Public sector wellcome to the real world

dtsazza

Koicarp wrote: »

My employer- a large NHS Foundation trust encourages union membership among it's staff, I guess because it would rather negotiate with a handful of people rather than the 12000+ employees. There would be a hell of a queue at HR if it were otherwise.

I don't think you'd have a single centralised HR department in that case - some form of hierarchical structure, where workers talk to their "local" HR unit, would be the sensible option. Certainly in larger companies, that's how pay would be sorted out - you'd talk to your boss, or your boss' boss about it, and they'd have the authority to allocate remuneration for the employees they oversaw.

I agree that it's easier to negotiate with a few people rather than treating every employee as an individual, but it is undeniably cruder as well. That's one of the things that put me off public sector employment, the rigidity of structure and the (perceived, at least) lack of ability to apply one's own judgement to situations.

Our union (the RCN) also takes a leading role in education and standards in health and social care, and provides a couple of million pounds worth of public liability insurance, which is also quite useful.

That is definitely good, though I'd consider both of those activities outside the definition of a union per se. The former is filled in my own industry by the BCS for example (an industry body), and the latter falls under the purview of, well, insurance companies. (In one respect it's nice that you get the insurance for "free", but then again it's not actually free since the money has to come from somewhere.)

My somewhat meandering point being that if there were no unions, just professional bodies and insurance companies, I don't think that would be a change for the worse.

dtsazza

geelamch wrote: »

why be jealous of what others receive,stand up and fight for the same for yourself!!!!!!!!

That is an interesting proposal with possibly unexpected consequences.

Let's say one company/industry gives a blanket 25% payrise to its employees. And according with your advice, everyone else manages to persuade their employers to give them a 25% pay rise as well.

Net result - everyone gets a 25% pay rise. We still have the same amount of goods available, but everyone has 25% more money with which to buy them. It doesn't take long before prices rise 25% to match this (either because companies spot this opportunity to "profiteer", or in a more direct sense because people use their extra money to outbid each other up to the previous income-relative prices).

So actually everyone getting a payrise is equivalent to no-one getting a payrise, in the immediate purchase sense. Except that we've just had 20% inflation, with all of the "tax on money" aspects that entails. If you'd just taken out a £200k mortgage on a house - congratulations, you now only have to pay back the equivalent of £160k. OTOH, if you'd saved up £200k for your retirement - commiserations, you now only have the equivalent of £160k saved up.

If you actually want everyone to be better off, rather than seeing bigger numbers in their bank accounts, what needs to happen is the country's productivity needs to increase - so there's more stuff to be shared around between everyone (and which will naturally lower prices so that your existing wages buy more).

(Cash) money is fundamentally just a way to allocate scarce resources - it's not the number of pounds you have that matters, it's the proportion of the total; which in turn determine the proportion of the total output you can have ("buy").

OK, so macroeconomics isn't strictly related to this topic, but if you're discussing levels of pay for people it's not entirely irrelevant. And it does get to me slightly when people think that money determines wealth (e.g. if the government gave everyone a million pounds we'd all be able to afford yachts and Porsches) - in reality it's all about productive output, and thinking about things in that light leads to much more useful conclusions.

We may be in recession but some employers are growing cash rich in this period.We may be jealous of gov employees vbut this is the standard the gov has set so if your employer does not follow then maybe the employee should look at what he should be be asking of his employer,or is it a case of blame others for your own weaknesses

I disagree that now is a particular strong time for many companies, notwithstanding my earlier hypothetical observation. As with individuals, many companies are deleveraging and reducing their dependency on credit which may or may not be forthcoming - in that respect, build a "war chest" is a very sensible move, and likewise using that money to give everyone pay rises is not.

The government in one respect is free to set its own standard, and we are free to choose to work for them or not. However, a company that sets its own standard and pays over the market wage will like go into bankruptcy (or at least return substandard profits) due to paying higher outgoings for the same workforce (and thus the same value of saleable product). The government, being effectively a monopoly and only partially subject to market forces, will not. Consequently there aren't as many "natural" checks and balances that the government is paying the "correct" remuneration to its employees; and taxpayers, as stakeholders in the government, are entitled if not obligated to ensure that they get a good value of services for their taxes paid.

