrote: »

Therefore, you are implying employers are whiter that white....Never exploit employees and wonderful hard working and this diligent line manager can be everywhere in a large work area when you need them to see bullying and other dreadful things that can go on.

Do you thing an employee should sack an employee even thought that employee with impunity even though the employee maybe hardworking and conscientious person and need the employment.

From experience line managers will always go for the easiest person to deal with and it will not be the bully. Line manager will not tackle the bully as may think that there will be consequences afterwards for them and will not challenge them. Line managers can be lazy and do not want to get into as a sticky situation with a bully that may be able to use the law against them. The good employee will always loose out as well as the business as in the end the good employee will be looking to get out of there as soon as they can. Also the loose confidences in the employer while waiting to move on and that cannot be good for business either.

I ask you DID I SAY ANY OF THAT? DID I?

No so shut up.

I do notice however that i have asked you what your problem is but you have not bothered to answer me until i post something in reply to SOME ONE else.

If you dont want any help then i suggest you go away now because i am willing to help you but you dont seem to want that.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

peigi wrote: »

Thanks for the offer of help but no thanks, people on here can be very rude.

You post said that 'the majority of the time unions are involved is because the employee has done something grossly wrong and wants to 'get off' and keep their job'

My answer was as you see it below, how do you know what employers mostly line manager class as misconduct in their books a gross misconduct can be going to the toilet and I am not exaggerating either. In your books would that be considered as a 'gorss misconduct'.

no it wouldn't. I was talking about when an employee has done something wrong which deserves to be disciplined with and they run to the union as they think the union can get them off from that - when they cannot. A union is not a get out clause for every problem you have at work - especially the ones that are inexcusable.

i am well aware that there are some unscrupulous employers out there but people can fight this with the aid of a union and i must admit i have never heard of anyone getting a gross misconduct charge just for going to the toilet.


You dont want my help thats fine next time try saying that first off.