Unions and Pensions

Ilya_Ilyich

Meeper wrote: »

There is potential political advantage to the union by "advising" people to leave their schemes also, as they could then point the blame squarely at the current administration for "ruining" their pensions.

There are lots of potential benefits to unions. Don't be so naive.

How does this work?

1) Advise members to leave pension schemes
2) Accuse company of ruining pensions
3) ???????

I don't even see where a 'profit' step would come in.

Meeper

They don't blame the company, they blame the current administration, i.e. the government. The gain is to get the Labout Party back into favour so that their chums can have some jobs back and bring about more favourable union-friendly legislation and screw up the economy some more.

BobQ

Meeper wrote: »

The evidence is that my client told me that it was happening, and it had happened to him. He had been "advised" by his union to leave the pension scheme, along with the rest of the workforce.

Not sure why you are comparing public sector to private sector, to be honest, as my client is in the private sector and his pension provision hasn't changed. The union is simply telling everyone, it seems, to get out of their employer-based pensions, presumably for a political reason to make it look as though ALL employer pensions are poor to make the government look bad.

My original point still stands. Unions are obsolete, and their "I have a bigger gang than you, so I can bully you into getting what I want" is shameful.

UNless you name the Company and the Union this is just a Daily Mail inspired diatribe.

Unions do not give financial advice. They may have commissed one of your lot to provide independent financial advice on a Group Pension Scheme but that is perfectly ethical.

Unions are their members not some remote body. Any member can seek advice from one your professional colleagues on his pension, although you imply they are too stupid to do this on their own volition.

If you knew anything about Unions apart from what you read in the Daily Mail you would know that the reason people pay their subscription is because they want experienced negotiators to argue their case on a collective basis rather than engage in personal contracts. At the end of the day the Union will recommend accepting or rejecting a pay deal but its their members choice whether to accept or reject.

There is no law saying you must join a union. If you work for a firm that you are confident will always freely offer you what you are worth, treat you fairly, legally and honestly, and never compromise your safety you clearly do not need one. But not all employers live up to such high standards.

BobQ

Meeper wrote: »

Not true. There is a raft of employee legislation to govern how people must be treated and there are measures in place giving people recourse. The need for a union is obsolete.
/////////////////////////

There was no union membership there. We spoke with HR representatives, sought advice from websites and employment law solicitors and decided that the conditions were so onerous it would be the best course of action to leave.

Your comments indicate you recognise that employees can have problems at work but you do not think that they need a union (of which you clearly have a low opinion).

I actually agree that you could manage without a union in such cases. You could do as you say and research your problem and present your case if you have the time and inclination. If you need advice or support you could employ a solicitor, or take out some insurance.

But is this really any different to having advice from a union, or legal support from it ? Most unions function through lay reps (ie colleagues) doing just this but they can get advice from union employed experts when they need it, and in some cases the union employed staff will represent the member personally.

But I am pleased to hear that you do believe in standing up for your rights! Hope for you yet. (Although I note you actually ran away on this occasion).

Moby

Meeper wrote: »

Clients name was Dave Evans. Does that help you?

As if.....wait a minute.... does he live in Wrexham! I might have caddied for him at Wrexham Golf course;)

I don't come here seeking your approval, but there's nothing in the wording of my post which is "suspect". I don't particularly want to give the name of the company, as to do so may put the employees in a compromising position.

Why am I not suprised?;)

You don't know me and you don't know what I know. You assume that all advisers deal with the most wealthy individuals and drive Bentleys. I'm a regular guy, driving a Mondeo, a wife and daughter and have, over the last 3 years, been closer to the breadline than most of my clients. Times are tough, I agree. Don't assume to know me or judge what I do and do not "know".

.....but you chose to start a highly contentious thread making bold sweeping assertions which were politically biased and I'm afraid that does say something about your value system!

There is a raft of employee legislation to govern how people must be treated and there are measures in place giving people recourse. The need for a union is obsolete.

....and so you are saying that people are protected by this are you?
Utter tosh. Industrial relations are awful in this country. Also many people do not find employment law accessible and do not have the financial resources to protect their rights.

Badly run businesses who show little respect for their staff actually find that their unrespected and abused staff vote with their feet and leave

.

Sometimes....but many people are trapped by their circumstances, who helps them?

There is sufficient legislation to do that. There is no union to protect the interests of the elderly or infirmed, or those with diminshed capacity. They rely on legislation. Why should employees get more "protection" than the elderly, infirmed and most vulnerable?

Utter tosh of course. The unions are there to ensure the legislation is applied. Just because legislation exists doesn't mean it is accessed by many!