In that respect, I consider it more likely on the whole that the private sector gets remuneration roughly correct, and if there is a discrepancy then it's the government expenditure that is out of line. (Still, if you can't beat 'em...)

Having said all that, as mentioned before I think it's very hard to find private sector equivalents of most public sector jobs and thus nigh on impossible to establish what an equilibrium wage would be. I should also add that my main motivation isn't "make public sector pension less generous" but "move to DC pensions for transparency".

Koicarp

dtsazza wrote: »

.... .and the (perceived, at least) lack of ability to apply one's own judgement to situations.
QUOTE]

No offence but your perception is nonsense! Judgement is the reason why we have registered nurses rather than health care assistants working alone.

Moby

'I'm still not sold on the point of having legally-recognised unions or strikes (in that I don't believe that the country would be a worse place if neither had any particular status).

The employers, unless it breaches terms in existing contracts, are at liberty to propose to their employees whatever changes they see fit*. The employees are at liberty to accept, reject, or propose alternative conditions.'

Simplistic, naive and crass comments. Contract law is incredibly intricate and your average employer, never mind employee is completely unaware of their duties and responsibilities under the law. In reality contracts are flagrantly breached all the time. Unions are there to protect the rights of workers in these situations. The withdrawal of labour is the ultimate weapon an employee has when negotiations break down. A removal of that right will see us return to the days of the workhouses and child chimney sweeps! I'll never forget what my Grandfather said to me. He was a miner Prior to nationalisation working conditions were awful in the privately owned mines. There was no health and safety, no showers, no health care etc. When the mines were nationalised all this changed. A small example of how 'the country' as you put it is a better place as a result of the welfare state and universality of health provision etc.

dtsazza

Moby wrote: »

Simplistic, naive and crass comments. Contract law is incredibly intricate and your average employer, never mind employee is completely unaware of their duties and responsibilities under the law. In reality contracts are flagrantly breached all the time. Unions are there to protect the rights of workers in these situations.

To some extent I can see your point, but I don't agree with the premises.

Why on earth would you sign an agreement that you didn't understand? How could you know that the proposal is acceptable to you?

If contracts really were impenetrable to the average person (which I don't believe they are; mine says exactly what it means), then the only rational response is for the average person to refuse to sign it. If this happened to a large extent then employers would soon get the message and phrase a contract in terms that could be understood by the employee - until that point, no agreement can take place.

The withdrawal of labour is the ultimate weapon an employee has when negotiations break down. A removal of that right will see us return to the days of the workhouses and child chimney sweeps!

That doesn't seem evident to me at all. And you'd still be allowed to go on demonstrations; all I'm saying is that if you told your employer that you'd turn up to work every weekday unless taken as holiday, and then one day you went on a demonstration, it would be handled just as if you'd taken any other unauthorised day off. Whereas my understanding of the current situation is that the employer can't discipline you for this at all.

Besides, I agree that the withdrawal of labour is the final straw. If negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached, then no further contract will be signed and your employment with that company will cease. That's withdrawal of labour; striking seems a bit like childish posturing - "if you don't agree to our demands, we'll quit! We really will! And look, we'll inconvenience the public to prove it!" Surely that "threat" is implicit during negotiations - if you don't reach an agreement, you'll quit anyway? It seems so unnecessary and crude to express it in those primitive actions.

I'll never forget what my Grandfather said to me. He was a miner Prior to nationalisation working conditions were awful in the privately owned mines. There was no health and safety, no showers, no health care etc. When the mines were nationalised all this changed. A small example of how 'the country' as you put it is a better place as a result of the welfare state and universality of health provision etc.

I don't see how the welfare state put showers in mines.

But if showers were that important, why did the workers not demand them in the private mines? Why did they agree to work in a mine without a shower, or (genuinely) threaten to quit if showers weren't installed?

edinburgher

But if showers were that important, why did the workers not demand them in the private mines? Why did they agree to work in a mine without a shower, or (genuinely) threaten to quit if showers weren't installed?

