Worth joining a Union ?

donnajunkie

yes they are worth it as you never know when you may need their help. they arent perfect and you wont always get success from their help but they are still worth it. also most unions charge next to nothing during any periods where you may find yourself out of work. the gmb for example only charges 10p a fortnight when you are out of work.

ohreally

He should benefit from...

• Personal representation
• Collective negotiation
• Professional support
• Job security
• Legal advice and assistance
• Health & Safety protection

Savvy_Sue

Another yes from me.

DS3 did work experience when he was 15 in a union's local office. He's all for it too! Not that he's done anything about it.

I had been thinking about joining for some time and eventually did the deed. Then I had an 'interesting' time at work, and just being able to write "I may wish to consult with my union" made me feel in a much stronger position. As it was, I didn't need to because the thing which had 'got' to me was resolved the way I thought it should be. I have no idea if that phrase worried my managers or not: I don't think they knew I was in the union until that moment ...

I'd also had a very helpful half hour free legal advice on probate.

teajug

It is a waste of money joining a union if the workplace is not unionised. I have been in 3 unions during my working life and one was as bad as the other. The last time I use them the rep did more damage than good and it was obvious that he did not know what he was talking about. He also said that they would not provide legal help unless they were 80% sure of winning the case.



Union contributions are a waste of money. Make sure your home insurance is covered for legal advice.

kingfisherblue

Sorry teajug, I have to disagree with you. My daughter works for an agency and at one point last year, she wasn't paid for a short shift. It wasn't much money, but she reported the error to the payroll department. Her timesheet had been signed and she had sent it into the office in the required time.

Payroll said that they would sort it out and pay the next month. It didn't materialise. Again they said they would add it to the next payroll. They didn't. The third month, they told her to look at her staff handbook, which stated that any shift over three months old would not be paid. She said that she would have to consult her union regarding illegal deduction of wages if she didn't receive the payment, for which the paperwork had been submitted well within time (shift worked Friday, timesheets posted Monday as required, and everything else on same timesheet was paid). Funnily enough, payroll didn't want her to contact her union and she received the shortfall straight away. So as Savvy_Sue says, just knowing that you can consult your union can give you strewngth. It can also make some firms realise that bullied, if referred to at an appropriate moment.

ohreally

teajug wrote: »

The last time I use them the rep did more damage than good and it was obvious that he did not know what he was talking about.

Reps are required to be trained before taking on case-work. If the rep gives bad advice, the union can be liable for this (one reason for the training).

teajug wrote: »

He also said that they would not provide legal help unless they were 80% sure of winning the case

This decision is not his to take. This will be taken after serious consideration by the unions legal officer, who will be legally qualified.

The percentage referred to is debated and ratified at conference. The figure you've quoted is very high and not a figure i recognise.

Jarndyce

ohreally wrote: »

Reps are required to be trained before taking on case-work. If the rep gives bad advice, the union can be liable for this (one reason for the training).

This decision is not his to take. This will be taken after serious consideration by the unions legal officer, who will be legally qualified.

The percentage referred to is debated and ratified at conference. The figure you've quoted is very high and not a figure i recognise.

These things may be the case in your union but not in most. In most unions local reps are let loose on casework untrained and encouraged to handle what they can themselves. Unfortunately in many industries being a local rep is seen as a privelege and the role attracts its fair share of little Hitlers, who take on cases without really knowing what they're doing.

Having said that most local reps do a great job and will refer cases higher up in the union if they're out of their depth.

I would say that in most unions, they will always support you at an internal hearing (unless you are a self confessed child molester or something equally grave) but will support legal cases only where they believe you have a 50% chance of success, or otherwise if the case will make some sort of publicity or campaigning point.

ohreally

Jarndyce wrote: »

These things may be the case in your union but not in most

I can draw upon significant personal experience across the board, general unions and craft unions in addition to the training issues.

Your comments are not of a picture i recognise, although i do accept there are poor stewards around - they can be quickly deselected by their members, problem solved (remember they require to be elected they don't simply appear from thin air)

I'm sure its GMB, who send new stewards to TUC approved training for two weeks full-time before even starting on going out with experienced stewards...http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/education/index.cfm

Your comment re child molester is interesting as i recall having this type of conversation many many years ago. If they are a member, they are entitled to the same level of representation regardless of ones own personal value base and thoughts on what they did. However, i digress, thats one for another conversation.

Jarndyce

ohreally wrote: »

I can draw upon significant personal experience across the board, general unions and craft unions in addition to the training issues.

Your comments are not of a picture i recognise, although i do accept there are poor stewards around - they can be quickly deselected by their members, problem solved (remember they require to be elected they don't simply appear from thin air)

Sadly there are many areas where either a steward will emerge as being the only one interested and/or members will not be bothered or brave enough to replace a poor one - viz the stories above - people will just leave a union rather than get involved.

I'm sure its GMB, who send new stewards to TUC approved training for two weeks full-time before even starting on going out with experienced stewards...http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/education/index.cfm

Quite possibly GMB do. But most unions don't - they will have a basic course that reps are expected to go on, but won't require attendance before they can operate as a rep.

Your comment re child molester is interesting as i recall having this type of conversation many many years ago. If they are a member, they are entitled to the same level of representation regardless of ones own personal value base and thoughts on what they did. However, i digress, thats one for another conversation.
Not the case where I've worked - if a member admits something that serious - especially something like racist bullying or serious sexual harassment, they might have got very basic assitance internally to ensure procedures are followed corectly, but nothing like the active representation most members get. Its not about personla values its about whether their admitted behaviour has breached union policies or rules.

.......................