Of course they are. I now work in a company which has over 100 staff, but no union involvement. What happens if I have an issue? I'll tell you - I research the information required, speak to people to ensure that I'm not getting the wrong end fo the stick, and present my grievances to management in the appropriate and well-constructed way. If I have a case on legal grounds, they are obliged to give me satifaction. If I don't, nothing changes. What more could a union do than I can do my self, except to be a "bigger dog" that can make more threats. If I don't like it, I can vote with my feet.

Well bully for you that you are articulate and can advocate on your own behalf....but again many are not in your position!

Is that right? How is going on strike, closing my daughter's school for a day, making me take the day off work to look after my daughter when she should be in school (x130 children) pro-social exactly?

You've had plenty of notice to make alternative arrangements. There is a bigger picure here!

How is taking a company like British Airways to the brink of bankruptcy because the union refused to allow changes which were put in place for the sole purpose of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the company pro-social? Do you even read what you are writing?

Rather emotional garble I'm afraid.

I do a massive amount of work every month for no financial reward. I am a governor of a school, steward of a charity, and member of an organisation which has donated millions to charitable causes in 2011. I provide my clients a service, and I am paid commensurate to the service they receive. I am by no means a millionaire. The majority of my day is spent trying to figure out ways to make other people's situations better than they are now, so if you don't mind, please park your high horse outside before posting again.

I'm touched....many of us do things as you say above and also do not start highly dubious and politically contentious threads. Its a mistake to generalise from anecdotal experience....especially in such a major area. I suppose though the internet allows us the opportunity to let off steam and express our views anonymously.

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

Unions do not give financial advice.

Based on comments on this forum from various union members, it would seem that unions do cross this particular line on occasions.

There is no law saying you must join a union.

I know people who've had to endure frequent verbal and physical assaults (spitting and worse) simply because they decided not to join the union and not to take part in their strikes.

Meeper

Another client of mine who works for the local authority has determined that she will be going into work on November 30th when the rest of her colleagues are on strike due to her not being able to afford the loss of pay. She went in during the last strike back in April (?) time also.

On November 30th, she will have to go into work at 7:30am that day to avoid having to walk through a crowd of her otherwise pleasant colleagues who will bombard her with abuse,as happened last time. The same people were as nice as pie a few days later back in "normal" times. Then she has to move around the office periodically to avoid union "reps" who are patrolling the building taking the names of anyone who isn't supporting the strike to ensure that if they need union assistance in the future it will be less forthcoming.

Sounds like just the kind of organisation I would want to be involved in......

And all of you people who are saying "post the name of the company" and "post some proof" otherwise you won't believe a word I'm saying, well.....that's your prerogative. If you don't believe me, that's all good. Feel free to move to a different thread and read something else.

CLAPTON

Meeper wrote: »

Another client of mine who works for the local authority has determined that she will be going into work on November 30th when the rest of her colleagues are on strike due to her not being able to afford the loss of pay. She went in during the last strike back in April (?) time also.

On November 30th, she will have to go into work at 7:30am that day to avoid having to walk through a crowd of her otherwise pleasant colleagues who will bombard her with abuse,as happened last time. The same people were as nice as pie a few days later back in "normal" times. Then she has to move around the office periodically to avoid union "reps" who are patrolling the building taking the names of anyone who isn't supporting the strike to ensure that if they need union assistance in the future it will be less forthcoming.

Sounds like just the kind of organisation I would want to be involved in......

And all of you people who are saying "post the name of the company" and "post some proof" otherwise you won't believe a word I'm saying, well.....that's your prerogative. If you don't believe me, that's all good. Feel free to move to a different thread and read something else.

I'm sure the above is correct

However, on the issue of unions giving false info on the pension entitlement and benefits the situation is less clear which is why I'm interested to know if there are documented cases.

Unlike yourself, I would see any union 'officially ' providing false written miss-information as a massive own goal.

Just think how a concerned politician could make substantial capital out of the situation or indeed workers reaction once properly informed.

Indeed one would think the company would be happy to highlight the inacccuracies too (unless they see it as to their advantage).

Indeed, if you can provide reasonable evidence I will happily take it up with my (Conservative) MP.

daveyjp

If she can't afford a day's pay to go on strike she can't afford to pay her membership subscriptions.

gadgetmind

daveyjp wrote: »

If she can't afford a day's pay to go on strike she can't afford to pay her membership subscriptions.

I would never strike as I regard it as being morally unacceptable and totally unprofessional. However, as my own personal morals would not permit me to join a union in the first place, I guess this isn't a decision I'll ever have to make.