Because they were powerless to act for fear of losing their jobs (and risk their families starving).

I'd recommend reading parts of 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.

Moby

dtsazza wrote: »

To some extent I can see your point, but I don't agree with the premises.

Why on earth would you sign an agreement that you didn't understand? How could you know that the proposal is acceptable to you?

If contracts really were impenetrable to the average person (which I don't believe they are; mine says exactly what it means), then the only rational response is for the average person to refuse to sign it. If this happened to a large extent then employers would soon get the message and phrase a contract in terms that could be understood by the employee - until that point, no agreement can take place.


That doesn't seem evident to me at all. And you'd still be allowed to go on demonstrations; all I'm saying is that if you told your employer that you'd turn up to work every weekday unless taken as holiday, and then one day you went on a demonstration, it would be handled just as if you'd taken any other unauthorised day off. Whereas my understanding of the current situation is that the employer can't discipline you for this at all.

Besides, I agree that the withdrawal of labour is the final straw. If negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached, then no further contract will be signed and your employment with that company will cease. That's withdrawal of labour; striking seems a bit like childish posturing - "if you don't agree to our demands, we'll quit! We really will! And look, we'll inconvenience the public to prove it!" Surely that "threat" is implicit during negotiations - if you don't reach an agreement, you'll quit anyway? It seems so unnecessary and crude to express it in those primitive actions.


I don't see how the welfare state put showers in mines.

But if showers were that important, why did the workers not demand them in the private mines? Why did they agree to work in a mine without a shower, or (genuinely) threaten to quit if showers weren't installed?

The fact that a massive area of contract law/tribunal system exists exposes the simplistic position you express on this.

Re. the 'showers' point I was simply making the point that improvements in the lives of millions of working people have had to be fought for. If you read your history books you'll see how the Labour Party was founded by the Unions in order to give a political voice to the powerless against the landowners and mercantile classes. Remember the fundamental truth....private business is purely motivated by the pursuance of wealth/money. You don't open a shop or start a company for the benefit of your fellow human being.....you do it to make dosh! The greatest threat to that dosh making.... are the wages of your employees. Accepting that....it is in your interests to pay them as little as possible. A good employer would look to good working relationships and a stable workforce as a relevant factor as well. You'll see that in places more advanced than here eg Germany, Holland. Here this crass Government is attempting to erode the rights of employees. This will inevitably lead to increased industrial strife with the attendant consequences for the economy.....not to mention the human casualties re. that terrible scourge unemployment:(

jackyann

dtsazza wrote: »

That is definitely good, though I'd consider both of those activities outside the definition of a union per se. The former is filled in my own industry by the BCS for example (an industry body), and the latter falls under the purview of, well, insurance companies. (In one respect it's nice that you get the insurance for "free", but then again it's not actually free since the money has to come from somewhere.)

My somewhat meandering point being that if there were no unions, just professional bodies and insurance companies, I don't think that would be a change for the worse.

The history of trades unions is an interesting one, and many traditionally regarded their role as upholding standards.
My union (Community Practitioners & Health Visitors) maintains an independent status within Unite, and like the RCN, believes part of its role is to do exactly that.
It has occasionally caused tensions, but they take the view that none of us want a nurse who is not doing their job properly.

Koicarp

I think most unions feel they have a role in ensuring members are trained, particularly around safety. Back when I was a bricklayer in the 80's the union was then visiting sites and ensuring we got training on the new high powered tools such as nail guns and angle grinders etc.

luees

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Sharp.

For those who have eyes to see, that's clearly the intention. The NHS is gradually being deconstructed.

Eventually, the decentralised and carefully relabelled parts will be sold off to the private sector - probably to American and French companies, at a guess.

It's the same in schools...suddenly after spouting that parents should have a say in the direction and development of schools the recent push to get as many schools as possible to 'go Academy' (in other words chase the money) doesn't require parental consultation.

This devolvement will lead (for those of us that see the bigger picture and don't just fear the local consequences) to the dissolution of the LEAs...service level agreements under threat. Privatisation through the back door. Rocky times ahead for all the services we take for granted and no guarantee that we'll all have access to them in the future.