Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I'm pointing out what happened - based on the evidence provided at the time. The article in the Torygraph as you call it was posted by someone trying to back up your viewpoint. I'm not able to post links remember!

You are trying to claim it didn't happen as all the news sources and Unite said it did. You are insisting all the new sources are wrong, yet you are posting nothing to show what you say did happen...............

I'm trying to claim that the strike was about whatever was on the ballot paper, which may or not be what is written in the newspapers or on unite's website. It's not wrong to reserve judgement until all the facts are available.

You've clearly made up your mind what happened, however you've done so based on a couple of news stories or press releases, without knowing the full facts.

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

Your words alone prove my point. Why should you have to try hard to get the members to vote for a strike. If it is truly democratic you should give them the correct information from both sides and let them decide themselves.

In majority of cases the union leadership have already decided the outcome they want and then work on getting the members to vote that way. Its a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of unions who do it correct and only go with the wishes of the workforce, but when you get a very large union with a political agenda it is not a democratic process.

Ok you clearly want to twist what I said to suit your point of view.

I'm talking about members who say "yes, I agree this is wrong and we should take action but I'm too scared to put my head above the parapet and vote for industrial action let alone go out on strike". They need support to have confidence that it's not wrong to stand up for something they believe in. Unfortunately years of negative press about unions and the slide back to Victorian style employment relations has made people very fearful and timid, which in itself reinforces the spiral of decline.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

Ok you clearly want to twist what I said to suit your point of view.

I'm talking about members who say "yes, I agree this is wrong and we should take action but I'm too scared to put my head above the parapet and vote for industrial action let alone go out on strike". They need support to have confidence that it's not wrong to stand up for something they believe in. Unfortunately years of negative press about unions and the slide back to Victorian style employment relations has made people very fearful and timid, which in itself reinforces the spiral of decline.

I thought the ballots were secret and the employer would not know which individual employees had voted which way. So if they feel things are wrong they do not need to be made to vote one way or another they just need reassurance that they cannot be victimised for the way they vote.

Do you always have to encourage people to vote for taking strike action. Do you never have the situation where you feel the employer is offering the best deal possible or that cuts are necessary for the survival of the company, and put that to the workers encouraging them to accept the deal even though they may not like it.

The employer is not always the bad guy. Yes they have a duty to the shareholders to make a decent profit, if not people would not invest. But a lot of employers also know the benefit of a happy workforce as it leads to increased productivity and less down time. At the end of the day a company cannot continually make a loss and remain a going concern.

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

I thought the ballots were secret and the employer would not know which individual employees had voted which way. So if they feel things are wrong they do not need to be made to vote one way or another they just need reassurance that they cannot be victimised for the way they vote.

Do you always have to encourage people to vote for taking strike action. Do you never have the situation where you feel the employer is offering the best deal possible or that cuts are necessary for the survival of the company, and put that to the workers encouraging them to accept the deal even though they may not like it.

The employer is not always the bad guy. Yes they have a duty to the shareholders to make a decent profit, if not people would not invest. But a lot of employers also know the benefit of a happy workforce as it leads to increased productivity and less down time. At the end of the day a company cannot continually make a loss and remain a going concern.

Yes of course ballots are secret, however many members are still uneasy that they may somehow be "found out" if they vote for industrial action and prefer to keep their heads down and let others do it for them.

As a rep you have to take a balanced view. I have had 3 cases in the last 2 months where members come in all guns blazing, wanting to raise a grievance or sue over some individual issue, where I felt that was not the best course of action. In these cases you can explore options with the member and help them reach the best conclusion for them. This often prevents time wasted by the employer on spurious grievances.

However, and somewhat perversely, while people are often very forthcoming about individual issues, they are reticent over collective issues even where they support the viewpoint.

The employer isn't ALWAYS the bad guy, granted. But their interests aren't entirely aligned with those of their employees. Which means employees need a strong voice at work. This is where their union comes in.

Nebulous2

Southend1 wrote: »

I'm trying to claim that the strike was about whatever was on the ballot paper, which may or not be what is written in the newspapers or on unite's website. It's not wrong to reserve judgement until all the facts are available.

You've clearly made up your mind what happened, however you've done so based on a couple of news stories or press releases, without knowing the full facts.

Okay so why don't you - as a union organiser contact them and say I'm trying to understand what happened here, can you tell me what was on the ballot paper? It's you that seems to believe that bit of paper holds some magical key to what happened.

I live in Scotland and I'm a bit of a news junkie. I listened and read about this all the way through as it unfolded. I've heard the union on the radio, explaining their viewpoint, I've heard management on explaining theirs. This was big news here for weeks.

All the time the union were saying we're standing up for our convenor who is being mistreated and the company were saying that is putting your jobs and the future of the plant at risk.

I no longer know what you are arguing about. I'm not sure that you know what you are arguing about. It's a bit like you arguing the sky isn't blue just because I say it is. You don't know what colour it is, but you refuse to accept it is blue because the union hasn't told you it is.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

Yes of course ballots are secret, however many members are still uneasy that they may somehow be "found out" if they vote for industrial action and prefer to keep their heads down and let others do it for them.

As a rep you have to take a balanced view. I have had 3 cases in the last 2 months where members come in all guns blazing, wanting to raise a grievance or sue over some individual issue, where I felt that was not the best course of action. In these cases you can explore options with the member and help them reach the best conclusion for them. This often prevents time wasted by the employer on spurious grievances.

However, and somewhat perversely, while people are often very forthcoming about individual issues, they are reticent over collective issues even where they support the viewpoint.

