Unions and Pensions

atush

I don't know why, but I have no reason to disbelieve them. and we did hear the same from NHS wokers in these boards in the last 3 months or so.

I agree the advice was outrageous (and should be illegal) from whoever said it.

BobQ

Meeper wrote: »

An employee now cannot be dismissed for poor performance. .......No need for a union here, if the guy gets fired he can toddle off to a tribunal and get his satisfaction that way.

.......What I'm saying is - yes, let's look at the past for the value of the union, but let's recognise that the country is not stuck in the 70's and the working conditions are NOTHING like those that the miners had to put up with. .........

But, back to the matter at hand, and the union telling people to get out of their pensions - people on here may not believe me. .......

You ask for proof. I can give you none, other than the fact (indeed, a fact, whether you believe it or not) that this is what I was told by a client of mine recently......

It may surprise you to know this but union reps are reasonable people and when asked to help a member who has not got a case they tell them this. They may support the member in defending themselves with their firm but its not the job of the union to defend the indefensible only to ensure fairness. People who regularly have poor performance can be dismissed and it does happen more easily than you suggest, even in the public sector, provided that it has been done legally and fairly.

You have a fanciful view of empolyment tribunals. Firstly you need to have a case in employment law. Second you have to argue the case against a firm that is often represented by a lawyer. Thirdly unions do not lightly commit their resources (paid for by their members) to defend a case unless they see a reasonable chance of winning it. Neither of course do employers.

I agree that working conditions are now much better than before trade unions existed. Also there is a valid argument that some unions became too powerful. But ordinary workers who believe they have no need of unions are kidding themselves. But they are entitled to do this and to accept the decline in their rights and conditions in the firm belief that this is all the fault of the unions.

I accept there are a few posts on here that claim union reps are misrepresenting the situation. If true (and the evidence on a forum like this is impossible to test) its clearly not the official policy of the TUs concerned. If you believe that the TUs nationally are conspiring to undermine their own members futures by a covert campaign I do not believe it mainly because if it happened there are too many Tories who are members of unions soley to highlight such things in letters to the Daily Mail etc.

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that working conditions are now much better than before trade unions existed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

dggar

Can someone please post an example of an official Union leaflet which says the members would be better off in a private pension scheme

BobQ

gadgetmind wrote: »

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In your effort to post your favourite Latin expression, you have only succeded in failing to understand its meaning of it.

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

In your effort to post your favourite Latin expression, you have only succeded in failing to understand its meaning of it.

I suffered enough years of Latin at school to be able to handle at least simple stuff like this, but I suggest you look it up, perhaps on wikipedia. The word "fallacy" is particularly relevant.

Oh, and I have <counts on fingers> at least six Latin phrases that I favour more than this one, and at least as many in Japanese.

worried_jim

Meeper wrote: »

Twist, twist, twist. You really should, Clapton, put your profession in your signature as "I do my best to twist what people are saying at all times".

Worried Jim is posting that he currently feels that the direction in which his union is going is not in line with his personal viewpoints, so he wants to leave. He is, however, caught between a rock and a hard place because he recognises that when they are not being militant bullies they do, in fact, do some good work and he may be in need of their more valuable services in the future. So, as he says, they have him.

Wow Meeper! It is as if you read my thoughts exactly. Now I am a member can I get by if I leave them. Even though I have never needed them what if I leave and save a tenner a month but then have an issue. They have me over a barrel emotionally.

BobQ

gadgetmind wrote: »

I suffered enough years of Latin at school to be able to handle at least simple stuff like this, but I suggest you look it up, perhaps on wikipedia. The word "fallacy" is particularly relevant.

Oh, and I have <counts on fingers> at least six Latin phrases that I favour more than this one, and at least as many in Japanese.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I did look it up! But still could not see your point until you explained. Clearly history can be interpreted in many ways.

atush

gadgetmind wrote: »

I suffered enough years of Latin at school to be able to handle at least simple stuff like this, but I suggest you look it up, perhaps on wikipedia. The word "fallacy" is particularly relevant.

Oh, and I have <counts on fingers> at least six Latin phrases that I favour more than this one, and at least as many in Japanese.

Jim weigh up what your union does for you or not. And weigh up if you can replace say any leagal advice for the same or less?

atush

Jem

I would be surprised to see the official leaflets/documents advocating leaving the pension. Much more likely to be over zealous and ill-informed reps.

I would in fact be very surpised and shocked to see a national union doing this, and do suspect it is over zealous local reps as you say.

But given the annecdotal evidence here (incl form some who actually beleived it until they heard the actual truth of some parts of the proposals)I am still not taking the opinion that BobQ and others are having in that people are making this stuff up (they might not use the actual word liar but that is what they are saying all the same).

Hopefully someone will scan and post something, but how can we then defend on the accusation of someone typing it up themselves? anyone can make a good leaflet using Microsoft office. But what if there are only a few to give around? What if they are posted to the wall (and others feel they cannot take them down) etc.