Is it worth having a trade union membership?

Southend1

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

These are not indigenous marques. Who's spouting "I'll informed guff" now?

Not only the car industry, unionisation IS to blame for the destruction of manufacturing in Britain.

Sadly no entrepreneur really wants to start in this field and create factories now. It's all a load of miserable bums-on-seats website one man bands or financial vultures looking to deprive innocent Brits of their hard earned cash for nothing tangible in return except to line their own pockets.

Actually Britain is still a world leader in the motor industry. A lot of the research and development is done here, and many of the world's formula 1 teams are based here because of that. We also have a number of firms making specialist vehicles like JCB, Morgan etc.

Probably one of the main reasons we don't have entrepreneurs setting up mass production car plants left right and centre is the massive barriers to entry to that industry - R&D, design, cost of setting up factories, machinery/robots etc.

To state that unionisation is the cause of the destruction of manufacturing in Britain is extremely ill informed and wildly inaccurate. There are many reasons why manufacturing isn't such a large part of our GDP these days. Not least the rise of the financial and services companies that you pointed out.

de_g.

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

These are not indigenous marques. Who's spouting "I'll informed guff" now?

Not only the car industry, unionisation IS to blame for the destruction of manufacturing in Britain.

Sadly no entrepreneur really wants to start in this field and create factories now. It's all a load of miserable bums-on-seats website one man bands or financial vultures looking to deprive innocent Brits of their hard earned cash for nothing tangible in return except to line their own pockets.

Let's see.
1) I never suggested that those marques were 'indigenous', but it remains a fact that they employ thousands and export millions of pounds worth of goods.

2) I take your point about unions destroying manufacturing. I mean, it was obviously unreasonable for people to want to paid a fair wage and to get home uninjured at the end of it, and people not in jobs is obviously a great recruiting tool for organisations who recruit in workplaces.

3) People are setting up manufacturing businesses - the first poster to spout off about unions like that was saying how s/he's just set up a 50 person manufacturing concern. And the aforementioned motor manufacturers are committed long term to the UK, which I'd suggest is at least partly due to the positive relationships with staff and improving productivity which comes from the unionised workforce.

Southend1

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

What car do you drive?

Just realised I hadn't answered this. My car was made in a country where law dictates that almost half the supervisory board of directors must be elected by the workforce (and in practice are normally union reps).

This country (Germany) makes some of the best and most desirable cars in the world: BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Volkswagen etc and is a great example of how cooperation between management and trade unions leads to successful, profitable and enduring businesses with happy, healthy and well paid employees.

osdset

My experience of unions in the construction industry was pretty negative, quick to take union subs slow to act on grievances.

When Thatcher forced us all into self employment the unions became redundant overnight, no great loss really.

Southend1

osdset wrote: »

My experience of unions in the construction industry was pretty negative, quick to take union subs slow to act on grievances.

When Thatcher forced us all into self employment the unions became redundant overnight, no great loss really.

Construction workers benefitted greatly from health and safety laws enacted largely as a result of pressure from trade unions.

osdset

Southend1 wrote: »

Construction workers benefitted greatly from health and safety laws enacted largely as a result of pressure from trade unions.

I agree H&S was a major issue on site years ago, some firms got away with murder, literally.

Unfortunately the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the opposite direction, over zealous implementation of H&S regulations, like the insistence on wearing hard hats and high vis PPE indoors where there is no clear and present danger defies common sense sometimes.

I guess insurance implications are the reason.

Denning.

osdset wrote: »

I agree H&S was a major issue on site years ago, some firms got away with murder, literally.

Unfortunately the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the opposite direction, over zealous implementation of H&S regulations, like the insistence on wearing hard hats and high vis PPE indoors where there is no clear and present danger defies common sense sometimes.

I guess insurance implications are the reason.

It is a mixture I think. I think H&S laws should be as simple as possible to avoid confusion and doubt. So 'Wear PPE at all times on a building site' is short a sweet compared to 'Wear PPE only when X is taking place but not Y, X need not be visible to the individual' etc.

Plus insurance is normally the cause of the biggest absurdities, that as well as an overzealous incompetent H&S officer.