The employer isn't ALWAYS the bad guy, granted. But their interests aren't entirely aligned with those of their employees. Which means employees need a strong voice at work. This is where their union comes in.

I think the only real point we differ on is the political slant of the big unions. They let the politics cloud their judgement or the local company union reps have to toe the line with union leadership policy which is following some political agenda.

The Unite website gives their clear political goals and I am afraid in the long term some of those goals may not be in the best interest of the workforce.

If I was working in a company where Unite was the main union, why should I have to pay union dues to a union that may support a political party that I do not support? You may say that it is my choice whether I join the union or not, but if I want protection of the union and the collective bargaining power in the work place then what are my options?

I am a firm believer that the unions should not have any political affiliation and that union sizes should be limited to the companies workforce they represent. I have no issue with unions lobbying government for better workers rights but Carte Blanche support for one party and its ideals is wrong.

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Okay so why don't you - as a union organiser contact them and say I'm trying to understand what happened here, can you tell me what was on the ballot paper? It's you that seems to believe that bit of paper holds some magical key to what happened.

I live in Scotland and I'm a bit of a news junkie. I listened and read about this all the way through as it unfolded. I've heard the union on the radio, explaining their viewpoint, I've heard management on explaining theirs. This was big news here for weeks.

All the time the union were saying we're standing up for our convenor who is being mistreated and the company were saying that is putting your jobs and the future of the plant at risk.

I no longer know what you are arguing about. I'm not sure that you know what you are arguing about. It's a bit like you arguing the sky isn't blue just because I say it is. You don't know what colour it is, but you refuse to accept it is blue because the union hasn't told you it is.

Would you accept a refusal on Scottish independence even if the majority voted in favour, because what it says on the ballot paper is only a technicality?

I am trying to avoid coming to a conclusion based solely on what one side or the other say happened. What was voted on is crucial to understanding what the employees actually were fighting for.

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

I think the only real point we differ on is the political slant of the big unions. They let the politics cloud their judgement or the local company union reps have to toe the line with union leadership policy which is following some political agenda.

The Unite website gives their clear political goals and I am afraid in the long term some of those goals may not be in the best interest of the workforce.

If I was working in a company where Unite was the main union, why should I have to pay union dues to a union that may support a political party that I do not support? You may say that it is my choice whether I join the union or not, but if I want protection of the union and the collective bargaining power in the work place then what are my options?

I am a firm believer that the unions should not have any political affiliation and that union sizes should be limited to the companies workforce they represent. I have no issue with unions lobbying government for better workers rights but Carte Blanche support for one party and its ideals is wrong.

You don't have to pay into the affiliated fund.

And as a member you would be able to use the democratic structures of the union to propose change, if you had the support of the majority of members.

I disagree with single company unions in most cases, because they would be too small to adequately support their members and because they would be more open to interference from management. Also employees of smaller firms would be disadvantaged

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

You don't have to pay into the affiliated fund.

And as a member you would be able to use the democratic structures of the union to propose change, if you had the support of the majority of members.

I disagree with single company unions in most cases, because they would be too small to adequately support their members and because they would be more open to interference from management. Also employees of smaller firms would be disadvantaged

You say I dont have to pay into the affiliated fund, but why should I be in a union that does not have the same political ideals as me?

As was pointed out earlier in this thread Unite has 1.6 million members and compared it to the membership of the labour and tory party, but that membership are not all labour supporters. This harps back to the days when unions were created and the membership was all working class labour supporters. Things have moved on from that, the original unions fought and won conditions that improved the workplace, but now they need to change and adapt, we do not need the large scale changes now that necessitated the formation of unions in the first place, we need unions that are more focussed on the individual issues in individual companies.

I personally would never join a union that held different political beliefs than myself and I am sure there are many others in the same position. So where do people like me get union protection in a workplace with such a union in place? Why should I have to join a union and try and change their political beliefs from within. The union should not be political. My chance to change the political direction of the country is at the ballot box in national and local elections not through the union.

If the union is only for the workforce then what difference does it make that they are individual unions.

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

You say I dont have to pay into the affiliated fund, but why should I be in a union that does not have the same political ideals as me?

As was pointed out earlier in this thread Unite has 1.6 million members and compared it to the membership of the labour and tory party, but that membership are not all labour supporters. This harps back to the days when unions were created and the membership was all working class labour supporters. Things have moved on from that, the original unions fought and won conditions that improved the workplace, but now they need to change and adapt, we do not need the large scale changes now that necessitated the formation of unions in the first place, we need unions that are more focussed on the individual issues in individual companies.

I personally would never join a union that held different political beliefs than myself and I am sure there are many others in the same position. So where do people like me get union protection in a workplace with such a union in place? Why should I have to join a union and try and change their political beliefs from within. The union should not be political. My chance to change the political direction of the country is at the ballot box in national and local elections not through the union.

If the union is only for the workforce then what difference does it make that they are individual unions.

Fair enough, you don't agree with the aims of a union then don't join it. You can get individual support and protection via employment lawyers and insurance companies. But you don get the support of local reps who have a deep understanding of your own workplace and a working relationship with your management.

I don't pay into an affiliated political fund myself because I wouldn't call myself a labour supporter (though I may vote for them next time round as I like some of milibands policies).

There is an argument that labour is no longer aligned with the unions and therefore they should not have such strong links. My view is actually that since the Labour Party came out of the union movement it's actually the party that needs to adapt and realign itself with union members.

One workplace unions would be weak, and likely to end up as puppets of the management. It wouldn't be in members interests to have such small unions, since the point of unions is collective action.